Email dated May 13, 2026 from Diane Fownes re: Short Term Rentals

From: Diane Fownes
Sent: May 13, 2026 8:07 PM
To: Mayor And Council Email mayorandcouncil@viewroyal.ca
Subject: May 19th agenda Short Term Rentals

Mayor and Council,

I am writing regarding the May 12, 2026 reports concerning Home Occupation Regulations and Short-Term Rentals. After reviewing both reports together, I believe there is a significant inconsistency in the Town’s overall policy approach that Council should carefully reconsider.

The Town’s own reports repeatedly emphasize the importance of fostering a “business-friendly community,” supporting home-based businesses, reducing commutes, creating alternative employment opportunities, and aligning regulations with other municipalities in the region. Yet when it comes to short-term rentals operating within a person’s principal residence, the Town appears to depart from those same principles.

The Home Occupation Regulations report proposes broad modernization of the Town’s approach to home-based businesses. The report specifically recommends removing regulations that are “unenforceable or subjective,” simplifying classifications, removing confusing permitted use lists, aligning with neighbouring municipalities, and making it easier for residents to operate businesses from their homes. The report also acknowledges that home-based businesses provide “alternative employment options,” reduce commuting, and provide more services locally.

At the same time, the Short-Term Rental report acknowledges that permitting short-term rentals would “provide additional revenue-generating opportunities for homeowners” and “offer alternative visitor accommodation.” The Town further acknowledges that there are only approximately seven active short-term rental listings in View Royal, most within existing single-family homes as self-contained suites.

That is an extraordinarily small number relative to the scale of the housing concerns being discussed.

What is difficult to reconcile is that the Town is simultaneously proposing to expand and modernize nearly every category of home-based business while continuing to treat principal residence short-term rentals differently, despite the Province already having established a regulatory framework specifically designed to distinguish between commercial operators and ordinary homeowners.

The provincial legislation already limits short-term rentals primarily to a host’s principal residence plus one secondary suite or accessory dwelling on the same property. That distinction is important. The Province has already done extensive work to identify where the actual pressures on housing stock exist and has chosen not to prohibit owner-operated principal residence rentals outright.

In fact, the Town’s own 2021 report acknowledged that the issue requiring regulation was the conversion of residential housing into “commercial non-residential rental uses.” However, a principal residence host renting part of their own home while continuing to live there is fundamentally different from large-scale commercial conversion of housing stock.

The contradiction becomes more apparent when the Town continues to permit Bed and Breakfast operations, which are themselves a form of short-term accommodation. The current Bed and Breakfast regulations already recognize that short-term accommodation can coexist within residential neighbourhoods when owner-occupied and appropriately regulated.

The reports also repeatedly reference alignment with neighbouring municipalities and regional practices. Yet the Short-Term Rental report acknowledges that Colwood and Langford already default to the provincial framework. It is difficult to understand why View Royal is seeking regional alignment in one area of home-based business regulation while resisting it in another.

There is also an inconsistency in the Town’s position regarding enforceability. In the Home Occupation report, staff recommend removing regulations that are difficult to enforce or overly subjective. However, the Short-Term Rental report simultaneously acknowledges that enforcement currently occurs largely on a complaint basis because the Town lacks sufficient capacity and resources to actively monitor online accommodation platforms. The Town also acknowledges concerns about increased enforcement burdens if additional restrictions are layered onto legalization.

That raises an important policy question: if the Town’s stated direction is toward clearer, simpler, more enforceable regulations that align with regional standards, then why maintain a uniquely restrictive framework that appears increasingly difficult to administer and inconsistent with provincial legislation?

The reports themselves provide a more balanced path forward.

The Province already requires registration, business licensing, and platform accountability. The Town already has the authority to regulate parking, occupancy, guest limits, location on property, and operational requirements. The Town already licenses and regulates home-based businesses and Bed and Breakfasts. The framework to regulate responsibly already exists.

What appears to be missing is consistency in principle.

If View Royal supports:

home-based businesses,
alternative income opportunities,
reduced commuting,
business-friendly policy,
regional alignment,
modernization of outdated bylaws,
removal of unenforceable restrictions, and
allowing residents reasonable use of their homes,

then principal residence short-term rentals regulated under the provincial framework fit naturally within those same objectives.

This is not an argument for unregulated commercialization of neighbourhoods. It is an argument for a balanced and internally consistent policy approach that distinguishes between large-scale commercial operators and ordinary residents making limited use of their principal residence in a way the Province has already determined is appropriate.

I would respectfully encourage Council to seriously consider adopting a framework aligned with the provincial legislation rather than maintaining a near-total prohibition that appears increasingly inconsistent with the Town’s broader policy direction, its own strategic goals, and the reasoning contained within these reports themselves.

Respectfully,

Diane Fownes