Short-term Accommodations

Here is some feedback on the proposed changes to the PEC STA processes:
1. While the changes should help the County with this issue going forward they do not address the main issue which is there are already 700 or so active STA's in the County that we know of. This is considerable more than any other community in our area and was identified as a major issue that residents ask Council to deal with over 4 years ago after community consultation.
2. The changes do not address the grandfathering process that has been identified as flawed from the beginning. The County's position that there is nothing they can do about units operating as STAs, prior to a certain date, because of the Provincial Planning Act does not appear to be true when you look at changes made by other jurisdictions (Goderich is the most recent example) that outright banned whole home STAs through their Council. This is a major process that requires considerable work to deliver what the residents requested. We need a clear plan on how "grandfathered" properties will be dealt with over time to reduce licenses issued to them and return housing stock to the community.
3. There are no clear processes on how enforcement of bylaws will be done. Who is in charge of enforcement? How are they contacted? What is their responsibilities to the community? What tools will they have to warn, fine or even withdraw licenses from STAs that do not comply with bylaws?

One additional comment on the Have Your Say tool. How will you know if the comments you receive on this topic are from residents of the County? If these comments will be considered in additional changes to the Count STA processes my thought is they should only come from residents and or owners of the STAs in question.

Thank you,
Tim Good

I support Owner Occupied and B&B STA not Non Owner Occupied STA.

Valuable time was lost trying to determine the best way out of this vicious cycle of unsustainable numbers of tourists housed in legal and non legal Non Owner Occupied STA.
As time went by housing supply plummeted as costs rose so quickly to unaffordable levels as investors large and small domestic and offshore piled into this type of lucrative investment. This resulted in less people to live and work here placing a large disincentive to anyone wanting to work in tourism, public service, healthcare and agriculture.

PEC is now in an unenviable position overrun by investors scouring Ontario to find the remaining lucrative places to charge hundreds of dollars per night.

The County has no need to reinvent the wheel on this file.Let us learn from other very popular destinations in their struggles with Non owner STA’s and the impacts on their communities. The County has been presented with information about changes to STA’s in Niagara on The Lake, Stratford and Collingwood as examples. Consider and adopt the best regulations and practices from these other municipalities to forge a way to keep our community thriving and prevent PEC from becoming a theme park caricature.

I would like to hear from staff and Council if they have contacted these municipalities and asked for guidance or clarification with respect to the implementation of banning Non Owner Occupied STA and the enforcement of no grandfathering while offering a firm two year deadline. The City of Toronto has been successful many times where challenges to grandfathering have been before the courts.

PEC will remain a weak link until such time as it can monitor the unlicensed STA.
It is a large task just to keep track of Owner Occupied STA and B&B operations at current levels with limited resources.

In closing I urge County staff to direct their efforts with respect to STA to banning Non Owner Occupied STA and crafting ways to police the unlicensed STA in all categories.
Eugenia Venchiarutti

I am a long term County resident and understand the genesis of the STA moratorium is connected to the concern for affordable housing. This is an issue across the country and not limited to the County. The solution is not limiting STA but the construction of multi unit 'affordable' units, not whole homes.
I do not believe the County, or any agency, has the authority to dictate whom I invite to my home or to whom I choose to rent my property for the purpose of accommodation. Licence or no licence, the County cannot restrict my ability to rent my home to whomever I like.
D Leitch

Judging by the number of visitors and the limitations of our infrastructure to support them we do not currently need more short term accommodations of any type but things change. In the current environment it makes sense to limit the number of STA's and to restrict corporations who have the potential to significantly impact the local market. We also clearly need more long term rental accommodations and affordable housing to attract and retain local employees. However it would be wise to have a regular review of available accommodation and adjust the number and type of licenses available accordingly. The tourist industry is critical to our local economy and we need to ensure there are enough places for visitors to stay (a problem we were very concerned about a few years back). However, we also need to make sure the infrastructure keeps pace and that there are employees to service everyone. Otherwise, both the tourists and the residents are negatively impacted.

The challenges we face as a community regarding this matter are complex to be sure and there are no easy answers. I, myself am an example of someone who the rental crisis affects as a renter and who benefits from local tourism as I have worked in the industry here for over 10 years now in vacation rentals.

I know how hard it is to find somewhere to live here in the County and yet to lay the bulk of the blame on Vacation Rental owners for the housing crises seems lopsided. Yes, I understand the impact on vital connected communities, property values, homelessness, I am not blind to those and feel overwhelmed by what seems a hopeless and unsolvable conundrum.

Are Vacation Rental owners greedy, looking just to maximize profits with short term stays or is there perhaps something else at play? One barrier for certain are the provincial laws currently weighted squarely in the tenant’s favour. It wasn’t always so (as we know) and there’s a reason why the laws have swung this far in the direction of tenant’s rights: Slumlords, unsafe living conditions, unwarranted evictions etc etc.

However, what about tenants who refuse to pay rent, treat the premises abysmally and then even after taking the tenant to court, the landlord has no recourse or is not backed up by the courts to take action? I have heard this from many homeowners when they consider the switch from renting out short term to long term. Even just the other day, an owner-occupied STA owner said that she would have rented out long term in a heartbeat if she thought there would be protections against nightmare tenants and a fair arbitration system. It’s a real barrier.

There must be a middle path. There is no guarantee that if a grandfathered property is sold that the new owner will be allowed a license, especially when the current administration has a history of moves to hobble this segment of the economy. If we do not allow grandfathered homes (who follow the rules, pay the bylaw fees) to continue to exist, where are the tourists going to stay? At $700 a night upscale resorts and inns? At newly constructed Marriotts? Where will the quality of place that includes so much history, heritage architecture, natural beauty, agriculture that supports the farm to fork experience be then? Where will the jobs be with a reduction in tourism? For the County to have just created a DMO to support and encourage tourism, it seems like cutting off the nose to spite the face.

Council continues to support and further the myth that STA’s are responsible for the lack of affordable housing in the county. Affordable housing is an issue everywhere and council’s resources and time would be better spent attempting to actually solve that problem. While I appreciate and support the licensing program and I can even get behind limiting new whole home STA’s. The attempts to end grandfathering of existing STA’s is short sighted, displays a profound lack of understanding of the importance of ongoing tourist accommodation to serve the local economy AND will likely open the county to ongoing and expensive litigation. All pointlessly. Subjecting grandfathered properties to the density rule and whatever other licensing requirements of the day they decide to put in place in the sta by -law is akin to removing grandfathering altogether. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest otherwise. Put the resources toward actually enforcing the licensing requirements and leave grandfathered STA’s alone.

I was born and raised in the County. Despite having to leave the County to further my education and to seek gainful employment, I have spent almost all of my free time here with my family and friends. I own 2 seasonal cottages in the County that are STA licensed and grandfathered. Prior to my purchase of these properties, they were both rented out by previous owners. I have asked on several occasions for seasonal cottages to be categorized separately from the whole home designation but have been stone walled by council stating that it’s not possible. The short term accommodations have been here since before I was born. It’s not a new concept. The County has staff that inspect every single licensed property but they can’t determine if it’s a seasonal property vs a year round home! Maybe some further training is needed. I only rent my properties from May to October yet I pay the same fees for my license? Doesn’t make sense to me but who am I! I just know that my properties do not in anyway attribute to the affordable housing crisis. Nor do I believe that any whole home STAs are responsible for the demise of the housing market. Our government officials, elected by the people, are supposed to be representing the people and are ultimately responsible for making sure affordable housing is available within their community. Not the small guy trying to make a buck toward their retirement fund.
Instead, Council tries to make STA owners the fall guys for the lack of leadership and inaction of our local government. There are some very pricey developments under construction and in the proposal process presently. There should be some stipulation that these developers contribute to the affordable housing. How about that for food for thought! PEC Council seek consultation from big city corporations at the cost of our community for common sense issues on a regular basis. How about we elect some Councillors who can make logical decisions and put them into action for a change. We are a small community that grows substantially during the tourist season. STAs provide for the high demand for accommodations. Tourism is our #1 source of employment! It’s not new to us, but it is rapidly growing especially since the pandemic and influx of stay at home workers. The wineries, breweries, galleries, beaches, etc are here to stay. We need to plan for the expansion without over reacting and by not over reaching the laws that govern property and the people.
The very idea that Council believes they can circumvent property laws protecting “grandfathering” by moving it from the zoning bylaws to the STA bylaws just proves that they are still thinking inside the box and are reacting with knee jerk decisions that will be challenged and defeated. Laws are there to guide us so that the same mistakes are not made over and over again. We, the Licensed STA operators , will not have the wool pulled over our eyes. We are reasonable, respectful, law abiding citizens who have fulfilled your requirements to receive our licenses to operate. Now is the time for you, our elected County Councillors, to fulfill your responsibilities. Since the start of the STA licensing program, you inform us that you have only fined 10 unlicensed operators. Are we to consider thatresponsible accountability for enforcing the rules and fines that govern this program? After 3 years, you’re only now getting software to assist with tracking, fining and shutting down unlicensed STAs? Yet you are determined to nickle and dime those who follow the rules and comply with your increasing requirements since inception. I now have to pay someone to check that my fire extinguishers are full every year even if I buy brand new extinguishers and present the bill of sale. Utterly ridiculous! But yet we comply whilst you are dawdling about enforcement of unlicensed operators. Some of the County roads are a disgrace. Yet we keep paving the same stretch in front of the liquor store for the last 10+ years. The Municipal Accommodations Tax needs to be spent wisely on infrastructure. County Road 10 from Lake Street to County Road 11 is a main route to access the Sandbanks Provincial Park. It desperately needs attention. County Road 49 has been at the top of Ontario’s worst roads list for years now. When are we going to take action? I know it’s a provincial responsibility but our municipal government needs to put the pressure on to get action!
I’m not opposed to limiting STA Licenses but let’s get our ducks in a row and get this mess sorted out within the constraints of the law and not by punishing the law abiding citizens who follow the rules and pay their taxes and licensing fees. You, as our municipal government, work for us and we would appreciate some results,

When we looked for our retirement home we looked everywhere and finally fell in love with PEC and purchased our cottage due to the travel distance from Toronto. When we derived to a conclusion of buying our cottage we also looked into PEC by-laws for STAs opportunity where it stated a limited # of licences based on density. This highly motivated us for our commitment to purchase our property because we also didn’t want to be affected by the majority of the local concern about the affordable living, quiet neighborhood we want it to feel like home instead of living in the middle of a high traffic area. When we are not here we wouldn’t mind sharing the beauty of PEC with others.

While I am trying to understand the new zoning by-law that R3/R4 are eligible for STA licensing and others don’t qualify for it. I am confused as to why you wouldn’t have the same concerns about this zoning. The main concern everyone is addressing is its affordable housing prices, while R3/R4 new development for condos and townhouses will bring or open the flood gate for the same concerns you have such as increasing the housing prices and first home buyers not being able to afford it. Airbnb will continue to exist in this zoning. Corporations and Entrepreneurs will continue to invest in buying these new properties. Locals won’t be able to afford to buy or rent.

It’s not fair that STA license will be not given for another zoning it seems to be the new zoning by-law is favoring the new developers in the name of the community.
PEC is the next growing tourist area and you will be attracting many families who want to rather stay in whole-home rather than share with a principal owner. Many families with children do travel in groups of families with children and prefer to be around nature rather than in high-priced hotels and would like to stay in the whole home. Having two children I know this is what I prefer and you also want to attract people like us to PEC.

Wholeheartedly I understand the necessity of regulation, mainly where community standards, safety, and quality of life are concerned. I am a mother of two under three, and while our cottage is our primary residence for now I do struggle to find a community for my kids’ daycare and recreation program within 20 minutes. I have to move back to the city in a year or two.

The council should revisit Whole-home STA for other zoning and limit the licensing based on density for certain zones and not by zoning. I am not convinced by the restriction and reasoning that’s in place now. It is a given PEC population will naturally grow, inflation will happen, and house market prices will rise whether we like it or not ( e.g Toronto vs Oshawa people keep moving far away due to affordable housing, now you can’t even afford a house in Oshawa). Instead of eliminating the STA license for the whole home, you should look into capping the rental price. This will definitely turn off corporations and house price value will be stable.

I am in full agreement with the changes proposed. The housing stock in PEC is seriously affected when STAs dominate one strata of the housing market shifting the remaining wealth to the other strata. At the end of the line is the affordable housing stock where the most vulnerable in our community are squeezed out and suffer irreparable harm. By restricting the quantity of STAs through the proposed regulations, a strata of the housing market will open up and this provide some relief to the other strata eventually reaching down to the affordable housing strata. it will give a chance for the affordable housing stock to recover and the most vulnerable may be able to find accommodation. Affordable housing is in a crisis state and extreme measures are needed.

Notwithstanding my support for the recommendations, I do have some bylaw drafting suggestions to ensure enforceability and clarity.

A. The meaning of “primary residence” and “principal residence” are used in the bylaws but continue to be confusing in society. To be enforceable the definitions section should include these expressions, and be worded along the following lines:

“primary residence” and “principal residence” is a property that is ordinarily occupied by the applicant throughout the year and where the applicant is able to establish this occupancy through a declaration and warranty and documentary evidence of occupation. Customarily, the property must qualify as the applicant’s designated principal residence under the Income Tax Act.

B. The list of documents required to qualify an STA as a principal residence can be easily circumvented. Banks, tax departments and utilities do not determine ordinary occupancy when they are establishing mailing addresses. Also, when it is no longer the license holder’s principal residence, the license should be relinquished. To be enforceable, the bylaw should also mandate a Declaration and Warranty as part of the application. The first part of Section 5 2 g) should read as follows:

g) For licenses issued after XXX XX, 2022, applicants must sign a prescribed Declaration and Warranty that the property is continuously their principal residence where the applicant ordinarily resides and attach copies of any two (2) supporting documents demonstrating principal residency at the licensed property, including:

C. The wording of the prescribed Declaration and Warranty should say:
Declaration & Warranty
The undersigned applicant hereby declares and warrants that during the currency of the license, I will ordinarily reside at the property as my principal residence. In the event that I no longer reside at the property or it is no longer my principal residence, then I undertake to discontinue the STA rentals and relinquish my license. I understand my license will be revoked in the event this Declaration and Warranty is breached.

D. Section 27 should capture the normal situation where a license is issued to a property held in joint tenancy with a right of survivorship. It should have the following sentence added:
Where the applicant is for a license to a primary residence that is held in joint tenancy with the right of survivorship, then upon proof of the joint tenancy, the license may be issued to the joint owners with a right of survivorship.

E. Penalties
There are two major drafting errors in the proposed penalty bylaw.

Error 1: In the draft penalty bylaw it shows a penalty for advertising an STA without a license as being $500 for the first offence increasing to a maximum of $2000. The recommendations intend it to be $1,000 for the first offence increasing to $4,000? Also, for clarity, I suggest the language to read as follows: "Advertise an unlicensed STA" instead of "Advertise an STA without a license"

Error 2: In the draft penalty bylaw it shows a penalty for failing to display STA License number on STA advertisement as $1000 for the first offence increasing to $4000. The recommendations intends it to be $100 for the first offence increasing to a maximum of $400?

F. I agree with moving the clauses from the zoning bylaw to the STA bylaw, but I have concerns about the ambiguous wording of two of the clauses. Section 2 should be clarified because it is unenforceable unless the County engages in discovering parent-child relationships, sleeping arrangements and willing to accept unlimited children parties. To be enforced through the wording of the advertisement, it should read as follows:

2. For the purposes of subsection (4), up to four (4) children under the age of ten (10) may be hosted and will not count towards the maximum number of guests permitted.

G. The typo and ambiguities in Section 14, should be clarified because it is currently impossible to interpret. It should read as follows:

14. Notwithstanding the landscaping and use provisions of the Zoning By-law, a lot with a Short-Term Accommodation use in a residential zone that is within fifteen (15) metres of a dwelling unit on a neighbouring lot, a privacy fence or solid landscaped screen five (5) feet in height shall be erected or installed to separate two lots.

Thank you for considering these comments.

STA owners purchased our homes in the County, in some cases with no STA regulations in place. We paid a premium for our homes and many are relying on the sale of the STA as their retirement plan. I understand the need to limit the number of STAs so I agree that you should not issue any more full home licenses, but please consider the impact you are having on peoples futures if you don’t allow the transfer of grandfathered STA licenses. Also over time not every STA home sold will be sold to another STA operator so naturally the number of STAs will drop. Thank you, Aziz

I disagree with the proposal for zero (0) new whole-home licences. Here is the reason I would like to get clarification from the committee members:
• I am looking at one of the committees meeting recording where they talked about STA provision. It seems they are giving R3/R4 zoning for new developments including detached homes and town homes/condos, most of the existing old houses with R1 zoning. I feel this STA restriction mainly to favor the developers and future residents not the current property owners as new homes with R3/R4 will value more based on these restrictions on zoning. Did some search and noticed all the new condos with R3.
• I completely agree to limit number of STAs based on density so mix of both some permanently live-in vs full STAs
• Generally, people prefer to rent the whole house compared to partial house, so they get the privacy and do thing freely
• Currently businesses and tourism losing money because of COVID and Ontario government encouraging people to do things locally by giving tax credit. This STA restrictions will stop people visiting PEC as renting in PEC will be higher
• Some of the people are forced to rent short term because of zero infrastructure to support the community. No daycares in 20-30 min proximity. So, people has to rent out the periods they are not using because they have to live closer to city during the month of school and move back or other reason

For the most part I am in agreement with the STA licensing by-laws, and recognize wholeheartedly the necessity for regulation, particularly where community standards, safety and quality of life are concerned. I am a licensed STA owner and follow all regulations to the letter, keep informed on by-law changes and in fact live in the area where my property is located. From my experience, it is NOT the licensed owners who are creating issues within the community but the proliferation of unlicensed STAs which operate freely and with no penalty or oversight within the County. In my opinion,Without stricter enforcement and monetary penalties which actually deter owners from operating outside the purview of the County governance, the negative impact within Communities will continue unchecked and Residents will continue to be done a great disservice.
In regards to including my STA license number in any advertising of my property, what’s to prevent an unlicensed operator from simply cutting and pasting that information into their own publications? It is already available to the public on the County map of licensed accommodations. I find the proposed implementation of fines ludicrous and injurious. Since there is clearly no effective mechanism to prevent unlicensed STAs, (I am a member of this community and will not take on the role of STA police against my neighbours!), what mechanism will be put in place to ensure my license ID is not being used fraudulently?
I run my whole home STA privately through referrals only, and I am a full time County resident.
I am grateful for the opportunity to voice my concerns and to see other Opinions and experiences regarding this very divisive issue.

I have been a County resident and employer since 1989. I raised my two children here, neither of which can afford to live here now. The amount of STA’s have gobbled up any chance for local first time buyers to get into the housing market. It has forced our children and their families out of this community so that now some have to commute 60km daily from Belleville, Trenton etc in order to work here. Their circle of friends has been split generally from ones lucky enough to inherit property here to others that have been forced out. Some of these families have been growing together for 3 generations. Now they have been split apart. There is no doubt in my mind that this is due to the Airbnb not being restricted back in 2018 when the writing was on the wall.

How can anyone other than a faceless Corporation or completely uncaring person support that 10% of Airbnb owners make 50% of the profit? It’s not about sharing your space anymore. This is not Ma and Pa making a little side money. It’s about padding the pockets of another billion dollar Corp like Airbnb while not caring about the community or the people in it in any way. It’s about the wealthy getting wealthier with no concern about displacing people.

People claim they have to do it for their retirement or financial planning. Is that retirement and wealth contingent on displacing hundreds of local families?
If so I say your choice was crude and you should make changes rather than the people who were already living here and had chosen PEC as a place to live and raise a family. Those families give us a robust caring community. STA’s “gone wild” give us dark communities in off season and overcrowding in season.
These are absentee landlords; never a positive situation. I have seen people in tears over the noise and parking on their street making their life miserable. I have spoken to many unhappy residents feeling like they live in an urban environment now. Many have already left.
Simply out of control.

I can no longer find people to work for me and I know many businesses that bring people in from Toronto for the high season. What about the low season? Businesses in the County worked hard to bring the shoulder seasons alive but without staff we cannot keep them open by relying on students. Businesses require permanent residents and that pool of applicants has been forced out. Please do not comment on how businesses need Airbnb’s if you don’t own a business. We were doing fine prior to Airbnb. Some Airbnb’s are required and perhaps a large hotel for people who like that type of lodging but it’s clear there are way too many homes slated only for tourists.
As for Airbnb’s operating without a licence I suggest $5000 first offence; $10,000 second with location and names publicized.

Please put a stop to treating our beloved community purely like a commodity. If I didn’t want to know my neighbours, if I wanted to stand in line for everything I do, if I didn’t want to take my children to the beach, if I wanted to sit in traffic, if I wanted my life to completely change I would move where that exists. It wasn’t like that in PEC but it is now and residents who care about more than money need assistance from Council to put things back to better days. Yes, definitely better days.

For full time residents of PEC, Life in The County has not improved with the Introduction of STA’s in the County. I am in favour of strict measures to current STAs and no further STAs.

I disagree with the proposed changes; I understand that affordable housing is a priority, but as many others have commented, I don't believe that reducing/eliminating STAs will fulfil this need. I also believe that this change would have a negative impact on the local economy due to reduced accommodation options for visitors.

I've read a lot of comments here and I think it's all a little sad. I do agree that affordable housing is imperative to any community, but most STAs in the County that I've stayed at as a guest aren't really entry level homes. I don't think they would be affordable with or without a Grandfathered STA licence attached. A lakefront home is a luxury that benefits the community more when shared.

The goals are very unclear here. If STAs are raising ALL property values, removing the ability of a new owner to leverage a grandfathering law will lower ALL property values, including anyone looking to sell a property that is not an STA. Since when is it beneficial for a community to lower their property values. Preventing runaway housing prices is definitely beneficial, but lowering them is not. You are going to ruin non-STA property owners' retirement plans. Affordable housing is also crucial, but there are solutions that don't involve devaluing everyone's homes.

I guess you need clear goals to measure efficacy, but how are the desired outcomes being checked here. Rules for rules sake are not helpful. A goal should be set, a measurement plan should be put in place, that plan should be executed, then the rule should be re-evaluated based on the results. This process is severely lacking. How are outcomes currently being measured. Some people are happy about the proposed rules, but how do they even know if they are going to effect the change they want to see.

I'm all for some of these rules (like forcing advertising licence numbers to cut down on illegal and unregulated STAs), but the attempt at lowering property values won't benefit the community.

Implementing any restrictions on STA will destroy PEC economy. After covid Canadian inflation rate already over 7%. County should come up some idea how to boost the local business rather destroy it. Tourist who will stay here will spend money locally, it is plain and simple logic.
STA is not the major factor driving real estate market crazy. Whole Ontario housing market is on fire. Where more than 83% PEC residents own a house, increasing house price is good for us. We can rent the house and make enough money and go to retirement home.
My next door neighbour is doing STA as they obtained the license few years back. I did not need to rent out at that time, now I need to rent out as my financially situation has changed. But I can’t do it for the new policy. It is not a fair policy by County. Another guy from different city bought a property down the street and got STA license under Grandfather policy. Do you think it’s a fair policy for all?
I strongly disagree with all the restrictions for STA.

I am glad to see some restrictions being considered for STA’s in the County. My concerns with STA’ s are that they take away from long term rental supply within a community, something that our community certainly needs more of. They also begin to change a community; most people would rather live beside a permanent neighbour, not an STA. It has never made sense to me that a house can be sold with the STA license; when the house sells, the new owner should get in line for a license like everyone else did. We know that selling a house with a license impacts the price and drives prices higher.

One final comment is that I believe all council members who own STA’s should recuse themselves from any voting regarding STA’s; it is a clear conflict of interest.

I do not agree with the changes above. It's clear that the council is trying to discontinue whole-home STA's through attrition. This will only hurt the county economically, create more traffic and punish those who have invested in PEC.

In my opinion the reason the PEC is an amazing place who attracts a lot of Canadian to visit and enjoy the lovely place from winery, art,restaurants and much more. If you minimize the amount of STA places without placing alternatives, you will impact badly the economy of the residents who enjoy the increase of tourism in this area recently.

As an STA owner with licenses, I think you need to embrace the tourism in the area rather than avoiding visitors to come to PEC. I strongly believe in other ways which such can be controlled , such as agree on certain amount per area for number of STAs, invite STA owners for community welcoming and understand the need of all residents and much more.