Isabel Mosseler
Tribune
The town’s proposed Short Term Rental Accommodations (STRA) bylaw, a second draft of which was presented at the March 5th West Nipissing council meeting, may prove as contentious as the trailer bylaw in the previous two years. An ad hoc committee was struck to devise a proposal, which ended up being somewhat shredded by council members Fern Pellerin (Verner) and Jérôme Courchesne (Lavigne) as being too restrictive as they shared questions and concerns from their constituents.
The Tribune also heard several concerns from STRA operators choosing not to go on the record, with a few feeling that council was on a “power trip.” The proposed bylaw contains a list of licensing fees, restrictions, obligations and penalties for non-compliance, all imposed on a sector that has operated without specific municipal regulation thus far. One STRA owner told the Tribune that the restrictions will limit who can purchase waterfront property, as many buyers depend on their STRA to mitigate their mortgages.
When council members were asked for comments on the draft, Coun. Pellerin started with, “Where to begin? I find this policy so restrictive. (…) On point 52.2, proof of insurance. We don’t ask that of a lodge or tourist operators. Why are we nitpicking so many places?” Clerk Melanie Ducharme responded that when the town issues licenses for food carts or vehicles-for-hire, proof of insurance is requested. “There is some liability”, and the municipality wants to be assured of both insurance and fitness of the rental accommodation, she stressed.
Pellerin was not convinced, pointing to other areas he felt were overreaching. “And a site plan? Does that mean the owner has to go and hire somebody to get a site plan approval?” He was told that it would be the same as for building permits, where the ratepayer would provide a sketch of their property indicating where the building was located. Pellerin went further about expectations that the parking surface be paved, concrete or gravel. “The property is already there (…), it’s my problem if [the tenant] makes tracks. How come we go so far?” Ducharme responded that the paragraph was consistent with the current zoning bylaw.
Pellerin then asked about the conditions for use of a private road by STRA renters. “What’s the difference between having a house on the private road, a cottage, or a short-term rental?” The response had to do with private road maintenance being an agreement between the landowners on that road. “If the road is built over top of somebody’s property who has granted the right-of-way to the owner of that particular dwelling, in this case the owner is then extending that right to paying customers (…) The [road] owner is only providing right-of-way to the [STRA] owner – not a bunch of other people. This has come up as a complaint and a couple of service requests […regarding] reckless use of the road,” Ducharme explained.
Coun. Roch St-Louis said he understood the issue of private roads being open to emergency service vehicles, but asked “wouldn’t some of that just fall on the owner and the insurance of the person that owns (…) the short term rental? (…) It should be advertised in the short-term rental agreement,” he posited, also noting that STRAs on islands have no road access at all. Stephan Poulin, Director of Community & Social Services, explained, “If you’re on a private road and want to do a STRA, you have to get the consent of everyone else on that road. (…) We’re just saying that before the municipality issues that license (…) get all your neighbours’ permission to be able to attract your clients using that private road.”
It was conceded that all provisions were open to discussion and change.
Coun. Courchesne commented that he had several residents in his area raise issues with him. “They made some very valid points. (…) We need to strike a balance on safety and welfare of residents and the enjoyment of the properties, the environmental aspect of it and making sure that our waterways (…) don’t get the blue-green algae blooms starting in the end of June. (…) If we accept it as is right now, we’re going a little too hard. Some of the businesses have been operating legitimately over the past 15-20 years, and they are residents of the area as well. Have we reviewed the grandfather clause?”
