Vacation rentals: report and recommendations of the APC

March 28, 2004

 

Summary

The APC does not recommend the general reversal of earlier decisions to prohibit short‑term vacation rentals (STVRs). We believe that this use of residential housing is contrary to the spirit and intent of the OCP. However, we suggest that there are limited and clearly defined instances where short‑term rentals may be acceptable.

 

We recommend that:

 

1. two categories of STVRs be allowed, namely:

∑      rental by the occupant, of a primary residence temporarily vacated, with regulation as outlined, and

∑      rental of a seasonal cottage as a home‑based business, where the main residence is occupied as primary residence by owner or tenant, with regulation as outlined;

 

2.    other categories of STVRs remain illegal;

3.    a comprehensive review and revision be conducted with respect to allowed uses of seasonal cottages;

4.    bylaw prohibitions regarding STVRs be enforced; and that

5.     the question of present and future balance between tourist and residential accommodation capacity be addressed in the upcoming OCP review.

 

There was a fairly wide range of opinion within the APC. We achieved consensus on some categories and issues, and voted on others.

 

Information sources

 

In preparing this document we have considered:

 

∑      the report of the Salt Spring Island Vacation Rentals Subcommittee (VRSC);

∑      input from the public, in the form of written submissions to the VRSC and the APC, as well as verbal statements at the public meeting held by the VRSC;

∑      evidence, both formal and anecdotal, from other communities, largely through websites;

∑      summary and analytical material provided by Trust staff.

 

A large number of arguments on economic, social and environmental bases have been presented, and extensive survey and tabular data summaries from various sources have been compiled. While we have considered these, we do not believe they p rovide a solid basis for extrapolation to predict the future impact of STVRs on Salt Spring with an acceptable degree of certainty.

 

Some reasons for this are:

∑      lack of repeatability: results may be expected to be strongly dependent on baseline conditions in place at that time;

∑      lack of comparability: communities containing STVRs differ with respect to many attributes, such as accessibility, tourism pressure, social structure, land use regulations and community values;

∑      difficulty of obtaining either a complete inventory or an unbiased sample of STVRs and STVR neighbours.

 

Guiding principles

 

We developed a list of principles to guide us, and assessed each category of STVR accordingly.

 

Our guiding principles are to:

1.     maintain a healthy, strong and viable community;

2.     retain island housing for island residents, to the maximum extent possible;

3.     recognise and support the spirit and principles of the OCP;

4.     ensure fairness: develop clear criteria, apply rules equitably, minimize case‑by‑case

         consideration;

5.     respect zoning‑based expectations;

6.     optimise balance of social/environmental/economic values (triple bottom line concept); and

7.     support home‑based business.

 

Discussion

Summaries contained in the VRSC report were extensive and thorough, and presented both sides of each argument. We see no need to repeat them here, but encourage the reader to consult that report. In its discussions the APC slightly modified the STVR categories developed by the VRSC (see tables, Recommendations section). The APC achieved consensus on some categories and issues, and voted on others, as indicated.

 

It is the opinion of the APC that evidence presented fails to show that the economic, environmental and social impact of commercial stand‑alone STVRs on the community as a whole is likely to be beneficial, or even neutral, in the short or long term. While there are clear benefits for the owners of STVRs, and for the tourists who rent them, it has not been clearly demonstrated that the net effect of STVRs on the community is positive, even at low numbers. At higher numbers, it is generally accepted even by many proponents of STVRs that negative effects on the community would be increasingly evident.

 

As the APC does not find the arguments in favour of commercial STVRs convincing, we do not recommend the general reversal of earlier decisions taken by the community, and reflected in the OCP, that prohibit stand‑alone STVRs. While we recognise that there are existing, albeit illegal, STVRs that cause no problems, we do not feel that there is sufficient justification to allow them in residential neighbourhoods. The APC believes, however, that there are two specific instances where consideration could be given to allowing short‑term rentals.

The first instance is that of a permanent resident who wishes to rent to vacationers while s/he is temporarily absent. This practice is currently not legal. Restrictions should apply with regard to the duration and number of rental parties (see Regulatory framework).

 

Table 1. Vacation rental categories recommended for acceptance
	[ rental unit	supervision	vote (for)
	house that is a primary residence* (during temporary absence of resident)	variable; resident may be: a) present on property, in cottage ** b) elsewhere on island c) off island	consensus
	cottage (house is primary residence)	on-site supervision; resident present in house	consensus
* "primary residence" means home of person residing for at least six months per calendar year; may be owner or renter ** contingent on revision of seasonal cottage regulations. When rezoning as housing unit, it has been suggested that each seasonal cottage be formally designated as either "affordable housing" or "other/short-term rental"   Table 2. Vacation rental categories not recommended for acceptance
	rental unit	supervision	[ vote (against:for)
	house; not primary residence	on site supervision; hired manager on property	5:2 (1 abstain)
	house; not primary residence	supervision on island, not on site	6:3
	house; not primary residence	supervision not on island	consensus
	cottage	supervision on island, not on site	6:3
	cottage	supervision not on island	consensus
	house (cottage is primary residence)	on site supervision	6:1

 

2.       The APC recommends that a review of the regulatory framework surrounding seasonal cottages take place. It is assumed in these recommendations that such a review will result in liberalizing allowed usages. These usages may include, in some form:

 

∑      long‑term rental as affordable housing;

∑      other long‑term rental;

∑      occasional occupancy by owner, even if owner does not "have a permanent residence elsewhere" (currently prohibited under Bylaw 355);

∑      short‑term rental (STVR) as a home‑based business (in parallel with existing B&B regulations).

 

3.       The APC recommends that bylaw prohibitions regarding STVRs be enforced. The Islands Trust should clearly state this intention, and should also state that enforcement will not be driven by complaints alone.

 

The APC recommends that the question of present and future balance between tourist and residential accommodation capacity be addressed in the upcoming OCP review.

 

Regulatory framework

 

We believe that neither licenses nor TUPs are necessary or desirable for regulation of the categories of STVRs recommended for approval. Both of these mechanisms, when coupled with numerical caps, would in effect grant a favoured status for a limited number of operations, and conflict with principle # 4 regarding fairness and equitable application of rules.

 

We suggest the following.

 

Category 1: Short‑term rental of a primary residence by the occupant

 

∑ limit number of rental parties to a maximum of two short‑term renter groups in a calendar year. This will effectively limit the total annual duration of short‑term rental to less than 60 days;

∑ Islands Trust to maintain registry list, possibly including:

∑ address of property,

∑ name of permanent resident,

∑ date of rental(s), and

∑ name of proposed short‑term renter(s);

∑ regulate through bylaw;

∑ control through municipal ticketing.

 

Category 2: Rental of a seasonal cottage

 

∑ operate as home based business;

∑ cottage formally designated as "other/short‑term rental".

 

Suggested referencs

 

Brookes, R.G. 2000. Vacation Rentals, Improved Subdivisions and the Florida Keys: Property Right or Incompatible Land Use. Prepared for ELULS, The Environmental and Land Use Law Section of The Florida Bar. http://www.eluls.orq/iuly2000_brookes .html

 

Correspondence file on vacation rentals. May be viewed at Islands Trust office.

 

Final Report of the Salt Spring Island Vacation Rentals Subcommittee. 2003. Submitted to the Advisory Planning Commission, Salt Spring Island. 24 p.

 

District of Tofino http://wwwtofino.ca/siteenqine/ActivePage. asp? Page ID28 committees > Vacation Rental Review

 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 2003. Memorandum: Consideration of Proposed Vacation Rental Policy by ‑the Local Government Committee. http://www.trpa.orq/GBFiles/december2003qb/Aqenda%2OItem%201X.A.pdf

 

Other background materials and reference sheets on vacation rentals may also be viewed at the Salt Spring Islands Trust office.