The Town of Canmore has switched gears with respect to its enforcement strategy to deal with illegal tourist homes in the community and as a result may have caught a few unsuspecting homeowners in its drag net.
While in 2017 the enforcement process involved communicating with homeowners the municipality had already received complaints before issuing stop orders and fines; by the end of the year that had changed.
Michael Fark, general manager of municipal infrastructure, said enforcement of the Land Use Bylaw regulations no longer involves a warning for homeowners, and the process of issuing a stop order and a $2,500 fine at the same time was the result of advice from the Town’s lawyers.
“This was on the advice of our legal counsel,” Fark said. “What we don’t want is a scenario where people feel incentivized to be in breach until they are caught.”
He said if the municipality were to issue warnings as a rule, then homeowners would not be deterred from illegally renting their residences on a nightly or short-term basis. Basically, he said, they could keep going until they get a warning and then stop.
Planning enforcement officer Kyle Sloan said the process changed after the illegal tourist homes he was aware of were dealt with.
“Initially, we did operate on a complaint basis because we wanted to tackle the tourist homes that were bigger and more apparent first,” Sloan said. “We then went to proactive enforcement and I looked at listings without complaints. This is the first round of that phase of the process.”
Three homeowners caught in this proactive enforcement process were before the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board to ask for the stop orders they received, without a warning, to be overturned.
Owners of two homes in Eagle Heights and one in Larch Place were all in front of the appeal board on Jan. 16 asking for the $2,500 ticket to be overturned.
However, board chair Ron Casey made it clear the only authority they had was to overturn the stop order and there was no ability to rescind the municipality’s fine.
“The board has no authority to change or reduce or stop the fine,” Casey said.
Fark indicated the Town would rescind the $2,500 penalty if the board overturned the stop order, which was what the correspondence with the homeowners stated.
The stop order, on the other hand, is a legal instrument that can be registered on title, according to manager of planning Alaric Fish.
“If the stop order is issued and the use ceases, then the Town rescinds the order and removes it from title,” he said.
Linda Carlson and Joal Borggard, owners of one of the Eagle Heights homes, were surprised and dismayed to receive the notification from the enforcement officer at the end of November, having paid attention to how the process was unfolding earlier in the year.
Last spring, Carlson said, they decided to rent their permanent home out while they took a summer vacation and again in December. They accepted two bookings only.
“We always left our house sit empty and just this year we thought maybe it would make sense (to rent it),” she said. “We used one of the sites which we use when we go on vacation to rent it out short-term.
“It would be safer for the house and bring in some income to subsidize the high cost of living.”
In September they became aware of the efforts to address the issue in the community, but understood the process would involve a warning or some form of communication. They decided to keep their December booking, instead of cancelling it.
“We were quite shocked in November to get the stop order and fine, which seemed completely contradictory to what was the process,” Carlson said. “Once we realized we were doing something wrong, we took steps. But we feel the punishment is out of line.”
Lorraine O’Brien and Mark Mahler appealed the stop order for their property at Eagle Heights because they felt they were not engaging in short-term rentals of their suite.
Mahler said while his home was listed on the Canada Stays and Owner’s Direct websites, it was for rent for longer than 30 days, which is no longer a short-term rental, according to the municipality’s standards.
Furthermore, Mahler said evidence submitted by the Town for the stop order was postings from two other websites, VRBO and Homeaway, which he did not advertise on.
“This is our primary residence, but we have a legal suite that we do advertise for and we specifically use Canada Stays and Owner’s Direct,” he said. “In fact, it took some sleuthing on our part when were issued the violation tag to go into VRBO and find our property.”
Mahler said he immediately took down his advertisement when they found out they were not in compliance with the bylaw.
“I find this somewhat heavy handed when all they had to do was pick up the phone and call,” he added. “I think the Town should deal with tourist homes, but ours is not one.”
Mahler pointed to PEKA property management, which offers short-term rentals at a minimum of 30 days, as support for his submission that he wasn’t operating an illegal tourist home.
For Gareth Thomson, a longtime Canmore resident, it was extremely surprising to receive a stop order and $2,500 fine for his Larch Place home.
Thomson said he feels a different enforcement process might be in order, given the fact he advertised his home for rent in the 1990s and somehow that information was shared with other home rental sites in 2017 without his knowledge.
“I was floored when I received this violation ticket and the fine,” he said. “I consider myself to be a law-abiding citizen and proud member of the community.
“I have been completely oblivious to the fact it was (on that website).”
He pointed out the pictures on the web listing were more than 15 years old and presented letters of support from neighbours confirming he did not operate an illegal tourist home at any time in the last 20 years.
“It has been a hell of a long time, which is why this letter came as such a surprise to me,” Thomson said.
As of the Outlook’s press deadline, a decision by the SDAB board was not yet available.
