BarrieToday welcomes letters to the editor at [email protected]. Please include your daytime phone number and address (for verification of authorship, not publication). The following is in response to 'LETTER: Balanced approach, not 'overreaching ban' needed in Oro-Medonte, says agency owner,' published April 9.
*************************
A resident from Seguin Township recently wrote a letter to the editor about short-term rentals in Oro-Medonte. Ms. McCaw operates a profitable rental agency business that rents high-end cottages on a short-term basis. The company has listings for more than 250 properties, one of which rents for $85,000 per week with many renting for $30,000 to $50,000 per week.
A conservative estimate of the annual rental income is well over $5 million per year. Ms. McCaw advertises that her agency provides a wide range of concierge services including private chef, shopping, massage, yoga, hot tub, boats, gym equipment, and car service. A media article quotes her describing her rental business as “It’s like a mini version of the Four Seasons.”
Ms. McCaw is advocating for a ‘balanced approach’ to regulating short-term rentals in Oro-Medonte. Oro-Medonte has already followed the balanced approach to planning just like the Town of The Blue Mountains.
Since 2009, The Blue Mountains does not permit short-term accommodations in lower density residential zones but does allow them in designated zones where they do not conflict with residential neighbourhoods. The Ontario Municipal Board, a decision upheld on appeal to the Divisional Court, approved this approach as “a reasonable and legitimate response to the residents’ concerns and is consistent with good planning practice.”
If the board and the court think it is good planning then The Blue Mountains must have taken a balanced approach. In 2014, Oro-Medonte followed the same path. Short-term rentals are permitted in Oro-Medonte, but they are confined to dwelling units which are located in the V1 Zone and in the agriculture/rural and private recreation zones.
Just like the balanced approach of The Blue Mountains, short-term rentals are not permitted in residential zones in Oro-Medonte. This remains unchanged by the recent Ontario Land Tribunal ruling.
The same is true in nearby Clearview and Carling townships where the zoning does not permit short-term rentals in residential zones. This has been in place for some time. Ms. McCaw also fails to mention that in her own home township of Seguin short-term cottage rentals are not permitted.
Lobbyists for the short-term rental industry would like you to believe that there are only a few problematic ‘party houses’ that create nuisance and noise problems in Oro-Medonte.
First, there are many problem properties, not just a few. There are more than 35 properties, and likely more than 40 properties that have been repeatedly reported to the Ontario Provincial Police, to municipal law enforcement, and to emergency services. Given there was a total of 192 active and inactive short-term rentals (in Oro-Medonte) appearing on the Internet in 2019, more than 20 per cent of the active short-term rentals in Oro-Medonte have been a living nightmare for nearby homeowners.
Secondly, the lobbyists' mantra, ‘just shut down the party houses’ sounds attractive. Yet it ignores the fact that any short-term rental could become a ‘party house’. There are no labels on the ‘party houses.’
Advertising anonymously in the Internet means that any day the surrounding neighbours could be disrupted. It is the transients who actually arrive that determines whether a home will be turned into a party house or worse. Even high-end rentals are not without risks to the neighbours. Otherwise, Ms. McCaw wouldn’t require a $20,000 damage deposit in her short-term rental contract.
Thirdly, the lobbyists think that we can solve all of our short-term rental problems by enforcing nuisance and noise by-laws. The lobbyists never mention the paramount concern, safety. Home owners do not feel safe in their own homes when there are transients nearby. They lock their doors even when they are outside in their yard.
In her testimony before the Ontario Land Tribunal, Ms. McCaw suggested home owners should just call the police if there are problems. Yet if they report problems to municipal law enforcement or to the Ontario Provincial Police, home owners fear, and have become the target of, reprisals. Many even fear appearing as witnesses as well.
Home owners dread the arrival of each new cycle of strangers next door. Yet the lobbyists don’t even acknowledge safety or security issues.
Even municipal law enforcement officers are fearful of attending disruptive short-term rental sites at night. They have stated that they think the OPP should handle the problems because, unlike municipal law enforcement, the OPP have the skills and resources for use-of-force response and the power to detain.
Can you imagine how the neighbours feel? Home owners are vulnerable and have been needlessly exposed to danger for a long time. Safety and security are paramount considerations in residential neighbourhoods. That’s why hotels that provide temporary accommodations are in commercial zones, and people’s residences are in separate residential zones. Avoiding conflicts by separating incompatible uses is good planning.
The lobbyists want an exception for cottage owners because they need a little extra money and have rented in the past without a problem. Once home owners realize they could end up with a nightmare next door, the concept of creating an exception quickly loses its appeal.
That’s because any exception to the existing prohibition would weaken our zoning bylaw, not strengthen it. We would be right back where we were five years ago – the wild west with unscrupulous operators disrupting with impunity.
Create an exception and the operators, some of whom are making more than $100,000 per year, will claim to be a casual operator just renting to family, friends and neighbours. They want to keep the party going.
If an exception is made, neighbours and the Township would have to prove that the property was used for more than ‘casual’ rental purposes. This would make any enforcement action much more difficult if not impossible.
Creating an exception would leave every home owner vulnerable and unprotected. Land use planning is about avoiding conflicts not creating them. An exception that allows disruptive operators to continue is not good planning.
Other municipalities have already figured this out. There are no exceptions for casual rentals in Blue Mountains, Clearview, Carling or Seguin townships. There are no distinctions made in these municipalities between casual rentals, or for those that are rented continuously or rentals for a week or more. All are prohibited in these municipalities in residential zones.
Short-term rentals are the single biggest threat that our residential neighbourhoods have ever faced.
Ms. McCaw agreed under oath that she would not want to live next to one of the short-term rentals described by three witnesses at the Ontario Land Tribunal. We agree and the mayor agrees, too.
On Dec. 8, 2021, he told council that short-term rentals are incompatible with residential use. No one wants to live next to a short-term rental — that’s because any day, any one of us could end up living the nightmare. For some, that nightmare has gone on for more than five years. The time is long past due to put an end to short-term rentals disrupting our lives.
Bryn Pressnail
Oro-Medonte
*************************
