Planning committee’s recommendation to allow the short-term rental of a cottage in a flood zone on Springfield Road did not make it past Huntsville Council at its April 25 meeting.
Councillor Dan Armour—who was in favour of the application when it was introduced at the April 13 planning committee meeting despite staff’s recommendation to deny it, and told fellow committee members that he wanted to see it approved—had a change of heart.
At council, he asked that the recommendation be pulled for further discussion. He also said there were letters on the issue by area residents that did not make it on the planning agenda because they were submitted late.
“After reviewing this and speaking to the constituents who live in the area, speaking and receiving multiple emails and phone calls from those people, I thought it was better for us to reconsider this because not only is this a flood zone, it also is a private road and it affects a lot of year-round residents and I just feel this could be opening up a can of worms for future flood zone areas,” he said.
Councillor Bob Stone, who had also voted in favour of the application at planning committee, described the time between planning committee decisions and council ratification as an opportunity for “sober second thought.” He said he also had received input from area residents and would now be voting against the recommendation.
Prompted by a question from Councillor Brian Thompson—who wanted to know whether the part of the recommendation which adds blackout periods when flooding is most likely to occur and prohibits the renting of the cottage during those times is precedent-setting—planning director Kirstin Maxwell explained that council decided to look at each application separately.
“There was a discussion in early 2021 as to whether or not it would be appropriate to permit short-term rentals within all zones and there was a report at that time and it was determined that each application should be reviewed individually to see if there were specific merits to each one that would allow it to be approved, but we have not had any applications,” she noted.
Councillor Jason FitzGerald said, “I guess the sad part of it is this was run as an unlicensed short-term rental, so I understand there’s a lot of resistance to it in the neighbourhood. I’m sure there’s several properties on Springfield Road that aren’t in the floodplain that could in fact qualify for short-term rental or long-term rental for that matter because the same rules do not apply,” he said, adding that the applicant has not been given an opportunity to run a short-term rental accommodation under the regulations of the municipality’s short-term bylaw “whereby it’s two strikes, you’re out. So, I understand the neighbours’ comments and I understand the private road situation, but are we giving our short-term rental bylaw and the actual process and what we set up, [a] fair and reasonable chance for the applicant to exercise that right?”
Councillor Tim Withey questioned why such applications are being treated on a one-by-one basis. He also told council members that due to the private nature of the road, the people who live along that road are liable for the road. “So if somebody comes in on a short-term rental and God forbid has a horrible accident, they’re going to sue all the neighbours so I’m thinking we should follow a policy that has… these rules set out so we don’t get into these conversations where we get flooded by letters for and against, and you know perhaps somebody starts getting emotional about it and decides a certain way.”
He told fellow councillors that “we’re causing a lot of problems for ourselves in these things. I’ve never been concerned about precedent because new precedents are set every day in our law courts… if there is some, you know, extenuating circumstance, maybe an accessibility thing or something, we can look at those but we should have just a rule that says if it’s a private road: no. If it’s on a floodplain: no, which is apparently what staff recommended and committee voted against. Why are we doing this to ourselves? It seems like we’ve caused ourselves this big headache by having this policy of looking at them individually,” he noted.
In the end, a majority of council with the exception of councillors Dione Schumacher and Jason FitzGerald voted to turn down committee’s recommendation and deny the application.
Huntsville Mayor Karin Terziano declared a conflict because she has property in the area and did not participate in council discussions.
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox so you don’t miss anything!
Click here to support local news
Having lived in a flood zone, I can assure all that it is a dangerous, unhealthy, and costly situation. An unfortunate reality.
Also, neighbors on a private road shouldn’t have to be subjected to the comings and goings of STR clients.
This was a good decision.
These areas have flooded in the past, thus the designation. Climate change is resulting in more flooding worldwide and more severe weather episodes .Private road or not has nothing to do with where an event will occur and often puts Emergency Services at risk responding to calls for rescue. Good decision by Planning and ultimately Council .
I am encouraged by this decision of Council. The lesson: take the time to consider all ramifications of a possible decision. With all due respect to Mr. Withey, who had a good point regarding insurance liability, the bylaws were in place and Mr. Clark communicated them; thereby, giving the Planning committee all that was needed to deny permission. To quote Mr. Withey: “why are we doing this to ourselves”? Exactly.
With regard to this property that counsel has flip flopped again on a land owner.
What is the historic flood plane of the property? Has infact counsel took a look at this property prior to their reversal of their decision?
How old is the home on the property and what have the flood issues that have occurred in the past. Certainly Planning looked at the property however given their slanted views on subject lands in the past and their views of what classed as enough lands to conduct businesses and put in high density housing projects, I have to ask what are the alternatives for this property owner?
Counsel continues to flip flop on issues that are clearly out of their scope of expertise.
I suggest counsel drop their bylaws on everything and get back to running the municipality in the black.
Cut taxes by removing staff, Planning, Bylaw, Roads and hire people that are going to do the job outside of the Sunshine List. It’s time we as property owners held the town and counsel to account. Cuts to property taxes by 5% every year on all properties and 10% on waterfront properties over a 4 year plan while continuing growth that respects the neighborhood and nature of our community.
Just my thoughts
Reuben Pyette