Short-term Accommodations

I agree with Jim Wright. I think this ban is erroneous and damaging to the county. With NO plan to actually make housing affordable -- something that I doubt is possible given housing issues across our province -- it will ruin the local economy ten times faster than it was built. Should the ban go through, within five years I foresee a worse beating to small businesses than Covid. I have been visiting the county for 20 years, enjoying the beaches and parks and recently bought property to enjoy all the county has to offer. I came for the Sandbanks but stayed for the food, wine, art, clothing and incredible accommodations. Renting out my whole home is not economically imperative to the community and to myself when I am away on business but it allows me to share the magic of the county with people from around our province, country and the world. (Yes, people from my native country of Portugal know about PEC and look forward to visiting)

Here's an example of what will happen to the county should STA's be banned. It's a simple economical domino effect.

Let's say there is an even 100 STA's (with no room to create more). Supply is squeezed causing those 100 to dictate pricing. Thus pricing will go up. As pricing increasing the demographic of visitors will shrink to higher net worth individuals - decreasing the total amount of visitors. As the visiting pool decreases and becomes scarce, businesses are forced to increase their prices to sustain their business, further narrowing the demographic of visitors (and directly effecting residents' cost of living). From that point, businesses will die off. Sure, The Royal and Waupoos and the odd Cannabis shop might survive but we can say goodbye to Parsons, Midtown Brewing, Good Place, Koenji, East and Main, Stellas, Bocado, The Vic, Hartleys, Sujeo, Flossies, County Picnic, some of the smaller vineyards, the wine tours, the bike rental companies, Cookes, Magpie, Noble Beast, Anice, the beautiful art galleries -- I could go on, but you get the point.

I have empathy for those who cannot afford a home in the county -- something I struggled with myself for many years -- but this ban DOES NOT fix the problem. The problem is federal; the problem is from central banks; the problem is from abroad; the problem is from the rippling effects of the pandemic; the problem is from developers -- it's cumulative.
The problem is NOT tourism. the problem is NOT short term accommodations.

This is forum is a great opportunity to discuss the incredible damages this ban will cause, however I feel that our time and effort should be better spent on finding solutions to bolster affordable housing. An example can be seen in the recent Mirvish Village project in Toronto. It is 100% pedestrian oriented and purpose-built, rental community housing.

I digress. Please do not ban STA's for the future of the county.

STA's should stay!
Our county is known for its beautiful scenery, delicious foods, hospitality and bold wines; in stopping STA's we are directly impacting the lives of numerous sections within the Hospitality and Tourism industry. Coming into the County for tourism greatly supports everyone (dining, gifts, tours, wine, accommodations etc)
1.STA's allow for sustainable retirement for our elderly through the ability to rent their homes when they move in to long term care, thus being able to afford long term care (A growing provincial concern)
2. STA's provide opportunity for new community members to to come into our county, purchase land that they love, then vacation here and potentially make an income when they are not able to visit their "second home". Having the ability to rent your home when you are not "home", greatly helps support debt reduction.
3. STA's help drive our Tourism industry bringing people from all over into our county to take in its beauty, depth and flavors.
4. STA's help the economy grow and further develop our community as "top places" to visit and experience in Ontario.
5. Without ample variety of accommodation we are making a huge misstep in the potential lost opportunity of visitors, County income and permanent community members (Members who have visited/experienced PEC, love it and seek to buy) When you eliminate STAs you are eliminating tourism opportunities, exposure opportunities of our County to others.
All opportunities are lost when we limit/remove STA's from the community.
5. In banning STAs it does not ensure that current homes will become long term rentals; it does not ensure there will be more affordable housing

Hi there, as someone who owns property in Picton, I'm very concerned by the proposition of banning STA's. They are the reason PEC has any tourism. They are what keep the wineries and restaurants open and jobs for the locals. And PEC's caliber of restaurants and wineries is why I want to be in PEC! If they close because tourism inevitably goes down, everything suffers. Please don't ban STA's. This is a terrible idea. I don't see how this will benefit the locals at all. Since no one will visit and businesses will close.

Many years ago the county undertook a transition from a strictly agriculture business to a destination spot with the wine industry leading the way. The revenue generated from this industry continues to attract business to all those in the County. The beaches have always been there for everyone to enjoy. You talk about the upper income being the drivers in the area as it is in the agriculture. The planning department continues to allow properties to be subdivided to which the developers are making money. The housing shortage is provincial wide as is the increased cost in housing prices. If you are concerned with the wealthy taking over you missed the mark years ago as this has been happening for 25 years. Look at the Picton Harbour, Sand Banks area, Bay of Quinte Waterfront and Wellington where all the properties are well past the Multimillion dollar price tag. The cost of materials and labour also drives costs up which adds revenue to those who run those businesses. Yet no discussion on the under ground economy running here. Is the Municipal government to have a hand in all that goes on in the county, they take my taxes but do not maintain my road, I pay for my garbage bag tag, I have my own well and septic and now if I want to offset my costs I am not able to rent my residence for what ever period I would like. Who does this protect the residences who live here now or are transplants who want to ensure no one else can live next to them without the same income stream. Has the county come up with a strategy to build low income properties for those who need it. Have you looked at protecting farm land to prevent development. Big developers can pay their fees to move their plans ahead but the small builder, home owner does not have the same resources.
Are you really looking at making accommodations affordable or protecting those who have their beautiful properties putting up with renters who want to enjoy the county and are renting it for a week. The parks cannot accommodate everyone has been demonstrated during Covid. I think you are still trying to limit future property ownership to only those who can afford to buy their multi million dollar second homes while either carry the mortgage or buy outright themselves. This has never changed in my 50 plus years of being a resident in the county. Maybe we should close our businesses, shut down our tourism, board up our barns and turn off our tractors and let the economy suffer to which the real estate prices will naturally drop. This will come with reduced property tax income stream.
Be careful where the information comes from as everyone has their own agenda. The Not in My Backyard movement has taken hold now in the County and is a form of control to which I do not favor.
The fines you talk about and the levels are quite a stretch, are they in line with all of you municipal infractions or way to scare people into submission. I think you are offside in your assessment and again are catering to the special interest groups.

Someone should tell council and staff that the bloom is off the real estate market. If they haven't noticed listing are lapsing and if renewed they are at a lower price. I was under the impression that tourism was the major economic engine of the County. City Hall should be doing everything possible to add accommodation for tourists. They don't seem to be able to attract any flagged hotels. My home could never be considered a rental unit and with a value of around $2.5 million hardly considered affordable. I may have to move into a retirement home soon and want to be able to rent out the house for its highest and best use, If the County tries to prevent me, we will be in court very quickly.

It is unclear how you are enforcing the requirement to have a license. What is the process to enforce unlicensed operstors to comply? What are the penalties aside from the fines for not posting a license number? Do you actually believe that the current fines will work as most operators can make substantially more than long term rental revenues net of the maximum fine.

Have you shut down a single unlicensed operator? Have you fined a single unlicensed operator?

Without a meaningful and effective way to stop unlicensed operators this bylaw is and, has been, nothing but a complete waste of time and tax payer resources.

Thank you for your work on this, but please understand that laws without enforcement serve only to make legislators feel better and do very little to accomplish their stated objectives.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment. I have a couple of questions and comments.
Are the fines a municipal fine?, and what happens if an unlicensed STA if fined and doesn't pay, or pays but stays in business. What mechanism are in place for these scenarios? How are you able to actually "close down" or stop a STA from operating?
Licensed STA owners who have invested in operating a vacation rental, saw an opportunity and assumed the risk, have been good neighbours, championed our community to visitors and followed all the ever changing Municipal licensing requirements (that have a cost attached), are still perceived as the "bad guys" in this community. All of the above and for what licensed STA's bring and give back to this community should to be acknowledged and recognized by council and staff. Thank you.

Have to ask, where in any of the proposed bylaws does it ,"foster an affordable community"?

Great work on this! As someone who works in the county and has been looking for a home in the area for quite some time, I would love to see these changes implemented. Hopefully they will help bolster some overarching community goals (i.e. foster an affordable, healthy, livable community) for those of us that would like to call PEC 'home'.

1/ a "natural persons" requirement is entirely unnecessary. Most individuals incorporate their rental in order to limit liability while others do so to reduce taxes. While a corporation sounds like a faceless conglomerate uninterested in our community, it's typically an individual who is mindfully conservative with risk or trying to be tax efficient.
2/ Sounds like counsel and commenters in this section are mixing housing affordability with the existence of STAs. The decreased affordability was very much accelerated by the pandemic and the flush of people out of urban centres into rural regions. If it were STA-driven, then only areas with a proliferation of STAs would have experienced higher housing valuations. Clearly this is not the case so limiting STAs will do nothing to solve housing affordability. This is a supply-driven issue. Increasing housing density as per plans in R3 and R4 zones is the right approach. Mandating particular types of dwellings in order to imply stratification in prices is helpful.
4/ Not clear what is to be achieved by #4. Shouldn't we look to fine those who are operating without a proper license? As opposed to those who have a license?

Tourism is the lifeblood of this region. To deny this is to not support the local wineries, restaurants, cafes, camp sites, STAs, and all the businesses that support them. It's a seductive narrative to blame "the outsiders" for lack of affordability. It's harder but more gratifying to embrace change and figure out ways to work together to evolve our community the right way--by thoughtfully permitting a certain % of whole home licenses that thereby support tourism. The absolute number of STAs would increase only as housing supply is added.

In the FAQ's section, it indicates that if someone is selling a property here that was a licensed STA that the license does not transfer to the new owner. I'm wondering if this represents a tightening of the rules as I would hope. When someone purchases a property presently used for an STA the density and types of STA's should be evaluated and we should be working to reduce the number in many areas, especially in towns. I also encourage the grandfathering clause to be removed. In my opinion only B & B's should be grandfathered. This section/rules are very 'fuzzy' and again, I'd like to see more permanent housing here in the County whether owned or rented. I am happy to see a moratorium on new licenses. I'm not sure if the fines are steep enough for non-compliance. Thank you for listening!

Given the current rates that STAs are renting for, I believe that the fines for advertising or renting a home that does not have a license should be higher. The current fines are not high enough to stop someone from renting, they will just incorporate this fine into their operating budget. Third offences should be increased to $10,000.

Unclear as to whether the grandfathering continues to only enforce part of the changes to the STA bylaw?
For example in the current bylaw grandfathered STA's only have to comply with (some of the requirements) e.g., the 2 adults per bedroom but not the buffering/privacy screening requirement. Does this proposed change address this? Making it a requirement for ALL STA's to put in a privacy screen?
"14. Notwithstanding the landscaping and use provisions of the Zoning By-law, a Short-Term
Accommodation use that buts a residential zone, and is within fifteen (15) metres to a single
dwelling unit, a privacy fence, or solid landscaped screen five (5) feet in height, shall be
erected or installed along the rear and interior side yard."

I believe that all requirements in the bylaw MUST apply to ALL STA's (whether grandfathered or not!)

Hello there.
Three part question here.
- If all STAS in PEC where sold tomorrow, what estimated percentage would then become long term rentals?
-If all STAS in PEC where sold tomorrow, what impact would this have on affordable housing ?
- Will the new bylaws improve quality of life for any residents of the County. if so, how ?
Since a moratorium is already in place prohibiting additional whole home STAS in the County. New proposed municipal legislation seem to chastise existing stas, just for being stas.

I am very encouraged by the steps being taken to correct an over abundance of STA’s that have, in turn, lead to investment properties that are being carried by STA rental income, and thus no longer available for LTR. I would also encourage a review on long term rental leases to encourage property owners to consider long term rentals without feeling they are being held hostage by their renters. It’s complicated and this is a long over due first step! BRAVO!

I support the changes. I do feel, however, that The County needs to get through the backlog of STA registrations that are still pending prior to making more changes. Will these changes take 2+ years to implement as well?

I would like to question the need for "Adding administrative penalties for advertising without including the licence number (staff recommend $100 for first offence, increasing to maximum $400 fine)" If someone has gone through the process of obtaining a licence, why penalize them for not posting this number on their website or booking platform? How does this solve any issue? If the issue is to make sure STAs are operating with a licence, you will have that information on hand. Penalizing those who are operating without a licence makes sense, but not those who are operating with one.
Where licence holders should be penalized is when they do not charge/submit MAT tax as we have clearly seen in last year's report. These amounts need to be collected and remitted and this should be enforced.

I absolutely agree with the updates to the STA by-laws; hopefully it’s not too little, too late,

I think these changes are great, I know it will affect people who want to rent out a cottage or second home as a retirement plan but given the seriousness of the housing shortage I think these changes are great. And continuing to give licenses to owner occupied homes is also appreciated and I hope that stays.

I appreciate the changes which is an impediment to our community. However I feel that there should be NO GRANDFATHERING !