Based on Facebook reaction to the agenda that was posted to its website Friday, Oro-Medonte Township’s council meeting this Wednesday will be one residents who follow the township’s short term rental accommodation issue won’t want to miss.
There are two reports being delivered by George Vadeboncoeur, the township’s manager, planning, special projects.
The first one is called Public comments and recommendations on draft short term rental accommodation and bed and breakfast establishments licensing bylaw. The second one is called Options to address zoning matters raised during short term rental accommodation (STRA) and bed and breakfast (B&B) licensing bylaw public consultation.
According to Vadeboncoeur’s second report, questions arose about applicability of the Ontario Land Tribunal/Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision dismissing the Township’s attempt to introduce the definition of “commercial accommodation”.
On March 22, 2024, Oro-Medonte Township and the Oro-Medonte Good Neighbours Alliance’s appeal of an OLT decision regarding short-term rental accommodations in the municipality was dismissed.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice said it dismissed the appeal because there was no procedural unfairness, and the OLT was correct in its interpretation of the existing zoning bylaw and made no error in law in finding the 2020 bylaw did not represent good planning.
“As Council is aware, the OLT rescinded the amending by-law and the Superior Court supported the OLT decision,” Vadeboncoeur wrote. “Staff interprets the decision as Court recognition that the current zoning bylaw prohibits commercial accommodation in dwelling units, but states it must be something “other than simply renting a dwelling unit for money.”
Vadeboncoeur said the Court goes on to suggest that the term “commercial accommodation” in the current definition of dwelling unit, “… could mean that temporary accommodation provided as part of an ongoing commercial enterprise akin to a hotel, motel, resort or bed and breakfast are prohibited as commercial accommodations” but provides no further guidance to differentiate use or define.”
Vadeboncoeur said the current STRA framework interprets this decision to mean that owners that advertise their dwelling units as STRAs are providing commercial accommodation and need to have proper zoning in place.
Conversely, owners that rent occasionally and do not advertise are permitted to rent their dwellings.
“This has been a difficult concept to explain as some view the OLT/Divisional Court decision to mean that all types of STRAs are permitted in residentially zoned areas,” Vadeboncoeur said. “Some may feel strong enough and seek a further court ruling to confirm their position.”
He said the ambiguity in recent court decisions would be subject to legal interpretation.
Vadeboncoeur’s second report provides township council with 5 options to consider:
- Maintain the current provisions in the zoning bylaw whereby STRAs are only permitted in the V1 (Horseshoe Resort Condos) and R2*123 (Carriage Hills and Carriage Ridge developments) zones. Owners of STRAs in other areas of the township would require a site-specific zoning amendment to permit the operation of an STRA on the property. STRAs that do not advertise would continue to be permitted and be subject to all municipal regulatory by-laws.
- Township to initiate a zoning bylaw amendment that would permit STRAs as a secondary use on properties zoned agricultural/rural (A/RU), mineral aggregate resource two (MAR2), private recreation (PR), village 1 (V1) and residential two exception 123 (R2*123) zones based on “on-farm diversified uses (OFDU) principles outlined by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.” OFDUs are identified in the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 as one of three categories of uses permitted in Ontario’s prime agricultural areas. They may be related to agriculture, supportive of agriculture, or able to co-exist with agriculture as the primary use in agricultural areas. Introducing STRAs as a secondary use in the rural area would mirror the township’s approach to B&Bs, which are permitted as of right in the (A/RU) and (PR) Zones.
- Township would enact a zoning bylaw amendment that would permit STRAs as a secondary use for all zones that permit dwelling units as a main use. This would include all residential zones, Agricultural/Rural Zones, Mineral Aggregate Resource Two Zone, Private Recreation Zone, and Village One Zone. This is similar to what the Township of Tiny did when it amended its zoning bylaw to introduce regulations that permit STRAs in any zone that allows a dwelling unit as a permitted use.
- A – Township to enact a temporary use zoning bylaw amendment under Section 39 of the Planning Act that would permit STRAs as a secondary use for all zones across the Township that permit dwelling units as a primary use for a period up to three (3) years. This would function as a trial period and would include all residential zones, Agricultural/Rural Zones, Mineral Aggregate Resource Two Zone, Private Recreation Zone, and Village One Zone.
B – This option is similar to Option 1, but Council, as a matter of policy would only consider site specific temporary use applications to permit STRAs for a period up to three years. Individual property owners would have to apply for an extension to the temporary use or permanent use prior to the temporary period ending.
Two of the options proposed amendments to the zoning regime be made so that STRAs would become a legal permitted use in all residential zones.