This is the conclusion to our three-part examination of the issues posed by short-term rentals and variations on that theme.

In simple terms, every unhosted short-term rental unit takes a dwelling out of the long-term rental and/or single family residential market.

These units are used to temporarily house a series of transient visitors who do not contribute to the health of our community — in any fashion other than spending their dollars in the town’s tourist-oriented businesses — since only permanent residents actually create social viability.

Furthermore, research has proven that unhosted short-term rentals increase the rental rates of long-term rental units and inflate the purchase price of properties — particularly dwellings in what would historically be considered an “affordable” home category.

It should be noted that these observations do not apply to bed & breakfast establishments operated in owner-occupied dwellings; town residents who are, by and large, some of the strongest contributors to a healthy, vibrant community.

Moreover, the published research does not generally advocate for the complete elimination of unhosted short-term rentals, but rather suggests that the total number in any given municipality and geographic concentration of these units must be carefully managed to avoid the identified negative impacts to the long-term rental market, the preservation of “affordable” property offerings and the social health of the community.

Hence this columnist’s call for a cap on the number of unhosted short-term rentals and ongoing enforcement oversight of this type of operation.

And speaking of unhosted short-term rentals, it has come to my attention that, for reasons which remain publically opaque, the town is suggesting the dwelling units being built above the commercial spaces in Clayfield Commons shall not be included in this category.

Say what?

Adam Hawley, in an interview with The Lake Report in January 2025 (“Clayfield Hyatt hotel planned for the Village,” Jan. 9, 2025), stated that: “The hotel will not be owned by Hyatt but instead will function as a franchise. We [Traditional Neighbourhood Developments] are the owners and developers of it — it’s not going to be owned by Hyatt or anybody else.”

If, as Hawley attested, these units will be owned by a development corporation and not the hotel chain, it seems to me that the corporate owner will actually be an institutional real-estate investor in multiple conjoined dwellings (analogous to a real estate investment trust, known as a REIT) and the hotel franchise — typically considered a unique legal entity under the parameters of normal franchise agreement law under “separation of entities” case law — will simply be filling the role of a contracted booking and maintenance agency.

Quite frankly, even if Hawley’s lawyers had been able to structure a workaround to avoid the restrictions of the Arthur Wishart Act and convinced the Hyatt’s legal folks by defraying their “vicarious liability” exposure, the elephant in the room must observe the following:

Should the town simply roll over on the Hawley short-term rental exemption overture without contest, it will largely curtail, by legal precedent, any municipal oversight on future development applications that might seek to leverage the Clayfield exemption to extend the acceptable legal parameters captured therein — the current Randwood application comes to mind.

Thus, bit by bit, the legal underpinning by which a municipality can defensibly justify decisions to preserve its community in the face of a developer’s application are eroded.

Then, we have the “fun with words” issue.

Honestly, after reading “planning justification reports” attached to multiple applications submitted to the town, I’m starting wonder if the principal authors of these documents are not required to pass a graduate course in Edward Bernays’ school of manipulating public opinion.

As a textbook case, consider the planning justification report included with the application for rezoning and official plan amendments that would allow for the construction of a 58-room boutique hotel on the Strewn Winery lands at 1339 Lakeshore Rd.

At no point in the planning justification report is this development identified as a “hotel,” rather the author(s) of the report go to great extremes in attempting to stretch the provincial definition of allowed “farm-stay accommodations” — which, according to the current legislation still requires a local short-term rental or bed & Breakfast licence in order to operate — to encompass their overture.

A 58 room B&B … really?

But, it is my guess that the authors of the planning justification report anticipated local resident and possible municipal pushback to an application for a hotel built on agricultural lands and indulged in prevarication in an attempt to mitigate the issue.

Unfortunately, this approach to massaging the language of planning applications is not the exception, but has almost become the norm.

So many things need to be addressed.

Brian Marshall is a NOTL realtor, author and expert consultant on architectural design, restoration and heritage.