The Town of Innisfil received 400 letters in support of Official Plan and zoning-bylaw amendments that would remove current occupancy restrictions at Friday Harbour Resort.
The letters represent 660 residents at the resort, who say the current limitations – preventing them from occupying their units for more than 185 consecutive days, and more than 300 days in a year – impact their enjoyment of their condominium properties, and create problems when it comes to financing and resale.
But the Planning Act meeting, held online this week, also heard from Innisfil residents opposed to easing the restrictions, expressing concerns that it would create more pressure on local schools, health services and other amenities.
Senior town planner Steve Montgomery presented amendments requested by the Friday Harbour Resort Association that would redefine Friday Harbour’s residential units as “four seasons” rather than “non-permanent” in the Official Plan, and remove all references to “non-permanent occupancy” and “restricted occupancy” in the zoning bylaw.
The changes would allow property owners to occupy their units 365 days a year.
Montgomery acknowledged that the units are already designed to be occupied year-round; the restriction is on the owners of the units, who must leave, lease or loan out the properties to non-family members 65 days a year.
The restrictions were put in place initially to ensure that Friday Harbour would be developed as a resort, he noted; there was no discount in terms of development charges paid by the developer or property taxes paid by home owners, relating to the occupancy restrictions.
In addition to the letters, the town received correspondence from InnServices, relating to water and wastewater servicing for Friday Harbour, and from the County of Simcoe, which promised to work with town staff to look at possible impacts on the Growth Plan, and ensure that the lands will continue to be used as a resort.
Both the Simcoe County District School Board and Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board expressed concerns that “there may be unforeseen accommodation pressures in local schools as a result of the proposed amendments,” since there are no school sites within Friday Harbour and nearby schools are at capacity.
The applicant was represented by Cheryl Shindruk, executive vice-president with Geranium, co-developer of Friday Harbour Resort; James DiRenzo – president and CEO of Friday Harbour and president of the Friday Harbour Association, representing five condominium associations; Don Given of Malone Given Parsons; and international planner Steven Rhys.
“The occupancy restriction has been a source of concern for homeowners since Day 1,” said DiRenzo.
The restriction has a negative impact on their way of life and on new buyers looking for financing, he said, asking council “to allow homeowners to freely use their units.”
Given noted that the units can be occupied 365 days of the year - just not by the owners. The zoning bylaw puts “restrictions on an owner, but not on the amount of time the unit can be occupied.”
Given suggested there should be no concern that the changes will impact the town’s Growth Plan population allocations.
“This is not a settlement area – this is a resort, in a rural area,” he said; there are no plans to become a settlement area.
He noted that if the aim of the occupancy restriction was to ensure that Friday Harbour would be developed as a resort, “the character and the function are now in place and well-established,” and there is a commitment from the developer “to build a resort that will be unparalleled anywhere around the lake.”
Given told council that what has been built to date represents an $850 million investment. “By build-out it will be $2 billion,” he said, while warning, “the full scale of the opportunity cannot be realized without the restrictions being removed.”
Rhys noted that in just 5 years, Friday Harbour has developed as a world class resort, with its boardwalk village retail opportunities, and “unique waterfront experience.”
“In our opinion… Friday Harbour is an unqualified checkmark for being a resort,” Rhys said, with no need for occupancy restrictions. Changing occupancy rules would have “very little impact” on the ability of the resort to maintain its character, but a big impact on residents, financing and future sales.
Coun. Alex Waters asked for a timeline for construction of a hotel and conference centre at Friday Harbour.
“We are working diligently on the hotel piece,” Shindruk replied, but “COVID has struck quite a blow to the hotel sector… It’s a priority, and we’re working as diligently as possible on it.”
Coun. Kevin Eisses asked why the 300-day limit had been put in place to begin with.
“The 300-day rule, and it’s much more intricate and complicated than that… was put in place to ensure that it would not develop as a traditional residential subdivision,” Shindruk explained.
With the same goal, the town also insisted on phasing – requiring that Phase One construction, of the marina and harbourmaster building, be completed before any residential units could be built, she said. Now that the character of the resort is established, the occupancy restrictions stand in the way of sales, full build-out of the resort, and the full tax benefit to the municipality.
Coun. Carolyn Payne was concerned about a potential demand for schools if property owners are allowed to reside at Friday Harbour year-round.
“We don’t anticipate the resort is going to generate pupils,” Shindruk responded. The resort lifestyle is “not exactly conducive to raising families,” she said. “It’s a place to come and play and recreate…. There would be no need for a school.”
More than 31 residents registered to speak at the meeting, but only 11 signed in on Zoom.
Shel Goldstein, a Big Bay Point resident, spoke in opposition to the amendments, arguing that the removal of restrictions would change Friday Harbour “from a resort to a condominium complex.”
The units should be equivalent to cottages, and “who needs to live at their cottage more than 300 days in a year?” she said.
Goldstein suggested the “drive for this change is about the banks, about financing,” and called for some other way to achieve the same result, without eliminating occupancy rules – such as removing the restriction on 185 days of consecutive occupancy, while keeping the 300-day limit.
Megan Varga also opposed the application.
“Out of principle, I am against the proposed changes,” said Varga, calling for details of the original agreement to be made public “so that all parties have all the necessary information to make an educated decision.”
She called it “terrifying” that a development of the magnitude of Friday Harbour was exempt from the Lake Simcoe Protection Act, because it was “grandfathered in.” (The OMB approved the Big Bay Point Resort in 2007; the Lake Simcoe Protection Act wasn’t passed until 2009.)
She urged council to “at least go through the motions to ensure this change doesn’t have any further negative impacts on Lake Simcoe.”
Varga also called the school boards’ comments “quite discouraging.” She argued that once owners can reside in their units 365 days a year, there will be more children living at Friday Harbour.
“Where are the children going to go?” she demanded.
Finally, she asked if the town, county and Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority would have approved the development “if it was marketed as 365 occupancy?”
Michelle Simpson also expressed concerns over the potential overcrowding of local schools, and questioned what other amenities might be demanded by year-round residents, from medical facilities to community centres.
“What are the unintended consequences of saying this is now a year-round residence?” asked Bob Dudley, who said he has supported Friday Harbour in the past. “I’m looking to council to do that due diligence. I think we have to look at it from the bigger picture.”
An equal number of speakers supported the amendments.
The 300-day limit on occupancy “poses a problem to new owners,” said Friday Harbour resident Derron Lyn, describing the difficulty of finding financing.
Anna D’Alessandro told the meeting that she feels “very strongly” that the occupancy restrictions should be removed. “The only people being impacted are the homeowners,” D’Alessandro said, noting that the units can already be occupied 365 days of the year – but not by the owners.
“I’m paying full taxes, like any cottager, only I’m not allowed to occupy,” she said.
Jennifer Khemai supported removing the restrictions to allow condo owners “to enjoy our substantial investment.” The restricted occupancy rule, she said, “is negatively affecting homeowners within this resort,” and discouraging new owners.
Pauline Niles called for removal of restrictions that she said place an added burden on the owners. Niles noted that not only do condo owners pay their full taxes, they also pay resort fees levied to support the amenities and maintain the common property, condo fees to pay for services like garbage removal and snow-plowing, and contribute towards a reserve fund, to cover replacement costs.
On top of that, residents are forced to find alternative accommodation 65 days of the year, she said.
Friday Harbour is a “self-sufficient community,” Niles noted, providing economic benefit and employment opportunities to the town. The occupancy restriction “just prevents the unit owner from enjoying his or her unit 365 days;” removing the restriction would “promote future sales, generating future revenues.”
Friday Harbour resident Catherine Brassard argued that rather than young families, many buyers are of retirement age, interested in a resort setting that offers fine dining, golf, swimming, boating and hiking, in a welcoming setting.
“We found this in Innisfil,” Brassard said. She suggested that the short-term air bnb rentals that are currently “problematic” are encouraged by the occupancy restrictions.
Brassard did add a caveat, suggesting that if the town grants the amendments, “Friday Harbour must uphold the commitment to the community, to build the hotel, build the conference centre.”
Council received the information, and referred the comments to staff for review and a future recommendation, possibly as early as the Sept. 9 meeting of council.
Montgomery acknowledged that there are still a number of points to be investigated, including the impact on Innisfil's growth plans, a review of resort amenities to ensure they are adequate for year-round occupancy, a look at the economic costs and benefits of the changes, and the impact on the surrounding community.
If Innisfil approves the Official Plan amendment, it will still need county agreement, he noted. “Any approval of this recommendation will involve two levels of government.”
The public can still submit comments and questions to [email protected], or call 705-436-3740 ext. 2402.
