The Town of The Blue Mountains is proposing significant changes to its licensing regulations for short term accommodation operations and public interest in the issue is high.
On July 9, the town held a public meeting about proposed changes to its STA licensing bylaw and its administrative monetary penalties bylaw regulating fines for STA violators.
The town is proposing updates to the two bylaws that include significant changes for how STAs are regulated and is looking at dramatically increasing the monetary fines for those who violate the town’s STA rules and requirements.
The public meeting saw the council chambers absolutely packed and public comments on the proposals stretched for more than two hours. At times, emotions were running high for some who presented to council.
STA industry representatives who spoke at the meeting suggested the proposed changes were heavy handed and did not recognize the steps the industry has taken over the past decade to work with the town to solve problems. They urged the town to have more consultations with industry leaders on the changes.
At the same time, multiple local citizens and neighbours of STAs suggested the town needed even tougher rules in place to crack down on the industry and ensure compliance and protect local residents living near STA units.
CAO Shawn Everitt presented the proposed changes at the meeting. Everitt said town staff have been working to update the town’s policies in the two bylaws. They have used Prince Edward County as a model.
“You’re going to have a significant number of considerations and decisions to be made for us to move forward,” Everitt told council.
On the licensing bylaw, the town is proposing multiple changes including (the full draft bylaw can be found here):
- A town licensing appeals committee would be replaced by a hearing officer.
- A type-E licence would be added to the bylaw for Commercial Rental Units (CRUs).
- STA occupancy would be based on two persons per bedroom (regardless of the number of beds in a room), with four additional persons, which are not guaranteed and will depend on the set up of the STA.
- Limiting the number of STA a “responsible person” can be listed for.
- Elimination of campfire pits at STAs
- No changes to the site plan for an STA are permitted without town approval
On the monetary fines for STA violators, the town is proposing to dramatically increase fines. The proposal includes (the full draft bylaw can be found here):
- Exceeding permitted occupancy - $1,500 fine up from $500
- Non-availability of a responsible person - $2,500 fine up from $500
- Failure to post STA licence - $1,500 fine for first offence, $2,000 for second and $4,000 thereafter, up from the current $500
- Operating an STA without a licence. $10,000 fine for first offence, $15,000 fine for second offence and $20,000 thereafter, up from the current $2,500
- Advertising a STA without a licence - $2,000 fine for first offence, $4,000 for second and $8,000 thereafter, up from the current $500.
- Permitting an activity that is a nuisance - new $2,500 fine.
- Not following the property’s parking plan - $5,000 fine, up from $500.
- Use of hot tub or pool after hours - $2,500 fine, up from current $500.
- Site plan alterations without town’s permission - a new $10,000 fine.
- Permitting a fire pit using solid fuel - $5,000 fine, up from the current $500.
Everitt explained that the province does not allow the fines to be punitive. He said the fines proposed by the town are the same as those in Prince Edward County.
“We don’t believe the province will find them to be punitive,” said the CAO. “We need to have a hammer to be able to eliminate the non-licenced short term accommodations.”
The proposed changes generated a wide variety of comments from across the spectrum on the STA issue.
David Finbow, of the Blue Mountain Short Term Accommodation Association, praised the town’s efforts to weed out “rogue” STA operators.
“In that manner the town has done a very good job, but there are still issues,” said Finbow, who questioned limitations on the number of STAs a “responsible person” could represent.
“It hasn’t been a problem and we don’t anticipate it being a problem,” he said.
Several STA industry representatives echoed Finbow’s comments on the “responsible person” limitation being proposed by the town and asked the town to reconsider that change.
STA operator Stu Frith questioned why the town was making such major alterations to a bylaw that has been successfully deployed for many years.
“Why so much light on so much of a bylaw that is working now?” he asked, and suggested town staff “go back to the drawing board.”
Frith said the industry is looking for STA rules that are “fair, equitable and reasonable.”
Terry Keller, who is the chair of the STA committee for the Blue Mountains Ratepayers Association, said the town wasn’t going far enough to control STAs.
“It’s not getting better,” said Keller, noting that he lives next to an eight-bedroom STA. “We need drastic changes to existing bylaws and full enforcement to make it work.”
Tyrolean Lane resident Cindy Flanagan said the current policies need to be more strict.
“In my opinion, there are gaps in the STA bylaws that need to be addressed,” she said. “There needs to be severe consequences if STA owners change their site plans without approval.”
Graham Flanagan said there can be a “wild, wild west atmosphere” at some STA operations and called for strict enforcement of the rules.
“We heard earlier the Prince Edward County model of zero tolerance, that sounds great to me,” he said.
STA operator Israel Ellis called the town’s proposals “drastic changes” and suggested there was a community bias against the STA industry.
“It seems like we’re forever to be on the defensive, We feel constantly attacked,” he said.
Council did not make any decision on the proposed changes. The meeting was held strictly to gather public comment on the matter. A follow up report will come to council in the future and the town’s goal is to have the new regulations in effect by January 1.
