Council approved a new short-term rental framework, but made it more permissive than staff’s proposal by allowing rentals in secondary and garden suites for up to 90 nights a year; the framework also caps whole-home rentals at 180 nights. Seven public speakers offered competing concerns, from protecting rental housing to keeping affordable places for visiting family and allowing hosts time to adjust. Council also backed higher bylaw penalties, including for parking offences, and asked staff to report on possible rules for neighbourhood sharing boxes, with food pantries to be considered separately. Staff will draft the short-term rental bylaw changes and bring them back to the next council; the bylaw remains in force in the meantime.
Generated from the recording's captions and the official minutes.
What was discussed
AI summary · check against sources
1 Resolution to Close the Meeting Pursuant to Section 90 of the Community Charter; Reconvene the Regular Meeting of Council at 7:00 PM with Members of the Public in Attendance
The minutes record a vote to close the meeting under the Community Charter, but that vote is not heard in this transcript. The chair then called for the regular meeting to reconvene; the minutes record the reconvening time as 7:01 PM. Councillor Armour and the chief administrative officer were attending by phone.
Carried, unanimousItem 1
Routine: close the public meeting to discuss the confidential matters listed in the motion.
Official wording: That pursuant to Sections 90(1)(b), (c) and (e) of the Community Charter, the meeting be closed to the general public to discuss personal information about an identifiable individual who is being considered for a municipal award or honour, or who has offered to provide a gift to the municipality on condition of anonymity, labour relations or other employee relations, and the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality; and That pursuant to Sections 90 (2)(b) (i) & (ii) of the Community Charter, the meeting be closed to the general public to discuss the consideration of information received and held in confidence relating to negotiations between the municipality and a provincial government or the federal government, or both, or between a provincial government or the federal government, or both, and a third party, and between the municipality and another local government or between another local government and a third party.
Council adopted the bylaw establishing an inter-community business licence. The chair noted the matter had been reviewed at an earlier meeting; no discussion or objections were recorded at this vote.
Staff explained that provincial law requires the Township to publish annual information on staff and council remuneration and expenses, and payments to suppliers, by June 30. The draft had been published, but the public was not asked to comment because this is a province-wide reporting requirement. A councillor and the mayor flagged minor name or grammar edits; staff said those could be made without changing the substance. The mayor also asked about the long-standing $75,000 reporting threshold, and staff said earlier calls to raise it had not led to a change. Council approved the statement.
Agreement
The minor edits raised at the meeting did not change the substance of the financial statement.
Seven people spoke during public input. Some urged Council to follow the province’s rules, saying short-term rentals provide affordable stays for visiting relatives and income for hosts; others questioned whether restrictions would actually create long-term rentals, asked for a transition period, or wanted clearer measures of success. The consultant’s framework would allow short-term rentals only in an operator’s principal dwelling, cap whole-home rentals at 180 nights a year, and generally exclude secondary and garden suites. It also proposed annual licences, inspections, proof of residency, a responsible contact person, and stronger enforcement. Councillors debated housing supply and affordability against homeowners’ flexibility and visitors’ need for local accommodation. Council amended the proposal to allow rentals in secondary and garden suites in owner-occupied homes for up to 90 nights per year, rather than the proposed 120, and directed staff to include a high-level estimate of costs and revenues for the first three years when the zoning bylaw changes return. Staff said the bylaw work would be for the next council; until changes are adopted, short-term rentals remain prohibited under the current zoning rules, apart from rentals longer than 30 days as described at the meeting.
Agreement
Council supported developing a clearer licensing and enforcement framework rather than leaving the rules undefined.
Councillors supported reviewing how the rules work after implementation, though they noted that measuring changes in rental supply would be difficult.
Staff should return with an estimate of implementation costs and revenues for the first three years.
Disagreement
Some councillors favoured allowing secondary and garden suite rentals for 120 nights a year, while others wanted to begin at 90 nights to limit the risk of long-term rentals shifting to short-term use and to leave room to increase the cap later.
Councillors differed on how much weight to give homeowners’ income and visitor accommodation needs compared with protecting lower-cost, long-term rental homes.
There was debate over whether short-term rentals would meaningfully undermine the case for future hotel or other dedicated visitor accommodation in Esquimalt.
Have staff include a broad estimate of the likely costs and income for the first three years when Council receives the zoning changes for their first reading.
Official wording: That the main motion be amended to include direction to staff to include a high-level estimate of potential costs and revenues for the first three years in the report when the Zoning Bylaw is brought forward for first reading.
Have staff draft changes to the zoning, business-licence and enforcement rules using the proposed framework, allowing short-term rentals in owner-occupied homes for up to 90 nights a year and allowing them in secondary and garden suites for up to 90 nights a year. Council would review the suite limit after one year, and staff would provide a broad three-year cost and revenue estimate when the zoning changes come forward for first reading.
Official wording: That Council direct staff to prepare amendments to the Zoning Bylaw, Business Licence Bylaw, and the Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw, based on the proposed regulatory framework outlined in the Report attached as Appendix “A” to Staff Report DEV-26-032, with the exception of Recommendation 1.10 to be amended to strike out the word “prohibit” and replace with “allow” and add “for up to a maximum of 90 nights per calendar year within owner-occupied homes” at the end. And be it further resolved that: 1) All related bylaws including Sections 1.5, 1.5.1, and 1.5.2 as outlined in Staff Report No. DEV-26-032 pertaining to the Zoning Bylaw be changed to allow short-term rentals for secondary suites and garden suites to a maximum of 90 nights per year; 2) The cap of 90 nights on short-term rentals for secondary suites and garden suites be reviewed by Council one year from the date of implementation; and 3) Staff be directed to include a high-level estimate of potential costs and revenues for the first three years in the report when the Zoning Bylaw is brought forward for first reading.
Staff said the amendment corrects a missed fee for a delegated development permit, following earlier changes to the fees bylaw. Staff described it as a straightforward change that would improve the process for small permits. Council gave the amendment bylaw first, second and third readings.
Agreement
No concerns or controversy were raised about adding the omitted fee.
Council gives the proposed changes to its development-application procedures and fees bylaw the first three readings, moving them through those stages of the bylaw process.
Official wording: That Council give first, second, and third readings to Development Application Procedures and Fees Bylaw, 2012, No. 2791, Amendment Bylaw, 2026, No. 3190.
Staff said this was the first substantial review of the Township’s bylaw penalties since 2014. Parking tickets make up about 95% of bylaw work, and about 72% of parking tickets issued from 2019 to 2024 went unpaid. Staff recommended a high-deterrence, safety-focused update to improve compliance and bring penalties closer to those in neighbouring municipalities. Councillors asked whether late-payment charges add needless complexity and what can be done when debts go to collections; staff said they would look into further collection options. Staff also reported plans to recruit auxiliary bylaw officers for event support, parking enforcement and licensing work, and said a fuller review of time-limited parking enforcement would come later. Council approved the recommended approach and gave the amendment bylaw three readings.
Agreement
Council supported modernizing the penalty structure and advancing the staff-recommended option.
Disagreement
A councillor questioned whether separate early and late payment amounts were too complicated; staff said Council could choose a simpler structure, but no change to that feature was made in the motion.
Have staff update the Township’s bylaw-ticket penalties using the option intended to strongly deter offences and prioritize safety, and give the related enforcement-bylaw changes their first three readings.
Official wording: That Council: 1. Direct staff to proceed with modernizing Esquimalt’s BON penalty structure in accordance with a high deterrence, safety forward approach, option 1; and 2. Give first, second, and third readings to the Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw, 2014, No. 2839, Amendment Bylaw, 2026, No. 3191.
9.1 June 15th, 2026 Committee of the Whole Resolutions to be Ratified — Presentation - West Bay Residence Association and Habitat Acquisition Trust - Interpretive Platform and Pollinator Park
Council ratified the Committee of the Whole recommendation to refer the West Bay Residents Association and Habitat Acquisition Trust proposal for an interpretive platform and pollinator park to staff. Staff will report back so Council can discuss the proposal and consider whether it should be included in future priority planning.
Agreement
Council agreed to have staff assess the proposal and report back before considering next steps.
Ask staff to report back on the proposed interpretive platform and pollinator park so Council can discuss it and consider whether it should be included in future priority planning.
Official wording: That Council refer the presentation from the West Bay Residents Association and the Habitat Acquisition Trust regarding the proposed Interpretive Platform and Pollinator Park to staff for a report back to Council to allow for discussion and consideration of inclusion into future priority planning.
A councillor asked staff to propose bylaw changes and report on the effects of allowing sharing boxes as an ancillary use in residential areas, using the home-occupation rules as a model. The councillor said little free libraries, seed and yarn libraries, and similar boxes may technically conflict with current zoning despite community support. Another councillor supported studying the issue but asked staff to distinguish book and other sharing boxes from food pantries, which raise separate food-safety and neighbourhood concerns. Staff said they would examine pantries separately, including any complaint history or other concerns. Council approved the request for a staff report.
Agreement
Council agreed that staff should examine the bylaw implications before Council decides on amendments.
The report should consider food pantries separately from other sharing boxes, including libraries.
Disagreement
A councillor welcomed sharing boxes generally but stressed that pantries may raise distinct health, safety and nuisance issues; the motion’s sponsor emphasized regulating impacts rather than banning the use.
Have staff propose bylaw changes and briefly explain their possible effects so community sharing boxes can be allowed as an accessory use in residential areas, using the Township’s home-occupation rules as a model.
Official wording: That Council direct staff to bring forward suggested bylaw amendments and a brief report on potential implications that would allow for sharing boxes as an ancillary use in residential areas in line with our existing zoning regulations for Home Occupation.