Here is a link and pdf of that page to an explanation of Amsterdam's STA policy. This is a pretty mature (in my opinion) policy that has some unique and clear definitions and approaches. Good ideas to consider...
To see this working, head to your live site.
Search
While there in indeed good information in any areas policies, we need to keep in mind that we have a total population of under 4000, many of whom are absent most of the year. Amsterdam has that many people located in 3 city blocks. If we are to look for examples, best to stay in communities similar to ours such as the Kawartha Lakes area :
Shari I TOTALLY agree with the idea of enforcing current bylaws. STA's that are not a qualifying B&B are not an allowed use. Let's start there. FYI The Kawartha's Residential Zoning bylaws allowed a home occupation that was not described carefully (actually it was wide open language) so the Zoning regs were not in a comparable situation to ours. Here B&B were specifically described as were other home occupations in a specific and limited way. It's just the law. So let's discuss how we make this work for all of us. The same issues/concerns also apply here to enforcement of all bylaws.. They need to be enforced for home owners and STA owners equally. The current noise bylaw however has some basic defects in fact (ex. requirement of notice in general provisions w/o any ability to necessarily do so. That implies the owner is accessible, known and able to be contacted at 2AM. (as woudl be the case in an allowed B&B)) It also has no specific measurable elements and so is subjective rather than objective. There is also the small fact that a noise complaint at 2AM falls far down the list of priorities for OPP response. This is real easy. We just need to make a few rules. I would also note that a homeowner has to be cognizant that even if the adjacent owner is the best operator, when someone else take over that property 10 years hence that they may not be as diligent and conscientious as the people who attended the two open houses. So a non-conforming use has to be dealt with in a way that respects owners of STA and neighbors of STA's. I did not sign up for a hotel beside me. 4 rooms is a Hotel under OBC. 3 Rooms is a B&B and presumes a full-time overnight attendant owner. Heck of a difference.
If renting short term is not an allowed use, then I suspect the same goes for long term rentals. Since neither are mentioned in our current allowed usage. Will have to inspect tenancy laws in Ontario regarding this matter.
The Tenancy Act itself has no bearing. It has a different intent. I think perhaps you meant some assumed basic right as an owner? I believe that LTR is a different animal as it then retains residential nature and is not "an accommodation for tourists". See below.
Regarding Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17
"Purposes of Act
1 The purposes of this Act are to provide protection for residential tenants from unlawful rent increases and unlawful evictions, to establish a framework for the regulation of residential rents, to balance the rights and responsibilities of residential landlords and tenants and to provide for the adjudication of disputes and for other processes to informally resolve disputes. 2006, c. 17, s. 1."
None of that negates the other Bylaws and OBC. I don't think a residential occupancy is even allowed to be permitted where the intended use is as described.... 1.3.3.2 and 1.3.3.4 both expressly say "has no accommodations for tourists" and a change in use would require notification under the act.
I believe all this is the real "problem" we are trying to fix. As was said over and over at the meetings anyone who cares enough to be at those meetings and to be on this forum is probably not any part of the problem. I agree with that sentiment. There is a gap and it needs to be resolved in a fair way.
Further to this: the position taken by the Province in the Ontario "Home Sharing Guide for Municipalities" (posted elsewhere on this forum) under the discussion of regulatory levers was that it was within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Act to define and restrict through licensing, zoning, limitation to principal residences, incorporation into B&B bylaws, limiting consecutive days, setting maximum annual days, limiting number of guests and identifying specific allowed and disallowed buildings etc (pages 12-14). So regardless there is an ability to so legislate. The Toronto City Planning Appeal for their bylaw that began today will shed light on this I suspect. They also discussed the issues related to each of these.
Right. They have the right to license,zone, limit etc. But saying we are current violating bylaws is not necessarily correct. I think we are all in favour of licencing. Regulations however, will need to be worked out. I wasn't impressed with the way this was presented to us, and some reactions were not good. Legal is not a term that should be used!
The consultant said yesterday more than once, in the clearest of terms, consistent with the written bylaw that STA other than B&B are a non-comforming use and therefore not allowed. It is, I understand, a red flag to say not legal but this is a technical fact. It was further clarified that a change in use would be triggered if a residence was converted. When I built I read the laws and bylaws local, provincial and federal, including OBC, CEC and Fire. I looked at it all. I found the surveyors notes for the property and acquired the patent that was granted. I then spoke to counsel and experts about it all. I did so to understand my rights AND my obligations. Legal frameworks are all we have to enforce action when hope is exhausted and hope is in my experience in the long term an awful strategy. So this stuff does matter and it should to STA operators too, to know that you are secure, and will not have something ripped out from underneath you because you have a clear legal framework. For my part I did not sign up to live next to a boarding house, or hotel. I knew that a B&B was allowed and what the restrictions were. So we have to deal with the facts and get onto sorting this. As I said no one talking here is the problem. We need to recognize the facts however to understand what needs to be addressed. STA's that are not B&B in NBP are non conforming and therefore not legal (since the Bylaw is indeed a law) (unless a zoning exemption exists for some odd specific case).
NBP Current Bylaw copied verbatim below.
Note use of words "No person shall... except one or more of the following uses".
This is unambiguous.
The start of the bylaw sets out the authority : "AND WHEREAS authority is granted under Section 34 of The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, to the Council of the Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula to exercise such powers".
So this IS about law.
SECTION 12 - R1 - PROVISIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONE 1 (DETACHED RESIDENTIAL)
12.1 USES PERMITTED No person shall within the R1 Zone use any lot or erect, alter or use any building or structure for any purpose except for one or more of the following uses:
-a detached dwelling
-Group Home – Type 1
-Home Based Business - Bed and breakfast establishment in accordance with Section 6.11
-Home Based Business - Professional Uses in accordance with Section 6.7
-Home Based Business - Domestic and household arts in accordance with Section 6.8
-Home Based Business - Contractors and Trade Persons in accordance with Section 6.10
-buildings, structures and uses accessory to a permitted use in accordance with Section 6.3
6.11 HOME BASED BUSINESS - BED AND BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENT
6.11.1 Where permitted by this by-law, a bed and breakfast establishment will be subject to the following provisions. The lot and detached dwelling in which the bed and breakfast establishment is located must meet all the requirements of the zone in which it is located.
6.11.2 No person, other than members of the family who operate and reside in the establishment shall be employed except as is necessary for housekeeping purposes.
6.11.3 Each guest room shall have a minimum floor area of 10.5 m2 (113 ft2 ).
6.11.4 Guest rooms are not permitted within an attic.
6.11.5 No bed and breakfast establishment shall provide more than 3 guest rooms for overnight accommodation.
6.11.6 No food or drink shall be offered or kept for sale for persons who are not guests of the establishment.
6.11.7 In addition to the two parking spaces a detached dwelling is required to have by this by-law, a Bed and Breakfast Establishment shall provide one parking space for each guest room.
6.11.8 A sign shall be permitted provided such sign is not greater than 0.4 m2 in area (4 ft2 ). 6.11.9 Maximum number of occupants or guests, in addition to staff and host family, permitted to stay within a Bed and Breakfast Establishment - eight (8).
6.11.10 All Bed and Breakfast establishments must be licensed by the corporation.
Not too many ways to read that. The language is pretty clear.
@C
So C.. You are saying that renting long term is also "illegal"? Its not written in the bylaws...
No I am not saying that at all. The nuance here is around running a transactional home based business for the travelling public which is limited by the bylaw with commercial types of activity for home based business being enumerated vs renting or leasing a home. I was just pointing out the issues that need to be addressed. If we do not talk about what needs to be fixed and addressed then we will continue to debate what is allowed. We need to at least identify the discrepancies and then move onto how we address them. Clearly you can lease or rent your home. Here the bylaw sets out home based business restrictions in certain zones. So when does one become the other? Whole home vs bedrooms? Duration - Primary residence consistent with single unit dwelling intent vs travelling public and effective suites in some cases.. There is a need to have clarity. Then outside of bylaws there are issues in so far as building permits, occupancy permits, change of use requirements. I am only saying that we need to be clear about the where we are starting.