There are few issues in Oro-Medonte Township that are as volatile as short-term rentals (STRs).
A report — to be received as information only — that will land in front of township council during Wednesday's meeting may spark some heated conversations.
At the Aug. 14 meeting, council passed a motion requesting an information report “to formally update council and the community on background and actions taken in advance of considering an options report at a future meeting.”
The report, which was drafted by George Vadeboncoeur, manager, planning special projects, might not be embraced by the those who oppose STRs in the township.
“Following council direction, staff will bring forward a report outlining options for council to arrive at a strategy to improve the regulations and enforcement of short-term rentals in Oro-Medonte,” Vadeboncoeur wrote in the report’s conclusion.
“Outlining options” is probably not be something those who oppose STRs want to see — they’ve been fighting to have them banned for years.
The township, according to Mayor Randy Greenlaw, has spent more than $1 million on the issue.
In his report, Vadeboncoeur goes back to 2017, when STRs were first identified as an issue in the township.
His review — 19 pages in total — includes links to various staff reports that detail the plans and recommendations that were presented to the township’s councils over the years.
His summary provides a step-by-step accounting of what’s transpired, from the initial staff information report that was presented to council in 2018 to the March 22, 2024, Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling that dismissed Oro-Medonte Township and the Oro-Medonte Good Neighbours Alliance’s appeal of the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) decision regarding short-term rental accommodations in the municipality.
Since that decision, the number of STRs in the township has grown exponentially, according to the township’s deputy mayor, Peter Lavoie.
“We currently have 530 short-term rental operators in the township,” Lavoie told a group of residents who organized a community meeting on the topic at Bayview Memorial Park in July. “Before the OLT decision, we had 70.”
Prosecuting offenders has not been successful.
According to Vadeboncoeur’s report, in 2023, bylaw officials initiated a Municipal Act Section 440 charge against an owner who failed to cease an STR operation.
Staff also initiated two charges under the zoning bylaw through the Provincial Offenses Act (POA).
In early 2024, as staff were preparing to proceed to court to have the charges heard, the township’s prosecutor determined the evidence gathered to support the Section 440 charge and the two POA charges was not sufficient to obtain a conviction and withdrew the charges.
“Municipal law enforcement has concluded that proceeding with further prosecutions of STR operators under the current zoning bylaw is not ideal unless they are able to obtain the evidence required,” Vadeboncoeur said. “The division must ensure it maintains its credibility in relation to the court system when it brings charges forward. Moving ahead with another prosecution using limited evidence will result in the same outcome.”
Earning a conviction may not be worth the effort, he said.
“Even if the municipality is able to secure a conviction, the fines are quite minimal and do not come anywhere near the cost of bringing a matter to court,” he said.
Over the past seven years, Vadeboncoeur said, the township has addressed the issues presented by STR accommodations, which have faced “a number of challenges in achieving desired outcomes requiring a reassessment to address the issues associated with STRs.”
The report did not contain a date when staff will deliver the report outlining options for council’s consideration.
