Zoning Bylaw No. 900, 2014, Amendment Bylaw No. 1172, 2026
An amendment bylaw regarding the repeal of green roof density bonus provisions and removal of underground density bonus provisions in the RM-1 Zone.
From: Diane Fownes
Sent: May 20, 2026 8:30 AM
To: Mayor And Council Email mayorandcouncil@viewroyal.ca
Subject: Short term rental decision
Mayor and Council,
Over the course of these discussions regarding short-term rentals, I have taken time to review not only the reports presented to Council, but also the Town of View Royal’s own stated vision, values, and expectations for elected officials.
View Royal’s materials speak about respectful engagement, inclusion, transparency, listening to residents, thoughtful governance, and building trust within the community. They describe a vision of leadership that is collaborative, responsive, and grounded in fairness and accountability.
Unfortunately, my experience throughout this process has not reflected those values.
Many residents took the time to write thoughtful letters, attend meetings, review reports, and participate respectfully in the public process. Despite that, there has been a consistent sense that concerns were dismissed rather than genuinely considered. At times, the tone and approach taken by the Mayor during these discussions appeared defensive and predetermined rather than open and impartial.
Leadership is not simply about presiding over meetings or defending existing positions. It is also about creating space for meaningful dialogue, listening carefully to residents even when there is disagreement, and ensuring that public trust is maintained through transparency and respectful engagement.
What has been most disappointing to me is not simply the outcome of the vote, but the broader feeling that many residents were heard procedurally, but not truly listened to.
I continue to believe this issue could have been approached in a more balanced and constructive way, particularly given that the Province itself has already created a framework permitting principal residence short-term rentals.
I hope there will be reflection on how this process unfolded and whether it aligned with the standards of leadership and community engagement that the Town itself promotes.
Sincerely,
Diane Fownes
From: Diane Fownes
Sent: May 21, 2026 12:35 PM
To: Mayor And Council Email mayorandcouncil@viewroyal.ca
Subject: Short term rental concerns from May 19 /2026 meeting
Mayor and Council,
After listening carefully to the full short-term rental discussion.
One of the biggest issues throughout the debate was the way provincial short-term rental legislation, municipal bylaws, and residential tenancy law were sometimes discussed as though they all operated in the same way. They do not. Provincial legislation establishes the broader housing framework and tenancy protections across British Columbia, while municipalities regulate local operational matters through bylaws and licensing. Those distinctions matter because each level of government has different powers, responsibilities, and legal limitations.
The Province of British Columbia has already introduced a fairly comprehensive short term rental framework intended to address province-wide housing concerns. The legislation primarily limits short-term rentals to principal residences, secondary suites, and accessory dwelling units connected to owner occupancy. The intent was clearly to distinguish between large-scale commercial operators removing housing from the market and ordinary homeowners trying to supplement their income, age in place, support family members, or maintain flexibility with their homes.
Municipal bylaws, meanwhile, are local regulatory tools. Municipalities can regulate matters such as business licensing, parking, noise, safety, and operational impacts within their communities, but they do not replace provincial housing policy. Local governments are expected to work within the broader provincial framework, not create contradictory systems that leave residents unable to comply with provincial law.
Throughout the discussion, many of the concerns raised by Council — affordability, investor activity, housing supply, enforcement, and neighbourhood impacts — were concerns the province had already attempted to address through the legislation itself. Yet the debate often proceeded as though those safeguards did not exist.
There also appeared to be confusion between historical municipal decisions and the current provincial framework. Concerns were raised about past View Royal decisions involving owner-occupancy requirements for secondary suites that were later changed by