By Steve Hubrecht
Invermere council turned down several more requests from short-term rental (STR) operators to host more guests than allowed under district regulations last week.
Owners from three STRs in Invermere requested temporary use permits (TUPs) allowing them more than the limit of eight guests allowed under district regulations implemented in May.
An STR operator on the southwestern end of 9th Avenue in the Wilder subdivision sought a TUP for 14 guests; one nearby on 8th Avenue in Wilder wanted a TUP for 10 guests; and another on 14th Street west of Mount Nelson Athletic Park also asked for a 10-guest TUP.
In all three cases, it was thumbs down from Invermere councillors at the Tuesday, Nov. 26 council meeting. Instead, they granted TUPs that stuck to the limit of eight guests.
They also granted a fourth TUP, for an STR on 14th Street closer to downtown (on the strip where 14th Street is a dirt road, near Red Apple). This STR owner was happy to stay at the eight guest limit, but wanted four guests in one room of bunk beds (instead of the two guests per room allowed under Invermere’s regulations), and council assented.
Whether by design or by coincidence, Invermere council has become stricter about the eight-guest limit as the fall has worn on. All STRs in Invermere need business licences to operate. Those in most single family residential areas also need TUPs. Any TUP application asking for exceptions to the regulations (i.e. more than eight guests, or more than two guests per bedroom) must be approved by council.
September saw the first TUP applications for more than eight guests come before council, when three different STR operators separately asked for 14 guests, 12 guests, and nine guests. Council approved all three exceptions, although they limited the first two STRs to 10 guests each (instead of the 14 and 12 sought).
In October another four STR operators made TUP applications for extra guests, with three requests for 12 guests and one request for 14. In two of those cases council approved exceptions up to 10 guests (instead of the 14 and 12 requested), but in the other two cases it stuck to the limit of eight.
Now in November, it’s a limit of eight across the board.
Invermere resident Kent Shoemaker was at the meeting and spoke against the proliferation of STRs in Invermere.
“Right now, we don’t have effective enforcement (of the STR rules)”, he said, adding council should stick to the limit of eight in all cases until enforcement of the regulations gains more traction and people start obeying them. He suggested that a primary residence requirement (i.e. a rule that the STR owner or operator must live on the property being used as an STR) would solve a lot of the enforcement issues, as there would always be someone onsite to deal with any issues such as excessive noise or partying that arise.
“These are not mother-in-law suites occasionally being rented out for a bit of extra cash. These are full-blown for-profit boutique hotels in quiet residential neighbourhoods,” said Shoemaker.
“We are learning as we go through this,” said Invermere councillor Gerry Taft in response to Shoemaker.
He explained that when councillors set up the STR regulations, they expected that there would be only a handful of TUP applications for more than eight guests.
“The idea, at least in my mind, was that they would only be coming forward in genuinely extenuating circumstances. Not just ‘we have space for 10 guests, so can we have 10 guests, please.’ I didn’t think we’d see as many (TUP applications) as we’ve seen so far,” said Taft.
“I guess it shows that if you put a process in place, people will try it . . . we will review it next May when we’ve reached one year (since implementing STR regulations). We’re walking before we run, getting a handle on it before we re-evaluate it in May.”
