Revelstoke city proposes new vacation rental rules

The City of Revelstoke is proposing new vacation rental rules for Revelstoke that would allow vacation rentals in all single-family zones, as well as in duplexes and homes with suites.

The proposed regulations would only allow short-term rentals in single-family dwellings or two-family homes, and the new rules would require a permanent resident to live in the home being rented. A business licence will be required.

However, rentals would be allowed in multi-family developments in comprehensive development zones, such as Mackenzie Village, but vacation rentals there will also require a business licence.

“The main intent of this is to ensure any multi-family residential building currently is maintained for permanent resident occupation, so we aren’t losing those, so we aren’t losing those key multi-family developments in the city to our rental pool, so they aren’t being used for short term rental operations,” said city assistant planner Paul Simon at a Feb. 11 committee meeting.

The proposed changes would limit the number of rental rooms in a house to four and cap occupancy at eight people. The proposed bylaw would also require one parking spot per licenced bedroom, in addition to any other parking requirements, such as for another suite on the property.

Vacation rentals would be allowed in some commercial zones, but a 24-hour property management company would be required.

Existing short-term rentals that were legalized under the spot-zoning process would be allowed to continue and would not be required to have a permanent resident on site, but they would still be limited to the existing 120 days per year. Under the new rules, other vacation rentals would not be limited to 120 days, although there would remain the requirement for someone to live on site.

Signage will not be permitted.

Although often referred to as ‘vacation rentals,’ a terminology transition to ‘short-term rentals’ is planned.

At the Feb. 11 committee discussion, councillors focused on information questions, seeking to understand the proposed policy.

Tax implications of the plan weren’t detailed. Councillor Rob Elliott expressed concern that the city cost to provide the services for vacation rentals would not be recouped through the residential tax it collects for them.

At a Feb. 11 committee meeting, council decided against enhanced public outreach on the proposed changes, including a public information meeting and an informational video. Instead, they opted for a FAQ to be posted to an “online platform.” The plan is to bring the bylaw to council in March and hold a public hearing after that date. City staff also indicated they wanted to try out a new online engagement platform for the consultation.

Enforcement an open question

City staff is proposing three-month grace period once the bylaw is enacted, after which point the city plans to take enforcement measures. In the past, the city has said many times that enforcement is a challenge. Staff didn’t elaborate on how enforcement would work.

More to come. Read up

Council will discuss the proposed rules again at its Feb. 23 meeting. This story is a summary of the rules; check out more details in a city report here. You can also check out a video of the Feb. 11 meeting here.

This story is just a brief overview of the high points. Because the details of the policy greatly impact whether it will achieve goals, you’ll have to read the background documents to follow along. Currently, the policy is presented as revisions to existing policy, making it a bit challenging to understand. However, it seems decisions will come in the next month or two, so now’s the time to pay attention.

A day before council is set to meet to discuss the issue, there were no presentation documents on the Feb. 23 council agenda, although it may be added later, such as in March.

Analysis

The devil, as they say, is in the details, and that’s true for the vacation rentals issue.

What will the impact of the proposed changes be? How will it affect the number of vacation rentals in Revelstoke? Will it increase or decrease the number of vacation rentals, many of them currently illegal? What about the issue of taxation, a thorny one for hoteliers, who complain of competing against lower-taxed vacation rentals? At the Feb. 11 meeting, there wasn’t much in the way of analysis on the forecasted impact the changes will have on the housing, and staff alluded to future fees changes for vacation rentals, but no real specifics were provided.

They did say the policy was directed at achieving a series of policy goals, but a fulsome explanation of exactly how it will is still pending.

There are diverse interests in the vacation rental issue in Revelstoke. The hoteliers generally want them closed. (In fact, the Revelstoke Chamber of Commerce and the B.C. Hotel Association have both submitted letters lobbying against vacation rentals added to the Feb. 23 agenda.) Locally, there is significant behind-the-scenes jockeying between the hoteliers and the growing vacation rental industry, as the newer kid on the block vies for a bigger voice at the accommodation table.

The vacation rentals issue draws significant public interest. Residents who rely on them to make ends meet in a rapidly gentrifying community want to continue earning a living, but the rule changes may prohibit them from continuing. Many others have been waiting for years for city policy clarification before submitting new applications. Bedraggled vacation rental neighbours complaining about noise and parking issues want a good night’s sleep. Vacation rental managers want to grow their businesses. And generally, residents who are concerned about the rapidly changing character of their community and neighbourhoods are interested in the issue.

Staff said they’d done outreach on the issue as they developed their plans, but was the process representative? Did the consultation disproportionately draw existing commercial interests, such as hoteliers, vacation rental managers and vacation rental owners? Do everyday residents feel engaged and informed?

The city says it plans to use new engagement software through the process, something revelstokemountaineer.com has advocated for in editorials before as a part solution to the city’s dysfunctional consultation processes. Although a B.C.-based option that had a Revelstoke-based staff member was available, the city has opted for a similar Australia-based service, Bang the Table.

The right change?

The proposed new policy is a change, but city staff and council’s challenge will be convincing residents that what they are proposing is the right change for Revelstoke now and into the future.

Council will discuss the plan again at their Feb. 23 meeting, which is available on YouTube.