Short-term Accommodations

I have so many comments on this, I don’t know where to begin. My biggest question is what does the County really hope to achieve by reducing the availability of the type of short term accommodation that visitors to the County desire? My feeling is that this is a knee jerk reaction to the naysayers and not a well thought out long term strategy for a healthy vibrant County.
1. To say that the County is short on hotel accommodation is an understatement. STAs provide much needed accommodation for the many tourists who visit our community. It has been shown that those who stay overnight spend at least 3 times as much at County businesses than those who only come for the day.
2. Reducing the number of STAs will immediately negatively affect County businesses.
3. Vacationers prefer to stay in whole home accommodations that offer privacy and comfort for themselves and their family. Council seems to envision that visitors will be content to stay in someone’s basement with the owner upstairs. Would you?
4. Banning whole-home STAs will not resolve the affordable housing crises. It will not stop housing from increasing in value in accordance with market trends across the country.
5. Reducing the number of STAs will reduce the amount of MAT fees that will contribute to the repair our roads and improvement in other areas, thus putting the burden on County residents to pick up the tab. That amount will likely far exceed $1M this year.
6. Why is the County so intent on going after licensed STA owners with more restrictions and higher fees and unreasonable fines? It would make more sense to track down and force those who are operating illegally to license – more fees and more MAT for the County!
7. Mandating how an STA owner can hold title to their property feels like an infringement of my rights as an individual and outside of the powers of a municipality.
8. Trying to circumvent the grandfathering right of those who owned their home and operated as an STA prior to the STA by-law appears to ignore entrenched property laws of this Province. I question the legality of these attempts.
9. I am in favour of regulating STAs but these new changes have crossed the line.

What is your end game here? These proposals will not solve the affordable housing issue or stop the illegal STA’s. Can you not see the potential risks to the local economy which is dependant on tourism. Many STA owners share their home or second home to earn additional income which is fed back into the local economy. Tourists who pour money into the local economy need accommodation. The County’s economy is dependant on tourism. Take away the STA’s and you hurt local business. Give your head a shake!

I have several comments to make:
1. parking issues with regards to safety requirements. The current bylaw does not adress square footage needed per vehicule, nor does it address issues with the use of Right of Ways that do not belong to a land-locked property that is used as a STA
2. The changes you propose do not reflect physical changes made by an owner to a property to accommodate more vehicules that was originally intended
3. Re: grandfathering - you state that the planning act governs this clause and state "“Grandfathering”, or “legal non-conforming”, status is protected under the provincial Planning Act, and permits property owners who were using their property in a legal manner to continue doing so should that usage become unlawful with a future Zoning By-law change." I would like to know how you are dealing with a property/properties that was/were NOT using their property in a legal mannner? This has been a 6year battle with the County and I do not know who is responsible, but I do now that I have to put up with a situation that imposes on my land & my privacy because of the County's actions. Our lawyer has written to the County & the County & their solicitor never replied. If this has happened to us, it may well be happening to others.
4. When land was originally severed from the original lots you must investigate if there were stipulations that should be respected before granting permits? We have that situation, so others may as well. Please consider who are you impacting with the granting of a permit.
5. We have learned that most "lanes" are private & tourists (STA guests) do not distinguish between a City lane & a private lane...this impacts those whose land it is.
6. Finally, if someone like ourselves purchases a property in a residential sector, we do not want touristic coming & going & disturbing our life because our side yard is also a Right-of-way. In 2010, the County’s Zoning By-Law which was in effect until the changes were made on October 9th 2018 to permit short term accommodation.At that time, like now, each of the zones had a set of permitted uses. A “home business” is one of the permitted uses for residential zones such as Residential 1 (see page 207). A “home business” is specifically defined on pages 58-59 where the definition includes an illustrative list of uses that are not permitted: “…4.11.8 A home business shall not include a boarding or lodging house; an eating establishment; a facility offering accommodation or meals….” Quite Clear yet ignored by the County....I believe our situation was always looked at as a neighbour dispute and never taken seriously. Much to our disappointment and I can furnish you our lawyer's letter that has not been answered to this day. :-(

I support the proposed regulations. To begin, the official County map of STA does not reflect the actual number. On my road of 50 or so homes, the map shows one STA. Last summer, we know that four homes on this road were being rented out for short term accommodation. If this reflects the actual number across the County then instead of 867 STAs, there are over 3,300. Once the new rules are in place, an actual count may be realized, and this will go a long way towards tweaking of by-laws.
I agree that the license for the STA should not be transferable with the sale of the property. Again, once the County has a true count of STA properties, they can determine if a new owner may apply for and be granted a STA license, with the knowledge of just how many STA businesses are in place.
Finally, I agree that owners should be on-site, or barring that, live next door. Weekend renters might be very responsible but we have been witness to the "other" fun seeking groups, and have seen tents erected, vehicles plow over County property and many, many more cars than the number of bedrooms would support, and the owner lived in the GTA, blissfully unaware of the mess. When the owner was contacted, the claim was that the partiers were friends, not renters, no siree. Bring in the regulations, get an accurate count of STAs and let's assess.

B&Bs are NOT the same as STAs!!! They are legitimate, full-time businesses; and in my particular case, I went to VERY significant costs (and years of stress due to dealing with the incredibly difficult to work with Planning Department) to create an additional dwelling on my property to host my B&B guests. As such, my property is now 100% funding my eventual retirement - removing my ability to sell my B&B as another B&B by removing B&Bs from the ZBL could likely ruin me financially. Putting aside the backlash B&Bs get from being lumped into STAs from the community, this is just not at all acceptable!

While I am pleased to see the general direction in which the report goes I am extremely disappointed to see that although the report states that the proactive approach is not the best way to tackle the problem the authors nevertheless end up recommending it. Once again we have a “made in the County” approach that fails to recognise and learn from what has been done in other communities. Toronto was taken to court after they passed a “principal residence only” bylaw and they won. The verdict was appealed and again Toronto won. Was any attempt made to consult Toronto staff and get input? From the list of people consulted the answer has to be “No.” A number of other Ontario municipalities have also enacted similar by-laws without being sued. Were any of them consulted? Again, the answer based on the list of people consulted has to be “No.” Quite frankly this is shoddy background research and needs to be done before a final decision is reached.
It has to be noted that under section 34 (9) of the Planning Act, a by-law requiring that the property be the principal residence does NOT prohibit the use of the property as an STA – that use still remains if all requirements of the by-law are met.
It should also be noted that in the draft by-law under Section 5 para 2. g) not all of the documents provide proof of primary residence. For instance, a passport only includes an address if the passport holder has written it in; it does not confirm that it is the principal residence. Similarly, utility or property tax bills that are sent to the STA address do not confirm principal residence. This section needs reviewing.
Finally, in Section 2 para 14 “buts” should read “abuts”

Hi Noah. I really don't understand why STA's are grandfathered when the property is sold? Prices have been driven up so high that our area is undesirable to workers as they can not afford to rent or buy, therefore can not work here. The County hired a consultant that brought to light how other municipalities are handling STA's yet very few ideas are being used. It's time to come down even harder than this plan has started to do, fine heavily and end grandfathering, we need to have a set amount of STA's in the County at one time (which should be much lower than it is) and get our community back as a community not a ghost town of empty houses or party houses. Please do the right thing now. Thankyou Lori

I have been privy to a lot of policy and governance work throughout my career and I can't help but look at this and feel that the county has lost sight of what they are actually trying to govern. This will always been a popular spot for 3 season tourism and no property owner should be barred from being able to rent/share their property, be that their primary residence or their vacation home/cottage. That said, I do feel there should be a cap on the number of days/weeks per year that a place can be rented short term so that every home isn't turned into a year round hotel. The county can barely keep it's head above water in trying to staff the licensing, inspection and complaint process. I don't see how more regulation is going to be staffed. They are chasing red herrings now, tracking down paperwork around minute details such as septic tank size, property floor plans, sizes of beds and number of parking spaces. It's insane and ineffective, not to mention, a very poor use of scare labour when county staff should be focused on policy and process work to create more housing and enhance the community. If we need to govern homes so they aren't used full time for rentals, cap number of rental days and use a complaint and audit process to manage the cap. Let's rethink what we need to govern and spend time monitoring the right things. Do we really need to regulate size of rental groups and where they sleep, or do we really just need to regulate for noise bylaws? Same goes for parking. Do we care where guests park, as long as they aren't parking illegally on the street? Renters already take on liability and insurance costs and risks around safety issues, and yet we have paid staff making round to inspect hand rails and test batteries on smoke detectors!? Let's get county staff regulating a few things well vs throwing darts at every 'what if' scenario that could be dreamed up and monitored. I challenge the county to prove how each aspect of their proposal benefits the community as a whole as the current proposed set of further restrictions just harms the economy here. I do hope that all the small businesses who benefit from the overnight stays are seeing how the over regulation will impact their livelihoods.

I agree to capping whole home STA’s to zero. I live beside one and I am trying to establish by laws pertaining to the landscape buffer and legal non conforming status with the by law office but have yet to get a response after several weeks. For those who support whole home STA’s try living beside one that is big enough to host drunken bridal parties and a pool that is elevated and in clear view of my back deck and yard. Bring on the owner occupied STA’s and I’m sure that untoward behaviour will end for the neighbours who have countless problems and complaints.

Wendy Taylor

I agree that STAs should be regulated, and for the most part I agree with the proposed changes. I just have one comment. Canadians have been renting their cottages to other Canadians for generations. It’s part of our DNA to own and/or rent a cottage during the summer months. However, many traditional cottages are not insulated and are only useable for three seasons. So I am proposing that three season properties be excluded from the regulations (keeping all other licensing in place) and only four season whole home properties be included. I would never want to rent a COTTAGE with my family with the owner living there. Furthermore, three season cottages are not contributing to the housing shortage as they are not appropriate as long term rentals.

Staff and Council are to be commended for taking concrete steps to bring the STA program under sorely needed control.
However, this should be considered a strong step forward rather a final destination. The long term objective of the County should be zero whole home STAs as has been achieved in other jurisdictions. This need not mean less tourist accommodation but rather a future focus on hotels, motels and resorts located in the appropriate zones within the County. The problems with whole home STAs are apparent:
1. The homes themselves do not need to be affordable housing in order to negatively impact affordable housing in the County. Removing a significant number of STA houses from the normal real estate market arbitrarily raises the cost of housing generally in the County. That is basic supply and demand economics.
2. A number of residents currently suffer by living on 'dark streets'. A reduction in whole home STAs would reduce this unintended consequence of STAs.
3. A two-tiered price structure currently exists with sales listings focusing on the fact that the listing is a 'grandfathered' STA and thus priced accordingly. Two otherwise equal houses priced for different markets is unfair.

Further research is therefore needed to determine what steps can be taken with respect to:
1. The corporate veil that exists for previously approved STAs, and
2. Further modifications to the grandfathering provisions.

I'm happy to see these proposed changes. I have no problem with owner-occupied STAs, where the owner is on-site to deal with potential problems; the owner is able to supplement their income by renting out a room or suite; and the STA does not result in a home that is not occupied by a permanent resident (renter or owner). I'm also pleased to see that there will be no transfer of STA licences upon sale of a property, which gives an unfair advantage to sellers who possess a license versus those who do not. Whether or not this contributes to alleviating the shortage of affordable housing, it will at least bring back communities where homes are occupied by owners and not transient guests – it does make a difference. Also, current whole-home STAs should be paying property taxes as a business and not a residence – a residence implies that somebody calls the house a home; a business exists solely for the purpose of making a profit.

I agree with the proposed changes. The County is losing our sense of community and in place we have people in homes that come and go who do not give back to the community. Yes there needs to be accommodations for the tourists but perhaps it should be in the form of Inns or Hotels.
Yes the STAs should be registers and pay the appropriate taxes as most are run as businesses. Yes they should be fined if operating without being registered.
The proposals are good ones.
Johanna McCarthy

Are there any plans for establishing a public reporting mechanism for violations? For example, a web form to post Airbnb or Vrbo listings that are not adhering to the new by-laws?

Thank you for addressing the number of STA’s in each area. While I agree that STA’s have their place in The County, I also believe they need to be regulated. A community feel can only be built when full-time residents live in a community. I really like that STA’s need to be in residences that have a full time resident. I also agree that they should not be grandfathered when the property is sold and last, if the STA’s are not active over a reasonable period then the license should be revoked and another property should be able to apply. Thank you for allowing me to voice my opinion on this matter.

While some proposed changes make sense other proposed changes are nothing short of draconian. I can appreciate that it is detrimental to the community to have a free for all STA absentee owner Wild West situation that has been going on prior to the introduction of the licensing program. The licensing program makes sense ; controlling STA density makes sense, collecting tax on STAS makes sense ; ensuring that STAS are safe for guests and fit into neighbourhoods makes sense. Taking the further step to allow primary residence owner occupied STAs and to restrict a glut of absentee multiple property STAs is reasonable. But banning homeowners from obtaining STA licenses to allow STA renting of part (or all ) of their primary residence is way out of bounds! This is no way to promote secondary accommodations to address the current rental shortage! The incentives for creating laneway suites and or secondary rental suites is a good idea . A carrot as opposed to a stick one could say . I am a long term resident of PEC and proud to be a licensed STA operator and as such a host and ambassador for this great county . I am happy to abide by the regulations and freely pay the MAT tax . It has only been a couple of years that this program has been in place ( and the process has been on hold due in part to COVID ) so let’s give it a chance to bring other primary resident home owning prospective operators on board and paying the MAT. Why jump to draconian measures to restrict STAs for primary residents in R3/-R4 without giving people a chance to come on board ? This aspect of the proposed changes has gone from zero to 100 without a sense of shared community and fairness to those who have not yet had a chance to comply with the licensing that existed prior to the lockdown . The suggestion of heavy unreasonable blanket STA restrictions coupled with fines is a knee jerk and short sighted way to go . This thinking is unrecognizable in the community I have known and loved all my life. It’s time to get real not bring out the boot jacks.

With regards to:
“4.37.2 Where the STA use is located on the same lot as a “Dwelling, Principal Residence” or on a lot within the commercial zones identified in 4.37.1 (ii), no density requirements apply. In all other cases, STAs shall be permitted in accordance with the following area densities:
i. In the R1, R2, R3 Zones, the total number of STAs shall be limited to a maximum density of 15% of the existing dwelling units, as measured within a 120 metre radius”
How does this really work in these zones that have a wider berth of distance between housing. If, for example, there is only one neighbour within 120m and they operate a STA, does that mean that I cannot because the ratio would be 2/2, so 100%? So, not able to. Or, is it based on 1/2 so 50%. So not able to. Or, 3/20 when there aren’t even 3 in 120m? Is there an example of how to calculate? Not clear to me for Rural Areas in which min lots are 2 acres.
Thanks,
Joanne Quinn

I am pleased to see that as STA’s are sold, their licenses are not automatically transferred. I feel that there are too many STA’s and the total number need to be reduced - this will help. I think that any STA which is not owner-occupied should be taxed at a higher (eg. commercial) rate. As well, close the loophole of “advertising” an unlicensed STA, to include fines for “operating” an unlicensed STA. Fines should be steep to discourage the activity, not small so that it can be absorbed into the cost of doing business. I think that whether the owner is a corporation or an individual is somewhat irrelevant - multiple properties should be stopped, or at least capped at no more than 2 or 3.

The regulation of STA properties in PEC based upon density, and life safety provisions while creating a new class of tax collectors to fund tourism infrastructure is brilliant work by County staff. What a tall order to create this fair system under the direction of a regional council who at times made the entire process painful and disjointed based on personal opinions and suspect facts. The anti-tourism bias evident with members of council has in turn made pariahs of legal STA tax paying and tax collecting County citizens which in turn is reflected in letters to the editor, and social media comments causing the big picture to be ignored.

The extensive and excellent fall 2021 McGill STA study paid for by County residents highlighted that the STA marketplace is declining and that the second home market increasing due to the pandemic fallout and greater demographic shifts (retirees / remote workers). The County has always had a limited supply of housing as the population has been declining for decades. Why would a developer build new starter home housing in a declining marketplace with limited or no job opportunities? The McGill study added that appropriate starter housing would be the way to help deal with the housing shortage. Creating the right housing for the market is key and is the current hot topic for all levels of government. It is time to unpack the so called “affordable housing crisis” discussion from the approximately 490 or so legal operating STA’s noted in the study. McGill stated eliminating STA’s will simply create more second homes as these properties for the most part are not affordable starter home products or are already second homes. Nowhere in the discussion has the demonstrated need of affordable housing units been identified other than the list of those waiting for subsidized social housing. Hundreds of new housing units are hitting the marketplace in Picton and soon in Wellington far outpacing legal STA dwellings. All this new-build activity is occurring in a negative population growth region.

Capping growth of whole home STA’s at zero is short sighted. Maintaining the current density levels of licences (800+) makes sense given 490 of license holders are currently operating. Allowing for an incremental growth of STA licences outside of the towns, villages and hamlets makes great sense to deal with the NIMBY factor and was also key recommendation by the McGill study. Tourism in PEC will continue to grow and STA’s are niche market for middle class family travellers that are so important to adding value to the county businesses, suppliers, and trades. Seasonal STA vacation rentals have long been a part of the County history, for the County to monetize and regulate this traditional mom and pop business was long overdue. Now is not the time to kill the industry after all the great staff work of the past few years.

Unless I'm reading this proposal incorrectly...
- it does nothing to address any alleged housing shortage. 292 properties listed for sale on realtor.ca at time of this comment
- it does nothing to create affordable housing or make existing housing more affordable
- it does nothing to achieve tourism goals for PEC
- it does nothing to attract an alternative, like one or more branded hotel chains
- if the goal is to reduce the number of tourists, which I can't imagine is beneficial to anyone, it will take years and years to cycle the existing STA's out of business.
- it will inhibit current STA owners from realizing the future value of their investment
- it appears to be "over the line" with government control over fair market enterprise

I'm predicting if PEC adopts these new rules, the municipality will be exposing residents to lengthy and expensive litigation with low chance at a successful outcome.