-
Share Hello,
I’m writing to express concern and request clarification regarding the City’s recommendation of Policy Option 4 as part of the short-term rental (STR) review.
Based on the information shared during the public engagement process, Policy Option 1 was the option supported by the Advisory Planning Commission and reflected the preference of the majority of respondents. To my knowledge, Policy Option 4 was not presented as part of the original options for public discussion, nor was it subject to the same level of consultation or feedback.
Given that, it is difficult to understand how Policy Option 4 has emerged as the recommended direction.
Could you please clarify:
* When and how Policy Option 4 was introduced into the process
* Why it was not included in the public consultation alongside the other options
* The rationale for advancing it over Policy Option 1, which had clear support from both the Advisory Planning Commission and the public
This raises concerns about transparency and whether the outcomes of the public engagement process are being meaningfully reflected in the recommendation.
I would appreciate a clear explanation of how this decision aligns with the consultation process that was undertaken. on Facebook
Share Hello,
I’m writing to express concern and request clarification regarding the City’s recommendation of Policy Option 4 as part of the short-term rental (STR) review.
Based on the information shared during the public engagement process, Policy Option 1 was the option supported by the Advisory Planning Commission and reflected the preference of the majority of respondents. To my knowledge, Policy Option 4 was not presented as part of the original options for public discussion, nor was it subject to the same level of consultation or feedback.
Given that, it is difficult to understand how Policy Option 4 has emerged as the recommended direction.
Could you please clarify:
* When and how Policy Option 4 was introduced into the process
* Why it was not included in the public consultation alongside the other options
* The rationale for advancing it over Policy Option 1, which had clear support from both the Advisory Planning Commission and the public
This raises concerns about transparency and whether the outcomes of the public engagement process are being meaningfully reflected in the recommendation.
I would appreciate a clear explanation of how this decision aligns with the consultation process that was undertaken. on X (formerly Twitter)
Share Hello,
I’m writing to express concern and request clarification regarding the City’s recommendation of Policy Option 4 as part of the short-term rental (STR) review.
Based on the information shared during the public engagement process, Policy Option 1 was the option supported by the Advisory Planning Commission and reflected the preference of the majority of respondents. To my knowledge, Policy Option 4 was not presented as part of the original options for public discussion, nor was it subject to the same level of consultation or feedback.
Given that, it is difficult to understand how Policy Option 4 has emerged as the recommended direction.
Could you please clarify:
* When and how Policy Option 4 was introduced into the process
* Why it was not included in the public consultation alongside the other options
* The rationale for advancing it over Policy Option 1, which had clear support from both the Advisory Planning Commission and the public
This raises concerns about transparency and whether the outcomes of the public engagement process are being meaningfully reflected in the recommendation.
I would appreciate a clear explanation of how this decision aligns with the consultation process that was undertaken. on Linkedin
Email Hello,
I’m writing to express concern and request clarification regarding the City’s recommendation of Policy Option 4 as part of the short-term rental (STR) review.
Based on the information shared during the public engagement process, Policy Option 1 was the option supported by the Advisory Planning Commission and reflected the preference of the majority of respondents. To my knowledge, Policy Option 4 was not presented as part of the original options for public discussion, nor was it subject to the same level of consultation or feedback.
Given that, it is difficult to understand how Policy Option 4 has emerged as the recommended direction.
Could you please clarify:
* When and how Policy Option 4 was introduced into the process
* Why it was not included in the public consultation alongside the other options
* The rationale for advancing it over Policy Option 1, which had clear support from both the Advisory Planning Commission and the public
This raises concerns about transparency and whether the outcomes of the public engagement process are being meaningfully reflected in the recommendation.
I would appreciate a clear explanation of how this decision aligns with the consultation process that was undertaken. link
Hello,
I’m writing to express concern and request clarification regarding the City’s recommendation of Policy Option 4 as part of the short-term rental (STR) review.
Based on the information shared during the public engagement process, Policy Option 1 was the option supported by the Advisory Planning Commission and reflected the preference of the majority of respondents. To my knowledge, Policy Option 4 was not presented as part of the original options for public discussion, nor was it subject to the same level of consultation or feedback.
Given that, it is difficult to understand how Policy Option 4 has emerged as the recommended direction.
Could you please clarify:
* When and how Policy Option 4 was introduced into the process
* Why it was not included in the public consultation alongside the other options
* The rationale for advancing it over Policy Option 1, which had clear support from both the Advisory Planning Commission and the public
This raises concerns about transparency and whether the outcomes of the public engagement process are being meaningfully reflected in the recommendation.
I would appreciate a clear explanation of how this decision aligns with the consultation process that was undertaken.
James
asked
4 months ago
Hi James,
I apologize as we did not receive an email notification informing us that a question was posted. The policy option to maintain the existing regulatory system is always on the table. As part of the public engagement completed for this project, there was various instances where the public had indicated support for the existing regulatory framework (see the results of the public engagement process posted on this page in the documents section). Further, after completion of the housing impact analysis for the project, it became clear that expansion of STRs in any capacity beyond the existing regulatory framework had the potential to impact our long term housing market in the community. Therefore, primarily for these two reasons (as well as others - see staff report from April 28 2026 for full justification of the staff recommendation), staff recommended minor changes to the existing framework to support enforcement efforts.
We can appreciate that there are various individuals who were supportive of Option #1 that would have expanded existing STR allowances for owners within single-detached residences. This support was weighed in conjunction with the comments and public feedback received that supported the City's existing system that endeavors to create more long term housing for local residents. We note that the final public survey resulted in about 30% of individuals not supporting any of the proposed 3 options. The feedback was varied - we had individuals that wanted unlimited expansion and no restrictions on the use of their properties, and individuals who wanted the City to remove historic allowances for STRs in Revelstoke.
When staff make recommendations to Council, we must consider all information received from the public, the objective information in the housing / economic impact report, and overall public interest with respect to meeting the communities needs for long term accommodation.
I hope this provides some additional information for you.
Paul Simon
-
Share Hello,
I’m wondering when we are going to have another update on the STR project? Thanks. on Facebook
Share Hello,
I’m wondering when we are going to have another update on the STR project? Thanks. on X (formerly Twitter)
Share Hello,
I’m wondering when we are going to have another update on the STR project? Thanks. on Linkedin
Email Hello,
I’m wondering when we are going to have another update on the STR project? Thanks. link
Hello,
I’m wondering when we are going to have another update on the STR project? Thanks.
James
asked
5 months ago
Hi James,
Thanks for reaching out as we have been working hard to get this to the finish line for Council consideration! TalkRevelstoke will be updated today with relevant information and we will also send out a email to all those that have signed up for updates. We appreciate your patience as we worked on the final pieces for this project. Have a great week!
Paul Simon
-
Share HI I have been following this project and the past STR discussions. I attended one of the recent engagement sessions. There was lots of good discussion. Although the intention was to be discussing the location and cap number options of the policy as opposed to the itemized requirements, a lot of the discussion was around these requirements as a basis of understanding. There were questions around 'permanent resident' and 'principal residence', these terms have been used in combination or seem to be commonly used by other organizations or levels of government and may be defined or applied differently so it becomes confusing. Even above: only '(with a principal 'resident' requirement)' is noted when the paperwork at the session referred to 'principal residence' where '...principal residence of a permanent resident' is noted. A couple of us at the table had assumed incorrectly that this requirement was for the 'Home Owner' of the property to be the permanent resident of their principal residence, not an 'Investor' who had a long term tenant in a unit. I felt the sentiment from the feedback from the public last year that was reflected in this statement from above 'Council endorsed the following goal for the Short Term Rental project: To allow permanent residents in Revelstoke to participate in the tourism economy.' , was so that Home Owners could participate, not open it up or encourage investors to STR a unit in their property - Has Council's endorsement changed? on Facebook
Share HI I have been following this project and the past STR discussions. I attended one of the recent engagement sessions. There was lots of good discussion. Although the intention was to be discussing the location and cap number options of the policy as opposed to the itemized requirements, a lot of the discussion was around these requirements as a basis of understanding. There were questions around 'permanent resident' and 'principal residence', these terms have been used in combination or seem to be commonly used by other organizations or levels of government and may be defined or applied differently so it becomes confusing. Even above: only '(with a principal 'resident' requirement)' is noted when the paperwork at the session referred to 'principal residence' where '...principal residence of a permanent resident' is noted. A couple of us at the table had assumed incorrectly that this requirement was for the 'Home Owner' of the property to be the permanent resident of their principal residence, not an 'Investor' who had a long term tenant in a unit. I felt the sentiment from the feedback from the public last year that was reflected in this statement from above 'Council endorsed the following goal for the Short Term Rental project: To allow permanent residents in Revelstoke to participate in the tourism economy.' , was so that Home Owners could participate, not open it up or encourage investors to STR a unit in their property - Has Council's endorsement changed? on X (formerly Twitter)
Share HI I have been following this project and the past STR discussions. I attended one of the recent engagement sessions. There was lots of good discussion. Although the intention was to be discussing the location and cap number options of the policy as opposed to the itemized requirements, a lot of the discussion was around these requirements as a basis of understanding. There were questions around 'permanent resident' and 'principal residence', these terms have been used in combination or seem to be commonly used by other organizations or levels of government and may be defined or applied differently so it becomes confusing. Even above: only '(with a principal 'resident' requirement)' is noted when the paperwork at the session referred to 'principal residence' where '...principal residence of a permanent resident' is noted. A couple of us at the table had assumed incorrectly that this requirement was for the 'Home Owner' of the property to be the permanent resident of their principal residence, not an 'Investor' who had a long term tenant in a unit. I felt the sentiment from the feedback from the public last year that was reflected in this statement from above 'Council endorsed the following goal for the Short Term Rental project: To allow permanent residents in Revelstoke to participate in the tourism economy.' , was so that Home Owners could participate, not open it up or encourage investors to STR a unit in their property - Has Council's endorsement changed? on Linkedin
Email HI I have been following this project and the past STR discussions. I attended one of the recent engagement sessions. There was lots of good discussion. Although the intention was to be discussing the location and cap number options of the policy as opposed to the itemized requirements, a lot of the discussion was around these requirements as a basis of understanding. There were questions around 'permanent resident' and 'principal residence', these terms have been used in combination or seem to be commonly used by other organizations or levels of government and may be defined or applied differently so it becomes confusing. Even above: only '(with a principal 'resident' requirement)' is noted when the paperwork at the session referred to 'principal residence' where '...principal residence of a permanent resident' is noted. A couple of us at the table had assumed incorrectly that this requirement was for the 'Home Owner' of the property to be the permanent resident of their principal residence, not an 'Investor' who had a long term tenant in a unit. I felt the sentiment from the feedback from the public last year that was reflected in this statement from above 'Council endorsed the following goal for the Short Term Rental project: To allow permanent residents in Revelstoke to participate in the tourism economy.' , was so that Home Owners could participate, not open it up or encourage investors to STR a unit in their property - Has Council's endorsement changed? link
HI I have been following this project and the past STR discussions. I attended one of the recent engagement sessions. There was lots of good discussion. Although the intention was to be discussing the location and cap number options of the policy as opposed to the itemized requirements, a lot of the discussion was around these requirements as a basis of understanding. There were questions around 'permanent resident' and 'principal residence', these terms have been used in combination or seem to be commonly used by other organizations or levels of government and may be defined or applied differently so it becomes confusing. Even above: only '(with a principal 'resident' requirement)' is noted when the paperwork at the session referred to 'principal residence' where '...principal residence of a permanent resident' is noted. A couple of us at the table had assumed incorrectly that this requirement was for the 'Home Owner' of the property to be the permanent resident of their principal residence, not an 'Investor' who had a long term tenant in a unit. I felt the sentiment from the feedback from the public last year that was reflected in this statement from above 'Council endorsed the following goal for the Short Term Rental project: To allow permanent residents in Revelstoke to participate in the tourism economy.' , was so that Home Owners could participate, not open it up or encourage investors to STR a unit in their property - Has Council's endorsement changed?
Kathleen
asked
7 months ago
Hi Kathleen,
Thanks for following up. This was one of the biggest pieces of feedback we received through engagement, was clarifying the permanent resident / principal owner requirement. Staff have not compiled anything that is set in stone as of yet - the intent was to get feedback from the community before delving into this as part of formal bylaw changes.
The plan is to go before Council at the end of March / beginning of April to get direction on what option they would like to proceed with based on the feedback received and work completed to date. Once received, staff would compile necessary amendments including specific details for how the permanent resident or principal resident clause would be administered (should Council direct staff to pursue one of the policy options presented). If major changes are directed by Council, a public hearing would be available where the community could provide feedback after all of the specific details are released for any bylaw changes.
Hope this provides some clarity, thanks for participating!
Paul
-
Share 1.Why does the public engagement framework not include a policy scenario that maintains or strengthens existing short-term rental restrictions, rather than assuming some form of expansion into residential areas?
2. How is the City reconciling the proposed expansion or normalization of short-term rentals in residential neighbourhoods with a housing-first approach, given ongoing housing shortages, low rental vacancy rates, and rising rents?
3. Housing research shows that rental vacancy rates below approximately 3% drive rent inflation and housing insecurity. What vacancy rate or housing condition threshold would justify expanding short-term rentals in residential areas?
4. How do the proposed policy scenarios protect housing availability for local workers, families, seniors, and people on fixed incomes who are most affected by housing scarcity and cost-of-living pressures??
5. If short-term rental licenses are expanded or capped city-wide, what mechanisms exist to reduce or reverse those permissions if housing conditions worsen over time?
on Facebook
Share 1.Why does the public engagement framework not include a policy scenario that maintains or strengthens existing short-term rental restrictions, rather than assuming some form of expansion into residential areas?
2. How is the City reconciling the proposed expansion or normalization of short-term rentals in residential neighbourhoods with a housing-first approach, given ongoing housing shortages, low rental vacancy rates, and rising rents?
3. Housing research shows that rental vacancy rates below approximately 3% drive rent inflation and housing insecurity. What vacancy rate or housing condition threshold would justify expanding short-term rentals in residential areas?
4. How do the proposed policy scenarios protect housing availability for local workers, families, seniors, and people on fixed incomes who are most affected by housing scarcity and cost-of-living pressures??
5. If short-term rental licenses are expanded or capped city-wide, what mechanisms exist to reduce or reverse those permissions if housing conditions worsen over time?
on X (formerly Twitter)
Share 1.Why does the public engagement framework not include a policy scenario that maintains or strengthens existing short-term rental restrictions, rather than assuming some form of expansion into residential areas?
2. How is the City reconciling the proposed expansion or normalization of short-term rentals in residential neighbourhoods with a housing-first approach, given ongoing housing shortages, low rental vacancy rates, and rising rents?
3. Housing research shows that rental vacancy rates below approximately 3% drive rent inflation and housing insecurity. What vacancy rate or housing condition threshold would justify expanding short-term rentals in residential areas?
4. How do the proposed policy scenarios protect housing availability for local workers, families, seniors, and people on fixed incomes who are most affected by housing scarcity and cost-of-living pressures??
5. If short-term rental licenses are expanded or capped city-wide, what mechanisms exist to reduce or reverse those permissions if housing conditions worsen over time?
on Linkedin
Email 1.Why does the public engagement framework not include a policy scenario that maintains or strengthens existing short-term rental restrictions, rather than assuming some form of expansion into residential areas?
2. How is the City reconciling the proposed expansion or normalization of short-term rentals in residential neighbourhoods with a housing-first approach, given ongoing housing shortages, low rental vacancy rates, and rising rents?
3. Housing research shows that rental vacancy rates below approximately 3% drive rent inflation and housing insecurity. What vacancy rate or housing condition threshold would justify expanding short-term rentals in residential areas?
4. How do the proposed policy scenarios protect housing availability for local workers, families, seniors, and people on fixed incomes who are most affected by housing scarcity and cost-of-living pressures??
5. If short-term rental licenses are expanded or capped city-wide, what mechanisms exist to reduce or reverse those permissions if housing conditions worsen over time?
link
1.Why does the public engagement framework not include a policy scenario that maintains or strengthens existing short-term rental restrictions, rather than assuming some form of expansion into residential areas?
2. How is the City reconciling the proposed expansion or normalization of short-term rentals in residential neighbourhoods with a housing-first approach, given ongoing housing shortages, low rental vacancy rates, and rising rents?
3. Housing research shows that rental vacancy rates below approximately 3% drive rent inflation and housing insecurity. What vacancy rate or housing condition threshold would justify expanding short-term rentals in residential areas?
4. How do the proposed policy scenarios protect housing availability for local workers, families, seniors, and people on fixed incomes who are most affected by housing scarcity and cost-of-living pressures??
5. If short-term rental licenses are expanded or capped city-wide, what mechanisms exist to reduce or reverse those permissions if housing conditions worsen over time?
Christine Hewitt
asked
9 months ago
Hi Christine,
Thank-you for reaching out with your thoughtful question.
1) We recommend reviewing prior Council reports posted on TalkRevelstoke to familiarize yourself with the progress that was made based on prior engagement and Council direction to establish the current policy scenarios. When completing the survey, there is an option to indicate that you don't support any of the scenarios and to explain what would be supported.
2) While significant progress regarding purpose built rental has been made in the community over the past 2-3 years, you are correct that this is a challenge with any updates to short term rental regulations. While Revelstoke is a resort municipality with an in-demand tourism sector, striking an appropriate balance between housing needs and tourism is critical. Short term rentals play a role here - they can help provide income support to local residents to manage the cost of housing, but they also have the potential to increase the cost of housing. Understanding tradeoffs becomes important in and final decisions that are made. When excluding site-specific zones (resort lands, mackenzie village), 4.9% of all dwellings in the City are currently permitted to be used as a STR (half of which currently have a principal residence requirement), with approximately 0.9% of all dwellings in the City (excluding those site-specific zones) operating as a STR. When excluding these site specific zones, the vast majority of housing in traditional residential neighbourhoods is used for long-term occupancy.
3) As the City is under 10,000 in population, vacancy data is not collected consistently or reliably for Revelstoke so it becomes a challenging benchmark to use. The numbers above when we look at how many dwellings are eligible to be used as a STR and how many are operating as such become important benchmarks.
4) Managing STRs is one of many tools in the toolkit for providing housing in the community, but should not be viewed as the silver bullet for providing housing for all community members (the numbers above show that if we restrict STR significantly, it will not provide the housing that Revelstoke needs). It will take implementation of various tools over many years to see meaningful progress on housing. As of late, some of the items that the City has completed to provide housing includes: supporting non-profit housing through direct funding and municipal land disposition (see Policy DS-25 and DS-26 for more details); strengthen protections for tenants and residents in manufactured homes; comprehensive inventory of all City land for affordable housing; completion of a master plan to guide development of 400 homes on City land; and the adoption of a Official Community Plan, Zoning Bylaw and Development Cost Charges bylaw that incentivizes the creation of a larger quantity of smaller units for market housing (as opposed to a smaller quantity of larger homes that Revelstoke has historically seen, putting housing out of reach for many). We have seen more housing built, but more work still needs to be done into the future implementing all of the tools available at the local level.
5) Council has the ability to change zoning regulations which would rescind historic approvals for STRs. Under new provincial legislation, these properties would not be "grandfathered" (i.e. qualify as a legal non-conforming use) and would be required to comply with the new regulations.
-
Share Good morning, thank you Paul for sending the update on STRs. I appreciate the understanding on this important topic. I noted at the beginning of the document that requests council provide direction on the allowing of STRs in the downtown and adjacent areas to downtown. In reviewing the 3 scenarios it appears that this is still missing or have I missed something? I would also comment that it has been a couple of years and there has been significant forward movement to provide more employee housing. Will this be factored into the final discussions. on Facebook
Share Good morning, thank you Paul for sending the update on STRs. I appreciate the understanding on this important topic. I noted at the beginning of the document that requests council provide direction on the allowing of STRs in the downtown and adjacent areas to downtown. In reviewing the 3 scenarios it appears that this is still missing or have I missed something? I would also comment that it has been a couple of years and there has been significant forward movement to provide more employee housing. Will this be factored into the final discussions. on X (formerly Twitter)
Share Good morning, thank you Paul for sending the update on STRs. I appreciate the understanding on this important topic. I noted at the beginning of the document that requests council provide direction on the allowing of STRs in the downtown and adjacent areas to downtown. In reviewing the 3 scenarios it appears that this is still missing or have I missed something? I would also comment that it has been a couple of years and there has been significant forward movement to provide more employee housing. Will this be factored into the final discussions. on Linkedin
Email Good morning, thank you Paul for sending the update on STRs. I appreciate the understanding on this important topic. I noted at the beginning of the document that requests council provide direction on the allowing of STRs in the downtown and adjacent areas to downtown. In reviewing the 3 scenarios it appears that this is still missing or have I missed something? I would also comment that it has been a couple of years and there has been significant forward movement to provide more employee housing. Will this be factored into the final discussions. link
Good morning, thank you Paul for sending the update on STRs. I appreciate the understanding on this important topic. I noted at the beginning of the document that requests council provide direction on the allowing of STRs in the downtown and adjacent areas to downtown. In reviewing the 3 scenarios it appears that this is still missing or have I missed something? I would also comment that it has been a couple of years and there has been significant forward movement to provide more employee housing. Will this be factored into the final discussions.
Steven Hui
asked
11 months ago
Hi Steven,
Thanks for the question. There has been significant increase in employee accommodation within the community including 167 purpose built rental dwelling units (apartment buildings) that have received occupancy over the past 12 months.
As part of the most recent COTW discussion and presentation, it appears that for now (notwithstanding significant pubic feedback as to why expanded STR in downtown/surrounding commercial areas is in the public interest), that the rules as they exist for the downtown and adjacent areas will remain as is. That said, we encourage everyone to participate in future engagement events to provide feedback that can be used in crafting City bylaws.
Thanks for the question,
Paul
-
Share Policy Scenario #1 appears to include both R-LD1 and R-LD2 zones, whereas Scenario #2 appears to exclude R-LD2.
R-LD2 zoned lots are beside or across the street from R-LD1 lots and the size of lots and existing types and sizes of homes in most cases are equivalent to R-LD1. When there is a single R-LD2 lot surrounded by R-LD1 lots or R-LD2 is beside R-LD1, how is that a different "area" of the City as described in the City Staff Report Nov. 13, 2025 page 3 under Policy Scenario #2 "it would only be permitted in specific areas of the City where the impact associated with the STR use is anticipated to be minimal."? Stating that R-LD2 is in different areas of the City is not correct. Equally there are individual R-LD1 lots surrounded by or beside R-LD2 or other zones and those would be permitted for STR under Scenario #2 which is incongruous with the statement in the Nov. 13, 2025 City Staff report "specific areas of the City where the impact associated with the STR use is anticipated to be minimal."
Thank you for your response. on Facebook
Share Policy Scenario #1 appears to include both R-LD1 and R-LD2 zones, whereas Scenario #2 appears to exclude R-LD2.
R-LD2 zoned lots are beside or across the street from R-LD1 lots and the size of lots and existing types and sizes of homes in most cases are equivalent to R-LD1. When there is a single R-LD2 lot surrounded by R-LD1 lots or R-LD2 is beside R-LD1, how is that a different "area" of the City as described in the City Staff Report Nov. 13, 2025 page 3 under Policy Scenario #2 "it would only be permitted in specific areas of the City where the impact associated with the STR use is anticipated to be minimal."? Stating that R-LD2 is in different areas of the City is not correct. Equally there are individual R-LD1 lots surrounded by or beside R-LD2 or other zones and those would be permitted for STR under Scenario #2 which is incongruous with the statement in the Nov. 13, 2025 City Staff report "specific areas of the City where the impact associated with the STR use is anticipated to be minimal."
Thank you for your response. on X (formerly Twitter)
Share Policy Scenario #1 appears to include both R-LD1 and R-LD2 zones, whereas Scenario #2 appears to exclude R-LD2.
R-LD2 zoned lots are beside or across the street from R-LD1 lots and the size of lots and existing types and sizes of homes in most cases are equivalent to R-LD1. When there is a single R-LD2 lot surrounded by R-LD1 lots or R-LD2 is beside R-LD1, how is that a different "area" of the City as described in the City Staff Report Nov. 13, 2025 page 3 under Policy Scenario #2 "it would only be permitted in specific areas of the City where the impact associated with the STR use is anticipated to be minimal."? Stating that R-LD2 is in different areas of the City is not correct. Equally there are individual R-LD1 lots surrounded by or beside R-LD2 or other zones and those would be permitted for STR under Scenario #2 which is incongruous with the statement in the Nov. 13, 2025 City Staff report "specific areas of the City where the impact associated with the STR use is anticipated to be minimal."
Thank you for your response. on Linkedin
Email Policy Scenario #1 appears to include both R-LD1 and R-LD2 zones, whereas Scenario #2 appears to exclude R-LD2.
R-LD2 zoned lots are beside or across the street from R-LD1 lots and the size of lots and existing types and sizes of homes in most cases are equivalent to R-LD1. When there is a single R-LD2 lot surrounded by R-LD1 lots or R-LD2 is beside R-LD1, how is that a different "area" of the City as described in the City Staff Report Nov. 13, 2025 page 3 under Policy Scenario #2 "it would only be permitted in specific areas of the City where the impact associated with the STR use is anticipated to be minimal."? Stating that R-LD2 is in different areas of the City is not correct. Equally there are individual R-LD1 lots surrounded by or beside R-LD2 or other zones and those would be permitted for STR under Scenario #2 which is incongruous with the statement in the Nov. 13, 2025 City Staff report "specific areas of the City where the impact associated with the STR use is anticipated to be minimal."
Thank you for your response. link
Policy Scenario #1 appears to include both R-LD1 and R-LD2 zones, whereas Scenario #2 appears to exclude R-LD2.
R-LD2 zoned lots are beside or across the street from R-LD1 lots and the size of lots and existing types and sizes of homes in most cases are equivalent to R-LD1. When there is a single R-LD2 lot surrounded by R-LD1 lots or R-LD2 is beside R-LD1, how is that a different "area" of the City as described in the City Staff Report Nov. 13, 2025 page 3 under Policy Scenario #2 "it would only be permitted in specific areas of the City where the impact associated with the STR use is anticipated to be minimal."? Stating that R-LD2 is in different areas of the City is not correct. Equally there are individual R-LD1 lots surrounded by or beside R-LD2 or other zones and those would be permitted for STR under Scenario #2 which is incongruous with the statement in the Nov. 13, 2025 City Staff report "specific areas of the City where the impact associated with the STR use is anticipated to be minimal."
Thank you for your response.
email.gjm
asked
10 months ago
Hello,
Thank-you for your question. Please keep in mind at this time these are high level policy options. We will still need to gather public feedback that will help shape the actual proposed amending bylaws that get into the detail on how zones are changing.
Scenario 2 could involve creation of a new zone, or expanding the R-LD6 zone to site-specific areas. It could also involve a land use overlay to the low density residential zones that could potentially incorporate R-LD1 and R-LD2 directly embedded into the zoning bylaw. At this time it is better to think about these at a high level in terms of what approach makes the most sense for Revelstoke from a strategic perspective. The actual amending bylaws where we get into the specifics of how zones could be impacted has not yet been prepared.
If you want to chat further on this, please email str@revelstoke.ca and we can set up a time to discuss over the phone so that we can provide some clarity towards the questions you have.
Thanks for the question!
Paul
-
Share How likely is it that STRs might not be allowed in Mackenzie Village? Is that under consideration? on Facebook
Share How likely is it that STRs might not be allowed in Mackenzie Village? Is that under consideration? on X (formerly Twitter)
Share How likely is it that STRs might not be allowed in Mackenzie Village? Is that under consideration? on Linkedin
Email How likely is it that STRs might not be allowed in Mackenzie Village? Is that under consideration? link
How likely is it that STRs might not be allowed in Mackenzie Village? Is that under consideration?
MCP
asked
about 1 year ago
Hello,
Mackenzie Village operates under what is called a comprehensive development (CD) zone. This is a site specific zone that has specific allowances for short term rental. While Council has land use authority to change zoning allowances under provincial legislation, thus far in the project there has been no direction for staff to alter development rights within CD zones. We recommend following this project so you can review the proposed changes to short term rental regulations in Revelstoke as they are drafted to provide feedback.
Thanks for the question,
Paul Simon
-
Share Why are BnB's prohibited from operating in conjunction with secondary suites?
Question repeated due to un-satisfactory response.
Consider this scenario...
A homeowner occupies their primary suite and chooses to rent their secondary suite to one individual (John). The secondary suite has 2 bedrooms. One bedroom is occupied by John and the other bedroom is vacant. John wishes to share his home with one temporary occupant. Why is John prohibited from operating his dwelling as a BnB? John's dwelling cannot be legally separated from the main unit, therefore should be classified as a single family dwelling.
Definintion: "A secondary suite is a complete living unit with its own kitchen, sleeping area, and washroom facilities contained within another dwelling. The two dwelling units (the primary residence and the secondary suite) and any common spaces make up a single real estate entity. A secondary suite cannot be stratified or otherwise legally separated from the main unit." Source: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/housing-tenancy/secondary-suites
on Facebook
Share Why are BnB's prohibited from operating in conjunction with secondary suites?
Question repeated due to un-satisfactory response.
Consider this scenario...
A homeowner occupies their primary suite and chooses to rent their secondary suite to one individual (John). The secondary suite has 2 bedrooms. One bedroom is occupied by John and the other bedroom is vacant. John wishes to share his home with one temporary occupant. Why is John prohibited from operating his dwelling as a BnB? John's dwelling cannot be legally separated from the main unit, therefore should be classified as a single family dwelling.
Definintion: "A secondary suite is a complete living unit with its own kitchen, sleeping area, and washroom facilities contained within another dwelling. The two dwelling units (the primary residence and the secondary suite) and any common spaces make up a single real estate entity. A secondary suite cannot be stratified or otherwise legally separated from the main unit." Source: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/housing-tenancy/secondary-suites
on X (formerly Twitter)
Share Why are BnB's prohibited from operating in conjunction with secondary suites?
Question repeated due to un-satisfactory response.
Consider this scenario...
A homeowner occupies their primary suite and chooses to rent their secondary suite to one individual (John). The secondary suite has 2 bedrooms. One bedroom is occupied by John and the other bedroom is vacant. John wishes to share his home with one temporary occupant. Why is John prohibited from operating his dwelling as a BnB? John's dwelling cannot be legally separated from the main unit, therefore should be classified as a single family dwelling.
Definintion: "A secondary suite is a complete living unit with its own kitchen, sleeping area, and washroom facilities contained within another dwelling. The two dwelling units (the primary residence and the secondary suite) and any common spaces make up a single real estate entity. A secondary suite cannot be stratified or otherwise legally separated from the main unit." Source: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/housing-tenancy/secondary-suites
on Linkedin
Email Why are BnB's prohibited from operating in conjunction with secondary suites?
Question repeated due to un-satisfactory response.
Consider this scenario...
A homeowner occupies their primary suite and chooses to rent their secondary suite to one individual (John). The secondary suite has 2 bedrooms. One bedroom is occupied by John and the other bedroom is vacant. John wishes to share his home with one temporary occupant. Why is John prohibited from operating his dwelling as a BnB? John's dwelling cannot be legally separated from the main unit, therefore should be classified as a single family dwelling.
Definintion: "A secondary suite is a complete living unit with its own kitchen, sleeping area, and washroom facilities contained within another dwelling. The two dwelling units (the primary residence and the secondary suite) and any common spaces make up a single real estate entity. A secondary suite cannot be stratified or otherwise legally separated from the main unit." Source: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/housing-tenancy/secondary-suites
link
Why are BnB's prohibited from operating in conjunction with secondary suites?
Question repeated due to un-satisfactory response.
Consider this scenario...
A homeowner occupies their primary suite and chooses to rent their secondary suite to one individual (John). The secondary suite has 2 bedrooms. One bedroom is occupied by John and the other bedroom is vacant. John wishes to share his home with one temporary occupant. Why is John prohibited from operating his dwelling as a BnB? John's dwelling cannot be legally separated from the main unit, therefore should be classified as a single family dwelling.
Definintion: "A secondary suite is a complete living unit with its own kitchen, sleeping area, and washroom facilities contained within another dwelling. The two dwelling units (the primary residence and the secondary suite) and any common spaces make up a single real estate entity. A secondary suite cannot be stratified or otherwise legally separated from the main unit." Source: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/housing-tenancy/secondary-suites
JM
asked
over 1 year ago
Hello JM,
As indicated in the prior response, this would change the use from a B&B to a short term rental (STR), which may not be permitted in your zoning. If STR is not permitted in your zoning, then you cannot undertake that use. See the definition of short term renal and B&B in the zoning bylaw for further information (remember, a B&B is out of the single family dwelling - STR is out of a separate dwelling unit that is self contained, which includes a secondary suite). Some zones in the City do allow a secondary suite to be used as a short term rental, please refer to the short term rental factsheet on the City's webpage for more information on the different rules for STR in different zones.
If you think a STR should be permitted in a secondary suite in all standard residential zones the same way a B&B is permitted, it is recommended that you participate as part of this process to provide feedback to this effect. The public survey closed March 31, and there will be further opportunities for specific engagement. I also recommend posting this in the ideas tool of TalkRevelstoke so other community members can comment on the idea.
Under zoning and BCBC, a secondary suite is not classified as a single-family dwelling. It is its own separate use. And yes, you are correct, a title cannot be raised for a secondary suite. This would make the building a two-unit dwelling under zoning regulations, and have implications for code compliance (fire separation etc.).
Regards,
Paul
-
Share Two questions:
1. Why are BnB's prohibited from operating in conjunction with secondary suites?
2. Do any by-laws currently exist to restrict off-street parking requirements per bedroom for long term rentals, and how are they enforced? on Facebook
Share Two questions:
1. Why are BnB's prohibited from operating in conjunction with secondary suites?
2. Do any by-laws currently exist to restrict off-street parking requirements per bedroom for long term rentals, and how are they enforced? on X (formerly Twitter)
Share Two questions:
1. Why are BnB's prohibited from operating in conjunction with secondary suites?
2. Do any by-laws currently exist to restrict off-street parking requirements per bedroom for long term rentals, and how are they enforced? on Linkedin
Email Two questions:
1. Why are BnB's prohibited from operating in conjunction with secondary suites?
2. Do any by-laws currently exist to restrict off-street parking requirements per bedroom for long term rentals, and how are they enforced? link
Two questions:
1. Why are BnB's prohibited from operating in conjunction with secondary suites?
2. Do any by-laws currently exist to restrict off-street parking requirements per bedroom for long term rentals, and how are they enforced?
JM
asked
over 1 year ago
Hi JM,
Great questions.
1. If a secondary suite is run as a B&B, this would constitute a short term rental use. STR is temporary accommodation in a self-contained dwelling unit, whereas a B&B entails sharing your single family home with temporary occupants.
2. The current use for long term rental (boarding, lodging and rooming house) has minimum parking requirements. Parking would be evaluated as part of a business license, and would be enforced based on complaints.
Have a great week,
Paul
-
Share As for "Targeted stakeholder engagement with operators", which STR Operators will you be consulting with and in what manner of contact since there is no formal organization of STR Operators? Will all those with active STR licenses be included in the engagement process equal to the hoteliers? on Facebook
Share As for "Targeted stakeholder engagement with operators", which STR Operators will you be consulting with and in what manner of contact since there is no formal organization of STR Operators? Will all those with active STR licenses be included in the engagement process equal to the hoteliers? on X (formerly Twitter)
Share As for "Targeted stakeholder engagement with operators", which STR Operators will you be consulting with and in what manner of contact since there is no formal organization of STR Operators? Will all those with active STR licenses be included in the engagement process equal to the hoteliers? on Linkedin
Email As for "Targeted stakeholder engagement with operators", which STR Operators will you be consulting with and in what manner of contact since there is no formal organization of STR Operators? Will all those with active STR licenses be included in the engagement process equal to the hoteliers? link
As for "Targeted stakeholder engagement with operators", which STR Operators will you be consulting with and in what manner of contact since there is no formal organization of STR Operators? Will all those with active STR licenses be included in the engagement process equal to the hoteliers?
C.S.
asked
over 1 year ago
Hi C.S.,
General operators are invited to participate as part of public engagement events (we have about 240 licenses issued currently with varying requirements for each licensee depending on zoning). Targeted engagement with the Chamber of Commerce, Tourism Revelstoke etc. will be undertaken as part of this project. I note that there are property management companies who are part of these organizations who manage various individual Short Term Rental properties in the City.
Business License Bylaw Amendments - September 8 2026 (324 KB) (pdf)
Thank you for your contribution!
Help us reach out to more people in the community
Share this with family and friends