Short Term Rentals - Licensing Update

We will look to include this information if possible. 

1) In the Objective section of the Glendale Task Force report, it says the purpose of the committee is "to ensure that the growth of Short Term Accommodations is well managed". Given the recommended changes, would it not be more transparent to say that the intention is for the number of STAs to be diminished? 

No I do not believe that is an accurate reflection. 

The recommendations include that for someone to rent out their home in NOTL, it must be their primary residence. What, then, would be the objective of someone in that situation to rent out their home? Why is it different than someone renting out their home that is NOT their primary residence? And, if the owners aren't there at the time, how would they manage any potential problems any differently than someone who does NOT have a STA as their primary residence? Shouldn't it be that HOW a property is run be the criteria that is evaluated in assessing the potential issues described? Otherwise, how will the change solve the problems that some neighbours apparently have, whether it is a primary residence or not? 

The main difference is that the home being rented is the operators primary residence. It is believed that operators will take greater accountability when operating in a neighbourhood where they live and know their neighbours and community. 

One of the recommendations is that STAs for non-owner occupied homes be phased out over the next three years. When questioned about this, the answer has been that this is "a proper amount of time for a transition period". Transition to what? If the answer is to have decreased tourism in NOTL, that should be one of the stated objectives. However, as I mentioned earlier, the recommendations of the Task Force do not support tourism growth. Please clarify.

The transition is specifically related to the requirement to be operating from one's principal residence. We are providing that time frame for operators who do not meet the new requirement to transition the property. That could mean that they move into the home as their principal residence, they may rent out on a long term basis, or sell/ lease the home. 

In the "Any definition of a STA use should provide at a minimum" section there are two statements that confuse me in relation to the resulting recommendations. 1 - that it is "meant to serve the temporary accommodation needs of the traveling public". Given that the intention is to clearly lessen the number of homes in Town for such purposes, please explain how the "serving" will be accomplished? And further to that question, where is it that the Task Force recommends Town visitors who will have previously stayed at STAs reside when they are in NOTL? And 2 - that an STA "is considered a 'commercial' use...or a 'non-residential' use". Are not these definitions completely contradictory to the proposal that if an owner is going to rent out his/her home, it must be his/her/their PRIMARY RESIDENCE? 

I believe the definition is fairly self explanatory, an str is to provide for temporary accommodation, please reach me directly if you wish to discuss in greater detail. Again, there is no change to remove strs, there is a new requirement that they will need to obtain the license which is likely to reduce the overall amount of non owner occupied operators. I do not view the language as contradictory. 

Thank you for providing the information regarding complaints connected to STAs since 2018. Can you please also provide us with an equivalent list for non-STAs? Certainly that information should be considered? 

I will look to include these numbers if possible. 

Connected to my question 5, shouldn't there always be enforcement of Town by-laws? And would it not be logical for the funding for those persons to come from the resulting fines? It has been stated that currently there are no enforcement officers hired to work after 4:30 Monday to Friday or on weekends. Whether the recommendations are ultimately accepted or not, would making this change not be a place to start as well? Should there not, either way, be enforcement officers dealing with any issues that may arise? 

In most cases these fines are not paid to the Town as direct revenue they are subject to fees paid to the court system. Council approved the hiring of additional enforcement resources to be paid through licensing fees, the was ultimately revoked as a result of COVID-19 and the difficult year the industry faced. 

The recommendations include signage designating all STAs as such. Would this not invite security issues/potential break-ins when the home is vacant - owner or guests not there? For example, my home is certainly not always in use, by me or my guests. Would that not put my home at potential risk? 

We appreciate the comments and will consider these in drafting the recommendations to staff. 

There is a house just down the street from my STA that looks like a junk yard. I am certain that it is not rented out. If some is renting out their home for short-term purposes, and therefore listing it on sites such as Vrbo and Airbnb, is it not in their best interest to have it looking its best...i.e. take care of the property, yard, etc. Are not by-laws connected to this issue enforced for full-time residents? Does the information gathered to make these recommendations suggest that most STAs are not following such by-laws? 

There is a property standards by-la applicable to all properties within the Town. 

Would it not make more sense to begin with such recommendations as creating a "Good Neighbour Agreement" first, and see if that is helpful? From the information provided, and the comments in the "Share your thoughts" section of this forum, it is very clear that the majority of licensed STRs/STAs do not cause problems for full-time residents. Does it really make sense that those owners and visitors who do not follow the Town rules and by-laws determine such a massive change, affecting the majority of owners and visitors that do?

The request from Council was to report back on these suggestions and we plan to do so. It will be Council's responsibility to determine what is the appropriate course of action based on the information provided by staff.  

A family would be able to rent an entire home. The home would be the operator's principal residence. 

I will try to do this prior to reporting to Council

Is there a clear, quantifiable definition of what the current problem is? Could you please clarify? I’ve read things about 26 complaints regarding property standards since 2018, the belief that STR’s are preventing young families from moving to NOTL and the belief that STRs are all getting really rich.

 The current problem was not identified by staff it was a priority of Council to review the by-law. Council provided direction to staff to provide responses based on the suggestions of the GTF. Staff have reviewed and believe there are merits to some of the suggestions based on other municipal examples. 

What really are the complaint counts? I’ve seen nothing about counts related to complaints about private residence counts in the totals. A matrix, such as the one below, might be nice to have to use as a basis for analysis and discussion.

I have not had an opportunity to provide this analysis I will try to get this formulated.  

Why are unlicenced and/or STR’s without local management allowed to continue to operate in NOTL? This seems simply like just an enforcement issue … if you’re discovered, you get a huge fine … done. Is the possibility of getting extended hours by-law officers no longer in the works?

Unlicensed operators are not permitted to operate ithout a license. If you are aware of any unlicensed operators please bring them to staff's attention. 

Sorry were not able to get you connected to the meeting last night. There is a recording posted here:

https://livestream.com/notl

No, there is no proposed amendment that looks to address the number of rentals in a given geographic area. 

Has sufficient fact based support and analysis been completed?

Town staff have reviewed existing analysis which will look to be included in the repot. Yes there has been fact based analysis to support many of the recommendations being proposed. not

Has NOTL developed a pandemic economic recovery strategy?

Yes we have, the link is here:

https://notl.civicweb.net/document/18016

Have you assessed is there a bylaw issue or management of the current bylaw?

Council has assessed that there is a need to review the existing by-law and has requested staff report on the matter. 

Has a third party assessed and performed an audit of such?

No, there has not been such an audit. 

Has home noise monitoring technology such as Noise Aware been considered as a requirement for owners?

That was something that was discussed but was not considered to address all concerns, that measure is specifically addressing noise. 

Real Estate Values will most likely decrease significantly with a negative impact to all including local residential owners. With such how have these real estate values and impacts been considered? 

Many municipalities have used this approach to achieve exactly that, municipalities such as Toronto. The thought is that by removing non-owner occupied it provides greater opportunity for long term rentals and more affordable housing options for permanent residents. 

There have been many great points made by people in this forum. How are these points being considered? Who is performing the follow-up analysis?

All comments in the forum will be included as an attachment to the staff report. They will be summarized and addressed in the report as well.  

What does this have to do with short term rental licensing and any of the changes proposed, which do not have any clauses pertaining to property standards. I don't understand how the point raised by staff here is related to ANY way to primary or secondary residence status. 

It is believed that principal residency builds in a tremendous amount of inherent accountability to the operation of STRs. When a STR is not just an income property but a hosts’ actual home, in their own neighbourhood they are more likely to be attentive to noise, trash, and property standards. There is a degree of personal investment that ensures a higher level of compliance. 

As someone else noted in their question that resulted in this answer from staff, a property owner using a second home can attend to an issue in 10 minutes vs a snowbird 6,000 kilometres away. 

 All short term rental operators will be requested to provide the information of a property manager who will be responsible for responding to complaints within 30 minutes of receiving the complaint. 

Can you please provide me with the statistics for property standards complains for licensed short-term rentals to validate your opinion?

We also have neighborhoods who live here full-time, whose yards are unkempt. How will these changes affect them? They won't, and you won't be addressing property standards.

 We will still continue to enforce the property standards by-law. If there are any complaints please direct them to our office. 

Those comments were not addressing noise specifically but the overall complaints received by staff such as property standards and clean yards. Other changes being proposed by staff will look to address the issue of noise complaints such as the requirement of property managers to respond to complaints within 30 minutes.