Letter to the Editor
Editor,
A proposal for a ‘Boutique Hotel’ was presented by the developer to council at a public meeting on July 9. The location is on Boucher Street West, one property back from Sykes Street and, until it was unfortunately destroyed by fire, had been an occupied century home, similar to the homes in the rest of our quiet residential neighbourhood.
Very few details were available other than a rough pencil sketch of the site plan however the developer painted a glowing picture of a six-room ‘Boutique’ hotel. There would be no on site management but there would be a number to call if there was a problem. This would, of course, be a remote possibility because the rooms would be expensive, $200 to $300 per night on average, and would attract an upscale clientele.
So a typical guest might be a quiet, well-dressed, couple who park their expensive car and walk downtown to catch a show and spend a bunch of money shopping and dining.
Or
8 high school students, chipping in $25 each, who reserve the room online with one of their parent’s credit cards. As long as they’re smart enough to leave the room tidy and not do any drugs that create smoke they would be welcome to return. With no one on site who’s to know?
There are a number of other potential uses that come to mind that would benefit from the complete anonymity provided by this facility. Some of these are legal. The point is that there is absolutely no control over the occupancy or use of this proposed facility. With no management or owner on site and (currently) no regular police patrols, the local residents become the de facto, unpaid, property supervisors.
We’re not even sure what the proposed project really is.
The application refers to the construction of a ‘Boutique Hotel’. This description is very misleading. Boutique Hotels are typically from 20 to 100 units, with exceptional services including a first class restaurant, front desk services, and amenities such as spas, business services, and meeting areas.
The proposal in question has none of these features and, with only six units, does not have the scale required to offer them. It does, however, offer a lovely view of two parking lots. There is no place to sit outside other than in your car and, with no restaurant, lobby, or common spaces, you will be confined to your quarters for the duration of your stay.
When questioned by council the developer said that the reference to a ‘Boutique Hotel’ in his application was just meant to indicate that it did not belong to a major hotel chain. Really? By that definition every short-term accommodation in Meaford, including the little cabins by the river, has now become a ‘Boutique Hotel’. What a brilliant piece of marketing. Who knew that we could go upscale that easily?
With rental rates 50 to 100% higher than existing local accommodations that provide far better services it is clear that this venture cannot succeed as any sort of hotel or temporary stay accommodation. The discriminating clients that the developer refers to would certainly be intelligent enough to be able to judge value.
Although the words are written in his application it is difficult to comprehend that even the developer believes that this is a Boutique Hotel. Is he just being overly optimistic or is this another case of a classic ‘bait and switch’ zoning amendment application. What might start out as an attractive plan that benefits the community and complies with the local bylaws becomes greatly diminished part way into the project after the developer comes back to council claiming economic hardship. We’ve seen it before in Meaford; in fact just around the corner on Sykes Street.
Putting aside the nomenclature, what do we actually have here?
What we do know is that the proposed development contains six units on two floors, half of which have cooking facilities. The building and the out-front parking lot would fill the lot with little or no green space. At best it’s an unregulated Airb&b. It’s potentially much worse.
The proposed zoning bylaw amendment is very vague. It defines the use as a ‘Boutique hotel’ but allows for the three units with cooking facilities to be rented on a residential or non-temporary basis and the other three units to be rented simultaneously as extended stay temporary accommodation. (With no time limit specified).
The zoning amendment, as written, is very flawed. It defines the project as a ‘Boutique Hotel’ when in fact it is not. The potential of allowing less than half of the units to be rented for less than 60 days would classify it as a residential complex under federal tax regulations and disqualify it as being a hotel.
A residential complex is a very long way removed from the concept of a ‘Boutique Hotel’. With no clear definition or control over what this facility could possibly be used for how do we even know which bylaws to apply? Do we even have bylaws?
It is a blank cheque for the developer to change the use to what would effectively become a multi-unit residence.
While the profitability of this venture is strictly the business of the proponents, the sustainability of the project directly affects our neighbourhood. We’re stuck with a lot that is entirely filled with a building and a parking lot that will detract from our neighbourhood for a long time after the owner leaves town. The facility, with six very small units, only half with cooking facilities, is very likely to degenerate into a something that would be very detrimental to our property values and the quality of life in our quiet residential area.
If the end use is potentially a multi-unit residence then let’s ensure that the facility meets these requirements from the start. A duplex or a small townhouse, designed to meet the Heritage District designation of the property, could be a welcome addition to the neighbourhood.
The construction of a bona fide Boutique Hotel would be a wonderful benefit for our town. There are a number of locations in the downtown area where this could potentially be very successful but this specific location is not it. With insufficient scale to offer services it cannot offer something special that will attract visitors. Let’s put this in the right location where it will be successful for both the developer and the local residents.
We encourage the councillors and planning staff to look beyond the ‘glitter’ and think this all the way through, considering all possible end uses. Do not throw the local residents under the bus just to show that you’ve brought a development into town. If you fail to acknowledge that this development is not in fact what it is presented to be then you will prove yourself to be either very gullible or complicit. Would you want it across the street from your house?
Barry Altman, Meaford
