In the spring of 2022, the Town of Brome Lake attempted to adopt by-law 596-12, a by-law that would give the municipality more control over short-term rentals (30 days or less) by implementing certain criteria and restrictions that short-term rental homeowners and their guests would be expected to follow. A registry was held on May 27-28 that provided citizens with the opportunity to vote against the bylaw. Only 218 signatures were needed to determine how the municipality was going to move forward, but over 300 signatures were collected. 

Rather than go to a referendum, the municipality decided to form a committee made up of Brome Lake citizens for and against by-law 596-12, some town staff, and elected officials to try and come up with a new by-law. While the committee didn’t reach a full consensus, all parties emphasized that the town needed to assert more control when dealing with nuisance and ensuring that those renting out their property abide by short-term rental regulations. 

At last month’s council meeting on March 6, town council adopted administrative by-law 599-4 that allows people across the Brome Lake territory to rent out their principal residences on a short-term basis as long as they get the proper permit from the municipality and the Corporation de l'industrie touristique du Québec, the provincial body that regulates short-term housing.

Those with secondary residences are only able to rent out on a short-term basis if they fall within specific zones identified by the municipality. In an interview with CIDI at the end of March, Richard Burcombe, mayor for the Town of Brome Lake, said that these zones will be included in the municipality’s new urban plan, which he expects to begin working on within the next couple of months. 

While the municipality has officially adopted by-law 599-4, there is a group of citizens called Vigilance Lac-Brome who are not in favour. Vigilance Lac-Brome expressed its concerns regarding short-term rentals in Brome Lake from the very beginning when the municipality was trying to adopt by-law 596-12. The group did  not believe that by-law 596-12 was strict enough.

Recently, Benoit Bourgon, Brome Lake resident, lawyer, and co-founding member of Vigilance Lac-Brome, decided to proceed with taking legal action against the municipality over its decision to adopt an administrative by-law for short-term rentals rather than a zoning by-law. According to Bourgon, this decision essentially eliminates the right that citizens have to go against a by-law. 

Bourgon spoke with CIDI about Vigilance Lac-Brome, its concerns regarding short-term rentals, and why he decided to go ahead with suing the municipality. 

“There was some urgency to get some feedback from the committee to come up with a new by-law. The members of the committee were bound by a confidentiality agreement. We were not informed of the progress or of the discussions that went on among the committee,” explained Bourgon. “Earlier this year, I asked Lee Patterson, who is the councillor in charge of the project, at a council meeting if he was ready to report on the committee’s work. At that time, he said I’m not, because I have not discussed the committee’s work with the elected officials.”

Bourgon continued to explain that he asked Mr. Patterson if there was going to be a public hearing for by-law 599-4 and if it was subject to a referendum if the sufficient number of signatures were collected.

“And he said ‘yes, this is the type of by-law that is normally subject to a public hearing and if there is enough signatures of people who oppose the by-law then there is a referendum. Now fast forward to February, we found out through a press release from the town that they plan to file a notice of motion to say that at the next meeting we will adopt a by-law on this topic,” he said. “In the press release there was no indication as to what the number was of the by-law. That’s very important because a zoning by-law has the first three numbers 596 whereas as an administrative by-law is 599.”

Bourgon described the situation as “upsetting” for two main reasons, which he said are “key” to understanding his decision to take legal action against the municipality. 

“When you control the usage of the owner’s land, you have to go through a zoning by-law. In Bill 67 (which establishes provisions for short-term rental accommodation in Quebec), it is clearly stated that a by-law permitting short-term rentals for principal residences has to be done through a zoning by-law or a by-law on usage, both of which are subject to a public hearing and a possible referendum,” he said. (…) When we learned that they were going through an administrative by-law as opposed to a zoning by-law, I questioned Mr. Patterson and the mayor and both of them flatly admitted that they proceeded with an administrative by-law because they did not want opposition to go to a referendum, as they originally faced with Bylaw 596-12.”

According to Bourgon, it is only at the municipal level of government that citizens actually have the right to “intervene and ask that a proposed by-law be voted on.”

“The municipal government is structured in such a way that the legislators said ‘listen, it is a government that has to be close to the population’ and that’s the only instance. I was quite appalled that the municipality admitted that they proceeded with an administrative by-law to prevent any possibility for any citizen who may have wished to gather the sufficient number of signatures and trigger a referendum. That’s one of the issues,” he said. 

The second issue, he added, is that there is no by-law that, in his opinion, actually governs short-term rentals for secondary residences.

Bourgon emphasized that he has doubts when it comes to the municipality including secondary residences within its new urban plan. Mayor Burcombe told CIDI in a previous interview that the municipality is preparing to start working on that urban plan in the upcoming months.

“Before 599-4 (the new administrative by-law), the town tolerated the short-term rentals for secondary residences by using a usage within the zoning by-law and the usage is C61. Essentially, C61 applies to bed and breakfasts, auberges, motels, and hotels. It does not apply to private properties. (…) When you really read the provision, it doesn’t say that,” Bourgon point out. 

From Bourgon’s perspective, there, in general, doesn’t seem to be a by-law that includes set restrictions and criteria for short-term rentals, whether it be for primary residences or secondary residences, that short-term rental homeowners and their guests are expected to follow and that helps control nuisance. 

“Bare in mind that 596-12, which was a zoning by-law and met by huge opposition by the citizens, that by-law Vigilance Lac-Brome felt was too permissive and that it did not have enough restraints. For example, there was a maximum rooms allowed for renting, you needed to have at least one parking spot for every room that you rent,” mentioned Bourgon. “(…) In 599-4, there’s no restraints. There are only, I would say, three restraints that provides for the owner of the property to sign an undertaking that they will make sure that the people who rent the property are aware of the nuisance by-law of the city, and so long and so forth.” 

It’s like a “free for all,” said Bourgon. 

“Bare in mind that 596-12 applied to secondary residences as well and there were eleven restraints. For secondary residences 599-4 provides for no restriction, only those that I previously  mentioned. Instead of going towards a more restrictive approach, both for principal residences and secondary residences, they decided to go completely the other way. (…) When you’re an elected official, you’re supposed to be adopting by-laws to prevent something from happening,” he said. 

For more information on Vigilance Lac-Brome, visit the organization's website.

To hear more from Bourgon listen to the full interview below: