Short-Term Rentals
After hearing complaints about a short-term rental in West Porpoise Bay, council is urging planning staff to bring forward a report.
Coun. Alice Lutes raised the subject after meeting with community members who claim bylaw infractions haven’t been addressed by the district, and asked for a report on the complaints to be drafted for the planning committee meeting.
Staff said any report would have to be generic.
On the specific complaints, director of planning Tracy Corbett said staff from her department as well as the building and bylaw departments are working on the file.
“It is raising a lot of issues around do we have enough regulation around short-term rental… I think there will be an opportunity to flag areas where we have to address this better,” she said.
In the public question period that followed the meeting, some people in the gallery were critical of the district for not imposing penalties based on the bylaws that already exist.
“I know that council has the will to enforce our current bylaws and strengthen them – it’s in the works,” responded Mayor Bruce Milne.
Van Ke Subdivision
Officials with the district have provided written answers to a letter from more than two dozen residents of the Selma Park area. The letter and the response were included in the correspondence attached to the June 6 council agenda.
Van Ke Developments is planning a large subdivision in an area bounded by Havies and Nestman roads, above Highway 101.
The concerns raised in the letter include construction traffic, zoning, servicing and variances approved for the roads.
The district’s response notes that the road variances were actually an upgrade to the standards the developer will have to meet, including widening the paved surface to six metres and adding a sidewalk, curb, gutter and streetlights to Nestman and Havies.
“The residents have concerns relating to this development and the potential impact on the area and would request that the district provide detailed information with respect to the development … either by way of a public hearing or written information,” the residents’ letter said.
Sechelt staff pointed out that there was no requirement for a public hearing because there is no rezoning or OCP change, and the proper notice was given before council considered the variances.
Another issue being raised by some in the community but not mentioned in the letter – the claim that the development is being marketed exclusively offshore – was answered online in the For the Record section of the district website.
“The District is responsible for land use and is not involved with the marketing strategy of developers. The developers did tell us that they want these developments to fit in and be open to the community,” the response reads.
