►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
You
know,
then,
over
over
the
page,
and
we
have
a
number
of
sets
of
of
listings.
These
I
take
it
are
just
reproductions,
of
the
same
listing
for
taking
on
different
dates.
Is
that
correct.
A
That
is
correct,
similar
listing
or
same
listings,
but
taken
on
different
time
frame.
A
That
is
correct,
so
just
to
be
clear,
madam
chair,
when
administration
extends
to
this
level,
where
we
forward
our
information
to
prosecution,
it
is
to
state
that,
with
all
the
efforts
of
trying
to
achieve
compliance,
administration
founded
not
to
be
successful,
and
so
therefore
they
resorted
to
the
final
stage
of
the
enforcement
step,
which
is
to
go
to
prosecution.
So
this
is
the
in
some
ways,
the
most
extreme
level
of
enforcement
that
we
have
within
the
city
to
to
to
have
compliance
to
our
bylaws.
B
Then,
over
the
next
page
there's
a
document
title
registered
registered
mail.
I
don't
want
to
take
you
through
that
and
then
there's
another
document,
a
couple
pages
on:
that's
another
court
document.
That's
that
stamped
robson
square
provincial
court
and
states
that
it's
an
order.
A
That
is
correct,
so
that's
the
decision
of
the
courts
that
they
found
misland
guilty
of
the
offenses
that
we
have
put
forward
to
prosecution
and
in
the
decision
of
the
court,
to
request
to
order
her
not
to
operate
until
july.
2022.
B
A
Yes,
madam
chair,
this
is
a
letter
that
the
chief
licensed
inspector
had
sent
at
the
time
september.
22Nd
2021,
and
this
is
to
to
advise
miss
land
that
her
application
for
a
2021,
short-term
rental
business
license,
has
been
denied
or
not
supported,
and
also
cites.
The
bylaw
stipulation
that
mr
dixon
had
previously
indicated
where,
when
one
is
convicted
through
provincial
court,
then
that
the
act
of
the
chief
license
inspector
is
to
suspend
based
on
that.
A
That
decision
and
the
miss
lan
has
then
chosen
to
appeal-
and
hence
we're
here
today,.
B
And
then,
over
the
next
page,
what
I
have
is
tab,
15,
there's
a
further.
What
appears
to
be
a
summary
with
respect
to
it's
gotta,
it
reproduces
the
photographs
and
and
the
like.
It's
it's
entitled
matched
property
listing,
and
then
it
has
vancouver
bc,
canada,
which-
and
this
appears
to
be
a
phone.
Can
you
tell
me
what
this
document
is?
B
A
Through
the
chair,
this
document
is
a
software
that
we
use
as
part
of
our
enforcement,
and
we
periodically
do
checks
on
the
individual
and
in
this
particular
case
this
was
printed
in
december
of
2021,
and
if
you
look
at
page
2
to
4
204
on
the
top,
it
says
two
documents
documented
stage
in
january,
2021,
three
in
december,
2020,
so
on
and
so
forth,
and
then
at
the
bottom
of
one
of
four.
It
also
goes
to
june
22nd
2021.
A
All
these
dates
indicate
a
period
of
time
that
we
believe
miss
lan
has
continued
to
operate
the
short-term
rental,
even
though
she
didn't
have
a
license
during
most
of
this
period
and
even
though
the
courts
have
or
that
she's
been
sent
to
court,
that
she
continued
to
do
this
activity.
B
And
just
to
be
fair
to
ms
lam,
I
just
want
to
confirm
for
council
that
the
date
of
the
order
and
the
and
the
guilty
plea
in
provincial
court
was
the
27th
of
july
2021.
B
B
Now,
as
the
the
operation
of
the
bylaw,
mr
meiji
just
doesn't
allow
the
chief
license
inspector
to
issue
a
license
here,
but
it
is
open
to
council
to
issue
a
license
to
miss
lamb
for
this.
B
Do
you
have
any
comments
about
whether,
in
your
view,
a
license
should
issue
to
miss
lamb,
given
the
circumstances
that
have
have
occurred
this
thus
far
with
regard
to
this
property
and
with
regard
to
her
other
any
other
short-term
rental
activity,
she
maybe
have
been
involved
in.
A
Thank
you
through
the
chair.
I
have
a
little
bit
of
items
to
read
here
so
so,
if
you
can
tolerate.
A
Her
sdr
license,
may
2021
and
and
continue
to
hold
this
position
into
2022
and,
as
mr
dickson
stated,
the
bylaws
states
that,
with
the
court
decision,
it
needs
to
be
looked
at
now.
Miss
lan
has
extensive
history
with
the
city
on
the
sdr
licensing
and
the
operations
offer
short-term
rental
activities
in
the
past
that
raise
this
question
to
the
city
on
her
willingness
to
operate
within
the
boundaries
and
in
the
spirit
of
the
sdr
bylaw
going
forward
in
her
statement
to
administration.
A
When
we
were
conducting
a
review
of
her
2021
str
license
application,
she
stated
in
her
own
words.
I
have
operated
airbnb
since
2016.,
based
on
this
claim
made
by
her.
The
city
would
assume
that
she
would
be
very
aware
of
the
short-term
rental
bylaws
that
came
into
effect
in
september
of
2020
2018..
A
Our
records
indicate
that
ms
lam
was
involved
in
operating
an
illegal
unlicensed,
short-term
rental
activity
at
various
locations
in
2019,
2020
and
2021.
prior
to
this
374
east
28th
avenue.
Hearing
that
we're
here
today,
miss
land
was
active
in
operating
an
illegal
short-term
rental
operations
at
751,
753
and
749
east
31st
street
in
2019
and
2020
according
to
our
records.
A
Our
information
says
that
they
end
up
selling
this
property
in
2021..
At
this
address
of
749
east
31st
avenue.
This
is
a
triplex
type
building,
so
there
are
three
independent
units
that
are
legally
able
to
be
rented
to
three
independent,
long-term
renters.
If
you
will
on
may
2019
her
husband,
gary
buchanan,
held
a
short-term
rental
license
for
749
east
31st
only
and
then
when
we
began
to
investigate
this
particular
location,
he
what
we
call
gobed,
which
has
gone
out
of
business,
he
canceled
his
license
when
we
began
our
investigation
process.
A
However,
in
october
2019,
three
violation
tickets
were
issued
to
miss
lan
and
mr
buchanan
for
these
three
locations,
as
they
continued
to
operate
illegal,
short-term
rentals
at
all
three
of
these
locations.
The
tickets
were
not
disputed.
These
were
thousand
dollar
each
tickets,
but
they
were
not
paid
as
well.
A
For
this
location,
we
find
this
application
peculiar,
as
this
is
november
2020.
If
you
remember
madam
chair
and
in
may
2020,
we
began
investigating
her
for
str
activities
at
this
address.
374
east
28th
the
the
address
that
we're
talking
about
today.
A
A
A
Miss
lan
and
and
mr
buchanan,
as
we
stated
in
the
package,
we
were
issued
two
one
thousand
dollar
violation:
tickets
or
one
thousand
dollar
tickets,
each
for
operating
illegal
str's
at
this
374
east
28th
in
may
29th.
A
A
Our
information
showed
that
she
still
has
an
active
listing
on
airbnb.
We
show
a
number
of
documented
stays.
Miss
lan
has
applied
for
a
2021
sdr
license
in
june
and
and
we've
through,
our
review
have
overturned
our
have,
I
did
a
non-support
is
what
we
call
it.
A
A
Now
we
held
back
the
issuance
of
this
license
and
maybe
later
on,
perhaps
miss
lan
can
elaborate
on
who
this
person
is
that
applied
for
this
short-term
rental
license
for
her
address
when
she's
explained
to
us
of
no
such
individuals
living
at
this
address
and
she's
indicated
that
she
lives
there
on
her
own,
so
on
and
so
forth.
So
that
was
a
peculiar
development
in
december
just
recently
and
lastly,
miss
lam
is
claiming
her.
Her
current
listing
will
show
30
days
plus
listings.
A
A
We
do
have
those
kind
of
situations
when
we
have
people
that
go
to
school
away
for
a
certain
period
of
time
or
or
snowbirds.
If
you
will
that
go
down
south
and
are
vacant
for
a
period
of
time,
misslam
has
indicated
to
us
that
she
works.
She
works
from
home
and
she
works
in
vancouver.
So,
therefore,
these
30-day
listings
are
also
peculiar
indication
that
perhaps
this
is
not
her
primary
residence.
C
And
just
to
clarify
it's
the
entire
home
that
you
found.
That's
yes,
short-term.
A
Listing
says
entire
home
administration
finds
in
conclusion,
that
muslim
to
be
a
higher
risk
of
non-compliance
to
the
sdr
bylaws
in
the
future,
we
suspect
she's
been
operating
sdrs
in
a
commercial
like
manner
like
a
hotel
operator.
If
you
are
booking
non-occupied
suites
as
strs,
when
in
fact
they
could
be
rented
in
the
long
term
to
to
other
renters,
if
you
will
in
the
long
term
scenario,
she
has
demonstrated
high
disregard
for
the
bylaws
that
are
in
place.
A
The
city
has
devoted
numerous
and
extensive
amounts
of
time
and
resources
to
keep
miss
land
accountable.
For
her
non-compliant
ways,
it
would
be
noted
that
to
be
it,
we've
been
noted
that
to
be
advanced
to
prosecution
and
provincial
court,
as
I
indicated
earlier,
is
the
highest
form
of
our
enforcement
measures
to
achieve
compliance
and
after
many
hours
I
have
been
devoted
by
city
administration
to
achieve
voluntary
compliance
from
her.
A
We
feel,
in
fact
it
is
very
easy
to
be
in
compliance
with
the
str
bylaws
that
council
has
approved,
and
thousands
of
license
holders
do
so
currently,
and
yet
she
continues
to
ignore
the
the
regulations
that
apply
to
everyone
who
operates
short-term
rentals
in
vancouver.
A
We
hope
council,
the
council
panel
keeps
this
consider
keeps
us
in
consideration
when
rendering
their
decision
on
when
and
or
how
long
she
should
be
not
issued
a
short-term
rental
license.
Thank
you.
C
Thank
you
very
much
panel
members.
Do
you
have
any
questions
for
the
witness.
C
I'll,
just
I'll
give
you
a
moment,
I
can't
see
you
because
I'm
in
the
chambers,
but
if,
for
whatever
reason,
you
cannot
put
yourself
on
the
queue,
please
let
the
clerk
know
I'll.
Just
give
you
a
moment.
C
C
Counselor
dominato:
please
go
ahead
with
your
questions.
D
Yeah,
thank
you
for
the
chronology
and
the
additional
background.
I
I
am
I'm
just
hoping
that
you
can
clarify
in
total
how
many
properties
and
her
husband
or
ex-husband
have
been
operating
as
str's
in
the
city
and
I'm
sorry.
We
didn't
get
that
chronology
in
advance,
so
I'm
just
curious
if
you
could
articulate
that
for
us
and
how
many
of
those
properties
were
not
in
compliance.
A
Yes,
of
course,
through
the
chair,
we
are
in
knowledge
of
the
7
49
series
so
that
there's
three
properties
there
independent
units
there,
her
current
location
of.
A
That
is
also
a
duplex
type
building,
and
our
understanding
is
that
there's
the
suite
that
she's
her
address
is
on
right
now.
There's
another
street
suite,
that's
adjacent,
it's
on
a
corner
lot,
and
so
that's
all
on
the
same
lot
as
well.
There's
two
buildings
there.
So
we
believe
that
she's
been
active
in
five
illegal,
short-term
rental
activities.
C
Does
that
include
also
the
properties
you
had
mentioned
that
mr
buchanan
has
a
license
for
so
sometimes
they
were
in
compliance
and
out
of
compliance,
or
is
that,
in
addition
to
the
five.
A
Through
the
chair,
that
is
not
in
addition,
but
that's
part,
so
we
believe
they
were
in
together.
C
In
the
queue
for
questions,
if
you're
having
difficulty
with
your
cue,
please
notify
the
clerk
and
the
clerk
will
notify
me
and
we
will
move
on
so
does
the
applicant
have
any
questions
for
the
witness
you
do
we'll
just
wait
to
have
your
microphone
turned
on?
If
that's,
okay,.
E
F
A
Through
the
chair,
we
have
a
case
file
management
system
called
policy,
and
in
that
there
is
very
extensive
information
emails
going
back
and
forth
with
mr
buchanan,
mr
buchanan
and
all
sorts
of
information
regarding
miss
land
as
well.
So
our
inves,
our
investigations
indicate
what
I've
stated.
F
Also
in
terms
of
talked
about
the
the
course
pla
find
us
guilty,
I
would
do
you
have
information,
how
much
fine
I'm
paying
versus
how
much
fine
mr
buchanan
is
paying
the
dollar
amount.
That's
found
by
judge.
What
is
my
dollar
amount
that
I'm
supposed
to
pay.
A
I'm
sorry,
I'm
not
privy
to
that
information.
Okay,
just
know
that
there
was
a
guilty
plea
and
that's
the
fact
that
we
need
to
understand
as
well,
which
we
take
that
into
consideration.
C
C
Mona,
please
go
ahead.
F
So
in
2020
I
I'm
going
through,
I
went
through
a
separation
with
my
husband
now
ex-husband
it
appeared
to
be.
He
was
meeting
with
inspector
city
inspector
without
telling
me
he
was
making
promises
to
the
city
inspectors
and
having
communication
with
the
cities
without
telling
me.
F
No
knowledge
about
the
night,
one
that
that
was
listed
as
airbnb.
We
have
a
renter
permanent
renter
for
the
basement
and
also
landway
home
for
about
two
years
now.
So
when
the
he
was
talking
about
I'm
sorry,
I
didn't
get
your
name
regarding
our
airbnb
license.
Perhaps
mr
buchanan
had
reapply,
I
I
have
no
recollection
I'm.
I
wasn't
I'm
not
involved
with
that.
F
F
F
I
asked
him
to
sell
the
property
for
374
east
28
and
he
refused
and
refused,
and
I
no
choice
to
continue
operating
and
he
promised
he
said
he
had
talked
to
the
city
and
everything
was
okay
and-
and
we
continue
with
that,
because
I
need
the
money
to
pay
my
legal
fee,
I
have
to
pay
the
property
taxes.
I
have
to
pay
the
expense
for
my
child
because
I'm
not
getting
any
child
support.
He
wasn't
working
he's
still
not
working
and
anything
regarding
it.
So
I
have
no
choice
and
right
now.
F
And
I
am
being
living
there
since
august
with
my
son
upstairs
and
downstairs:
there's
three
suites
all
together
a
downstairs
space.
We
only
rent
using
the
airbnb
for
one
bedroom
and
that's
it
not
the
whole
house,
as
you
ins
instead
and
I
was
fine
twenty
five
dollars
by
the
judge
and
mr
buchanan
was
fine.
Five
hundred
dollars
in
court.
F
I
paid
five
times
more
than
mr
buchanan
and
he
was
operating
airbnb
under
749
east
31st.
I
have
no
idea
how
he
got
the
license
just
prior
to
our
sale
of
home
before
november.
So
from
probably
october
till
december,
mr
buchanan
was
actually
hosting
airbnb.
Without
my
knowledge,
I
moved
out
of
that
house.
Already.
I
was
living
at
374,
east
28th.
F
C
Okay
and
now
do
you
have
any
witnesses?
C
Panel,
I'm
going
to
ask
the
panel
the
other
counselor
blind,
counselor
dominato.
Do
you
have
any
questions.
C
Just
one
moment,
counselor
blind.
G
Thanks
very
much
and
mona,
thank
you
for
sharing
your
perspective.
I
just
had
a
couple
of
questions
so
right
now
I
get.
There
are
a
couple
of
properties
that
are
being
discussed.
My
question:
is
you
mentioned
that
you
would
like
to
sell
the
property,
so
I'm
assuming
that
one
is
for
east
28th.
Is
that
what
you're
referring
to.
F
The
east
28th,
I
asked
my
ex-husband
to
sell
it
in
2020
and
he
refused
to
sign
a
document.
Then
I
went
to
the
family
lawyer
to
force
him
to
sign
it.
He
still
refused
so
now
we're
in
the
trial
family
law
family
court
to
decide
what
we're
gonna
do
with
this
property,
but
that
won't
come
up
till
october.
F
But
he
is
not
allowed
to
live
in
the
property.
It's
an
order
by
judge
by
the
family
court,
so
me
and
my
son
is
in
the
property
and
it's
my
responsibility
to
carry
the
mortgage
since
I
live
in
the
property.
G
Okay,
so
so
then,
as
in
is
october,
did
you
say,
is
your
court
case
yeah?
G
So
is
it
your
intention
to
live
in
the
property
in
airbnb
the
additional
suite
if
you
had
the
option
to
get
a
license
out,
you
know,
depending
on
what
happens
in
this
proceeding
and
then
you'll
stay
living
in
that
property.
F
G
F
G
F
The
the
city
was
asking
for
a
copy
of
my
driver
license
and
I
never
I've
actually
updated
address,
so
we've
been
in
and
out
of
that
house
numerous
times
when
we're
doing
a
renovation
we
move
out
back
to
this
house,
then
we
move
out
when
we
finish
the
renovation.
We
moved
to
a
new
home,
so
we've
been
back
and
forth
a
couple
times,
but
never
really
updated
my
address
and
into
2020
may
the
marriage
was
falling
apart
and
I
didn't
really
want
to
operate.
Airbnb
anymore.
F
Exactly
because
I
I
didn't
have
any
money
the
cover
hit,
my
line
of
work
was
completely
shut
down.
I'm
in
the
mortgage
business.
There
was
no
open
house
allowed
for
a
few
months,
so
there
was
no
business,
there's
no
buyer
buying
houses.
They
were
not
able
to
look
at
the
houses,
so
there
was
no
business.
I
didn't
have
any
money
to
pay
for
my
mortgage
to
pay
for
my
child.
The
child
was
sitting
at
home
and
I
have
to
be
with
my
child.
F
G
Right,
so
why
didn't
you
update
your
license
so
that
you
could
be
in
compliance
with
the
business
license?
Surely
that
it
just
only
takes
about
oversight.
F
On
my
part,
I
just
I
move
you
know
in
and
out
of
that
property,
so
I
just
didn't
update
it.
G
F
I'm
not
certain
because
that
when
the
city
asked
me
for
the
driver's
license
and
that's
when
I
know
I'm
not
able
to,
I
don't
have
it
and
then
I
just
did
not
continue
the
process.
I'm
not
sure.
G
In
a
difficult
time,
yes,.
G
Yeah,
I
okay!
Well
what
I'll
do
I'll
just
pause?
My
questions
and
I
see
that
the
that
counts.
The
geminid
is
on
the
queue
and
I
have
a
couple
follow-ups
but
I'll
I'll,
just
pause
there
chair.
C
Of
course,
I
do
not
see
counselor
dominato
on
my
cue,
but
I
will
ask
that
the
clerk
advanced
counselor
dominato
before
we
move
on
to
questions
from
legal
counsel
of
the
city
of
vancouver's
the
applicant.
So
please
go
ahead.
Counselor
dominato,
I'm
going
to
add
you
to
my
queue
here.
D
Thanks
chair,
I,
and
and
thank
you
mona,
for
sharing
your
story,
and
I
appreciate
this
is
a
very
difficult
time
for
your
husband.
I
counselor
bligh
asked
a
lot
of
questions.
I
was
going
to
ask
about
it.
I
will
follow
up
on
one.
I
was.
D
The
question
was
asked
about
property
title
holders
and
I
understand
it
is
you
and
your
ex-husband
and
I'm
curious,
and
maybe
this
will
end
up
having
to
be
a
question
for
our
staff,
but
in
terms
of
presenting
today,
you're
presenting
on
this
issue
and
I'm
curious
were
was
were
both
you
and
mr
buchanan
invited
to
participate
in
today's
hearing.
F
No,
he
he
doesn't
live
in
the
property
anymore,
so
he
we
are
not
treated
as
a
an
an
entity
anymore
because
we
are
in
the
separation.
I
don't
discuss
anything
about
this
property
with
him
further,
it's
just
a
very
messy
divorce
and
so
we're
not
in
communication
with
this
everything.
All
the
communication
has
gone
through
all
lawyers
and
every
all
the
decisions
are
made
by
judge
at
this
point.
D
Okay,
thank
you
and,
and
and
just
to
clarify
again
is
what
I
heard
was
that
that
you
didn't
want
to
continue
the
short-term
rental
that
you
communicate,
that
to
your
ex-husband
and
and
the
opportunity
to
renew
that
license
was
presented,
but
you
needed
an
updated
driver's
license.
That's
what
was
asked
by
the
city
was
to
confirm
your
address
and
using
a
driver's
license
as
a
reference
point
for
where
you
were
living.
Is
that
correct.
D
Okay,
I
may
have
further
questions,
but
I
I'm
going
to
pause
there.
Like
I
said,
counselor
blai
asked
a
number
that
I
had.
Thank
you
thank.
C
You
I'm
going
to.
I
have
just
a
couple
of
clarifying
questions
for
you
myself
and
just
before
we
move
on
to
mr
dixon,
I'm
just
wondering
if
you
could
clarify
you
had
I
thought
I
had
heard
you
say
so.
Is
it
the
case
that
mr
buchanan
had
a
license?
He
was
in
violation
of
some
of
some
or
the
terms
of
his
license
and
the
city
continued
to
grant
him
a
license,
but
you
have
had
a
license.
You
said,
or
you
have
not
had
well,
we
we.
F
F
With
a
license,
I'm
I'm
not
certain,
I'm
not
he!
He
was
not
charged
with
that
property,
so
I'm
I'm
not
sure,
but
he
was
operating.
I
have
the
listing
so
you're,
not
sure
if
he
had
a
license
for
that,
I
would
think
he
has
okay,
because
he
just
learned
he
got
the
pleaded
guilty
from
the
374.
I
imagine
he
understands
the
bylaw
at
that
point.
C
I
I
can
follow
up
and
and
ask
about
that
later,
okay,
which
I
which
I
will
do.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I'm
hearing
you
correctly
and
I'm
understanding
what
you're
saying
I
also
just
wanted
to
in
in
the
package
that
we
have
that
was
referenced
before
by
mr
dixon,
when
he
was
examining
the
witness.
It
does
say
that
the
whole
house
is
for
rent,
and
I
was
just
wondering
if
you
could
comment
on
that.
Considering
you
had
mentioned
that
it
was
a
room
in
the
house,
it
did.
F
F
It
doesn't
have
like
just
part
of
the
suite
like
it
doesn't
give
me
the
selection
of
that.
So
I
don't
have
like.
I
don't
have
access
to
that
unit.
When
I
I
have
a
different
entrance
when
I
me
and
my
we
use
the
gym,
so
it's
a
corner
of
a
28th
and
john
street,
so
there's
a
door
on
the
east
28th,
that's
where
the
air
bnb
goes
to
and
there's
one
on
john
street.
C
Okay
and
how
is
this
relayed
to
people
that
you
potentially
have
tried
to
host?
Just
because
it
says,
hear
the
whole
house.
C
Thank
you.
Those
are
my
questions.
F
G
Thank
you
mona.
I
just
have
a
quick
follow-up
question.
The
city
staff
witness
stated
that
a
different
person
by
a
different
name
applied
for
a
short-term
rental
license
december
2021.
Do
you
know
who
that
is.
F
I
I
I
posted
for
long
term
rental,
just
because
I
I
have
it
empty
for
the
last
four
months
and
I
needed
that
income,
the
person
that
wanted
to
rent
it.
They
want
to
use
it
as
an
airbnb,
but
it
was
under
the
condition
of
getting
approval
from
the
city
I
had
to.
Then
I
have
disclosed
the
information
about.
F
You
know
the
issue
with
the
with
the
getting
the
license
on
this
property
under
you
know
what
my
past
experience,
so
the
person
that
doesn't
want
to
rent
it
anymore,
just
because
she
she
can't
really
obtain
the
license
and
she
she
wants
to
move
in
with
me
and
then
operate
the
the
one
bedroom
for
me,
but
not
for
me
for
herself,
but
I'm
not
able.
G
F
So
what
had
happened
is
downstairs.
There's
one
bedroom
at
the
front
and
then
there's
another
bedroom
on
the
back
of
the
house
on
one
floor
and
me
and
my
son
was
gonna.
Stay
upstairs
and
she's
gonna
be
on
the
on
the
main
floor
and
and
also
just
just
renting
the
whole
first
floor
out.
F
No,
I
don't
know
her,
but
because
of
a
four
month
of
not
able
to
rent
out
the
property
at
the
airbnb
in
july,
when
I
played
it
pleaded
guilty
in
court.
I
spoke
to
the
prosecutor
about
the
possibility
of
getting
the
airbnb
license
again.
F
It
took
a
long
time
to
to
get
finally
get
the
response
and
and
able
to
speak
to
you
guys
right
now,
but
prior
to
that,
I
was
losing
hope
and
I
needed
that
again.
I'm
in
the
financial
difficulty
I
had
no
choice
but
posting
it
on
the
facebook
and
also
on
the
craigslist.
Looking
for
long
term.
C
B
We,
as
generally
speaking,
don't
follow
like
absolutely
strict
rules
of
evidences
in
a
courtroom.
So,
generally
speaking
in
these
in
these
hearings,
we,
if
you
wish
to
recall
a
particular
witness,
just
asked
them
an
additional
question.
We
do
that
prior
if
we
do
it
before
we
go
proceed
into
the
into
the
discussion
and
even
sometimes
when
we've
gone
into
the
discussion,
so
it
is,
it
is
flexible
at
this
point.
C
G
C
C
Okay,
no.
B
C
D
Thank
you,
chair
and,
and
yes,
mona,
a
follow
up
just
based
on
your
last
comments
about
you're
currently
have
the
home
listed
on
airbnb,
but
you're
also
seeking
a
long-term
tenant.
Could
you
just
elaborate?
Do
you
have
a
preference?
Would
you
prefer
to
get
a
short-term
rental
license
from
the
city,
or
would
you
prefer
to
put
this
part
of
your
home
on
the
market
for
long-term
rental.
F
I
do
prefer
to
have
a
short
term,
because
the
I
do
need
the
financial
assistance
from
the
short-term
rental,
the
long-term
rentals.
I
I
have
a
bunch
of
furniture
in
there
and
I
do
have
to
clear
that
out.
I
don't
know
I
don't
have
a
space
for
it.
F
So
that's
another
thing:
I'm
trying
I
posted
as
a
furnish
rental
for
long
term
and
I
haven't
been
like
getting
a
lot
of.
I
don't
get
a
lot
of
people
who
interested
in
furnish
and
I
don't
really
know
what
I'm
gonna
do
with
those
furniture.
I
don't
have
a
manpower
to
move
it
by
myself
and
therefore
I
have
to
hire
somebody.
Then
I
have
to
get
pay
somebody
to
move
it
when
I'm
already
in
the
financial
difficulty.
D
C
Thanks
very
much
we'll
move
on
to
our
questions
for
the
applicant
from
ian
dixon
city
of
vancouver's
council.
Please
go
ahead.
B
Yes,
I
have
some
questions
about
the
space
that
you're
that
you're,
currently
that
you
were
previously
renting,
the
the
documents
that
were
provided
and
the
airbnb
listings
do
describe
it
as
a
full
unit
and
you
described
there
as
being
two
entrances.
Is
that
correct?
B
F
This
is
the
property
is
as
a
non-conforming
classified
as
a
non-conforming
duplex.
It
does
legally
on
the
pid.
It
just
have
one
address.
Only,
however,
on
it
doesn't.
B
Lawful
non-conforming
is
legal
and
it
would
have
I'm
so
I'm
asking,
are
there
two
addresses
or
is
there
one
address
currently.
F
F
But
physically
they
are
in
the
same
if
they
are,
the
property
is
sitting
on
that
same
part,
I.
B
F
At
this
point,
yes,
thank
you.
Those
are
my
questions.
C
That's
and
you're
finished
with
your
questions.
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
dixon,
and
now
we
will
move
on
to
closing
submissions
by
city
of
vancouver's
council.
It's
also
you,
mr
dickson.
B
My
submissions
are
going
to
be
very
straightforward
because,
under
the
bylaw,
the
premises
as
described
by
ms
lam
are
not
eligible
for
a
short-term
rental
license
you
have
to.
It
has
to
be
one
single
unit
in
which
you
can
move
in
between
it
in
order
to
be
your
principal
residence.
If
it's
two
separate
units,
they
can't
both
be
your
principal
residence.
B
It's
simply
not
physically
possible.
This
is
clearly
a
separate
unit
that
should
not
be
being
rented
as
a
short-term
rental
and
in
my
submission
at
this
juncture,
it's
not
actually
open
to
council
to
issue
an
sdr
license
to
ms
lam,
based
on
her
description
of
the
property,
because
it
doesn't
satisfy
the
requirements
for
being
a
principal
residence,
and
your
this
panel
is
bound
by
the
bylaw.
With
respect
to
that,
this
is
not
an
eligible
property
for
a
short-term
rental
and
therefore
you
cannot
issue
a
license.
B
Obviously,
the
the
secondary
consideration
is
that
it
can't
be
issued
a
second
short-term
rental
license
until
after
july
anyway,
because
the
court
order
wouldn't
wouldn't
allow
for
it.
But
based
on
what
ms
lam's
just
said,
the
it's
not
eligible
for
a
short-term
rental
license,
and
it
would
be
illegal
for
this
council
to
issue
one
for
this
property.
C
All
right
and
it's
a
follow-up
question
to
our
council:
it's
not
question
time
yet
counselor
blind
we're
moving
on
to
replying
and
closing
submissions
by
the
applica.
Let
me
just
make
sure
mr
dickson.
There
will
be
time
to
ask
you
questions
if,
if
necessary,
during
the
discussion
by
business,
license.
B
G
Okay,
great
thanks
chair
mr
dixon.
I'm
just
curious:
if
can
you
just
confirm
for
me,
and
perhaps
it
would
be
our
our
witness,
our
city
staff,
but
that
there's
been
a
business
license
for
short-term
rental
since
2016
up
to
2020
for
under
this
name,
slash
property?
Is
that
correct.
B
I'm
only
aware
of
one
for
2021.,
I
don't
know
whether
there's
been
one
previously
the
way
our
system
works
is
that
people
apply
and-
and
we
issue
the
license,
we
issue
a
nest,
a
short-term
rental
license
as
of
as
of
right
and
then,
if
it
and
so
people
will
often
we,
we
see
this
fairly
regularly,
that
people
apply
for
a
license
and
are
issued
the
license,
despite
the
property
not
being
eligible,
because
it
doesn't
crop
up
either
through
a
complaint
or
through
our
audit
process,
so
that
if
there
has
been
a
license,
that
would
that
would
explain
that.
B
But
perhaps
mr
miyagi
knows
the
exact
history
of
the
licensing.
I
know
there's
a
2021
license
in
the
in
the
materials.
C
You,
like
mr
miyaji,
to
comment
on
that
counselor.
A
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
through
the
chair,
the
the
licenses
have
been
issued
starting
september
2018.,
so
anything
prior
to
that
would
have
been
would
have
been
unregulated
because
there
hasn't
been
any
bylaw
with
respect
to
her
license.
A
We
are
aware
that
she
had
applied
for
a
license
in
november
2020
for
the
749
location,
which
once
again
is
a
question
mark
to
us,
but
she
had
applied
and
then
was
issued
one
and
then
what
and
then
she
never
did
renew
that
one.
So
it
was
only
issue
for
for
a
month,
because
these
are
fiscal
from
from
january
to
december.
A
G
Okay,
so
thanks
for
that,
mr
mc
sorry,
I
don't
want
to
mispronounce
your
last
name.
G
Thank
you.
Yes,
okay!
That's
what
threw
me
off
because
I
was
like
is
that
the
credit
okay
back
to
back,
so
what
I'm
trying
to
reconcile
is
mr
dixon's
comments
regarding
that
it
that
it's
not
a
legal,
it's
not
a
situation
that
would
be
legal
for
us
to
grant
a
short-term
rental
license.
What
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
is:
was
there
a
change
in
the
configuration,
or
did
we
grant
a
short-term
rental
license
in
2018
when
we
shouldn't
have?
A
Yes,
through
the
chair,
so
in
2020
she
had
applied
for
this
license
at
374,
east
28th
avenue
and,
as
mr
dickens
indicated,
they
are
automatically
issued
and
then
we
pick
them
up
as
we
do
reviews
and
whatnot,
and
given
her
past
history,
we
were
able
to
to
catch
this
one,
but
it
took
us
till
may
to
to
do
so.
A
The
location
that
she's
talking
about
has
one
address,
but
has
two.
It
sounds
like
it
has
two
suites
one
off
of
john
street
and
one
off
of
28th.
A
The
understanding
is
that
she's
trying
to
rent
one
suite
and
live
in
another
and,
as
mr
dixon
indicated,
that's
not
permitted,
because
those
are
two
separate
suites,
but
also
as
part
of
the
bylaw.
It's
an
illegal
suite
or
if
she
indicated
it's
an
illegal
suite.
So
we
we
have
to
go
and
check
that
out
as
well
mind
you,
but
if
it's
an
illegal
suite,
that's
also
in
a
by-law
that
says
that
you
cannot
operate
a
short-term
rental
in
an
illegal
suite.
G
If
I
may,
we
get
the
application
we
grant
the
license,
based
on
the
information
that
we
receive,
and
now
we
have
new
information
about
the
configuration
of
the
suite
it's
validity
in
the
sense
that
is
it
a
legal
suite
or
not,
and
now
that
information
also
will
be
under
our
consideration
as
to
whether
or
not
we
can
actually
even
grant
this
the
the
license
on
any
legal
basis,
just
sort
of
also
commenting
that
that
new
information,
this
new
information
about
the
configuration
and
the
legality
of
the
suite
is
not
in
our
package.
A
That
is
correct.
The
the
initial
the
initial
suspension
was
based
on
egregious
activity
of
operating
without
a
license.
That
was
enough
to
continue
on
towards
prosecution,
because
there
was
no
compliance
met
in
that
period
of
time,
so
that
alone
was
enough
for
the
prosecution
to
go
forward,
so
so
the
illegal
sweep
piece.
We
didn't
need
to
necessarily
investigate
that
piece,
because
we
had
this
other,
egregious
information
from
illegal
activities
going
on.
G
C
Thanks
counselor
dominato
did
you
have
clarifying
questions.
C
And
I
do
have
a
question,
and
since
mr
dixon
has
suggested,
is
best
to
ask
this
now
I'll.
Ask
this
question
for
you,
mr
dixon.
If
you
prefer,
I
ask
of
the
witness
or
to
direct
his
witness
I'll,
do
that.
C
C
The
re-application
pertains
to
one
I'm
wondering
if
we
have
information
as
to
if
the
other
four
are
still
owned
by
the
applicant
here
and
her
husband,
and
if
we
have
information
as
to
whether
or
not
they're
empty
homes
or
if
they're
still
living
there.
A
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Our
information
indicate
that
the
749
and
750
so
on
and
so
forth,
the
other
location
that
was
sold
in
october
2021,
and
so
that's
the
information
that
we
have.
We
also
have
information
that
she
bought
another
property
with
her
husband's
name
on
it
as
well
in
2021,
october
21,
and
that's
the
strata
building
that
I
mentioned
so,
and
the
extensive
case
files
that
we
had
for
the
749
with
mr
buchanan.
A
Looking
at
the
policy
information
that
we
have
that.
That
case
was
closed
because
the
property
no
longer
is
under
their
name.
C
A
Yeah
two
are
what
two
lots,
but
there's,
as
we
mentioned,
there's
that
john
street
and
the
28
so
that
one
has
two
addresses,
but.
A
C
No
no
worries.
Thank
you.
I
was
just
trying
to
understand
that
and
that's
that's
where,
where
we
leave
off
there
and
now
it's
it's
time
for
a
reply
or
closing
submissions,
if
you
have
any
closing
comments,
mona
sure.
F
The
374
east
28th,
when
we
bought
it,
it
was
a
tear
down,
and
so
we
applied
for
the
city
permit
to
rebuild
the
building
back.
The
city
has
a
proper
layout
of
what
the
configuration
was
because
they
came
in
and
did
the
inspections
giving
us
a
final
permit
on
the
building.
Furthermore,
the
city
inspector
apparently
has
came
into
the
property
on
the
airbnb
property
inspector
and
spoke
to
my
ex-husband.
F
They
met
on
site,
so
they
have
looked
at
the
lot
and
they
have
viewed
the
space
numerous
times
according
to
them
he
referred.
He
spoke
to
me.
I
never
like.
I
don't
know
who
I
spoke
to.
I
never
spoke
to
any
city
inspector,
but
according
to
the
court
document,
the
city
inspector
had
met
with
mr
buchanan
with
all
my
knowledge
and
they
met
on
site
where
the
air
babb
listing,
we
were
never
being
advised
years.
You
know
since
2016.
F
This
property
is
not
on
board
with
the
bylaw.
It's
simply
our
understanding
was
it's
just
like
a
basement
suite
you
don't
you
know
you
have
a
door
to
it.
If
you
want
to,
we
do
have
a
door
to
it.
Currently.
Is
you
know
we
can
open
it
again,
but
we
locked
it
that
we
don't
have
access
to
the
other
side,
but
we
would
never
be
advised.
That
was
the
reason
that
we
didn't
get
the
license.
I
wasn't,
I
sure,
was
not
aware
of
that
until
today.
F
Until
now-
and
so
that's
really
unfair
to
me,
because
I
wouldn't
have
even
applied
for
it
and
and
waiting
for
four
months
and
hoping
I
would
be
able
to
get
a
short-term
licensing.
I
was
under
the
impression
this
was
the
only
matter
you
know
like
not
able
to.
You
know
apply
for
license
because
I
didn't
have
a
proper
address
like
to
use
them
as
my
printable
residence,
and
also
I
was
not
under
under
the
under
the
impression.
This
is
illegal
suite
to
the
city
point
of
view.
F
So
that's
my
concern
and
in
terms
of
yeah
the
property
I
own
that
was
bought
two
and
a
half
years
ago,
as
a
pre-sale
with
my
ex-husband,
it
is
already
listed
for
sale.
It's
actually
got
the
two
offers
for
sale,
so
there's
no
intention
for
airbnb
or
anything
like
that.
It
was
never
been
like
that
at
all.
So
I'm
not
sure
what
was
that
you
know
I
was
trying
to
initiate.
C
B
C
D
D
I
thought
I
heard
you
say
earlier:
there's
no
connection
between
the
two
units,
the
one
they
were
using
for
short-term
rental
and
where
you're
living,
but
now
I
just
heard
there
is
a
connection
between
the
two
units,
there's
a
door,
but
you
have
it
locked
off.
I.
F
Just
I
haven't
been,
I
haven't
really
used
it
for
so
long
and
they're
just
being
blocked
up
by
furniture
right
now,
because
the
other
side
is
an
airbnb.
So
I
kind
of
forgotten
that
information
again
I
have
I
you
know
I
just
I.
I
honestly
haven't
stayed
in
that
house
for
so,
like
you
know
just
since
august
again,
and
we
never
really
used
that
space,
and
so
I
didn't
even
think
of
it.
F
C
D
Okay,
thank
you
chair.
Yes,
if,
if
I
may
to
mr
dixon,
it's
just
to
clarify
mr
dixon,
your
point
earlier-
that
an
str
license
isn't
permissible
at
this
property,
because
the
there
are
the
two
units
are
not
connected,
they're
distinct
units.
Can
you
just
clarify
that,
based
on
what
we
just
heard.
B
We
would
still,
for
the
purposes
of
bylaw,
consider
them
to
be
distinct
units
based
on
the
the
the
discussion
that
that
miss
lamb
has
said
and
that
having
a
single
door.
I
I
led
down
the
path
that
I
did,
because
it
was
clearer
and
and
absolute,
but
we
would
still
consider
this
to
be
two
separate
units.
The
intention
of
the
str
bylaw
is
that
short-term
rentals
are
are
to
be
done
in
your
principal
residence.
B
It's
quite
clear
from
the
way
ms
lam
has
described
it,
that
the
other
unit
is
not
her
principal
residence
in
any
way.
It's
a
separate
unit
that
she
doesn't
go
into.
She
can't
go.
She
can't
access.
There
is
a
scenario
in
which
something
like
a
basement
suite
could
be
part
of
the
main
unit,
but
most
of
the
time
we
consider
basement
suites,
even
if
they
have
one
connecting
door
to
be
separate
units,
because
that's
not
the
person's
principal
residence.
It's
an
entirely
separate
unit.
B
C
Now
I
have
a
question
from
mr
dickson,
mr
dixon.
I
understand
that
in
in
other
bylaws
a
separate
unit
is
constituted
by
a
stove.
Is
that
correct,
or
I.
B
Believe
there
are
friends,
this
is
that's
not
the
definition
we
necessarily
use
here,
but
the
notion
is
is
that
it
has
to
be
a
joint
dwelling
space
between
two
people
and
one
of
the,
and
we
always
look
for
indicators
as
to
what
constitutes
a
joint
space
and
and
like
a
single
space
for
a
single
family
wouldn't
generally
have
two
stoves
in
it.
It's
just
not
something
that
generally
happens.
B
There
are
some
some
specific
circumstances
where
that
occurs,
and,
generally
speaking,
the
city
of
vancouver
doesn't
allow
to
second
kitchens
in
in
single
units,
so
the
second
kitchen
would
have
to
be
taken
out
if
it
was
to
be
all
amalgamated
into
a
single
unit.
That's
clearly
not
the
intention
here
so
based
on
the
evidence,
the
information
provided.
I
haven't
seen
the
plans.
B
I
wasn't
aware
of
that,
and
those,
of
course
could
be
reviewed
at
some
point,
but
in
my
submission
it
won't
change
anything
with
vis-a-vis
the
authority
of
this
count
of
this
panel.
This
is
clearly
two
separate
dwelling
units,
so.
C
D
C
Okay,
I'm
not
sure
how
that
happened,
but
I
I
was
just
gonna.
I
was
just
gonna
say
we're
in
discussion
on
this
matter.
So
I'm
wondering
if
anyone
has
a
emotion
or
has
further
questions
that
they
need
clarified
or
any
discussion
on
this
matter.
G
D
C
Okay,
counselor
dominato,
I'm
going
to
suggest
we
take
a
brief
recess.
C
B
Right,
thank
you.
That's
true.
At
this
juncture.
Yes,
emotion
is
required,
so
the
motion
in
this
for
the
with
based
on
today
would
simply
be
as
simple
as
to
say
whether
you
agree
to
issue
a
license
to
mislam
or
you
decline
to
issue
a
license
to
mislam.
If
you're
going
to
decline,
then
you
should
have
some
brief
explanation
as
to
why.
D
Thank
you
chair
now,
that's
helpful
I'll.
I
suppose
I
can
put
something
in
writing
then,
and
so
I
would
need
a
five
minute
recess
to
put
something
in
writing
to
our
committee.
C
C
G
D
Yes,
thank
you.
I've
actually
just
circulated
a
motion
to
and
I'm
hoping
ian
dixon
will
review
it
and
assure
that
it's
in
order,
and
so
I've
circulated
that
to
members
of
the
panel,
as
well
as
to
you
tina
and
to
ian
dixon.
C
B
I
think
that
the
it's
it's
inappropriate
at
this
point,
given
the
nature
of
the
way,
this
matter
has
come
before
council
to
say
that
you're
upholding
the
chief
license
inspector's
decision.
So
I
think
this
is
a.
It
should
state
that.
B
The
business
license
panel
refuses
to
issue
an
application
for
a
business
license
to
salman
and
then
from
then
on.
C
C
Were
you
able
to
catch
that?
Oh
yes,
I'm
I'm
seen
not,
and
maybe
what
I'll
do
counselor
dominato
is
to
make
sure
that
this
is
within
the
spirit
and
intent
of
what
you'd
put
forward.
I
will
ask
the
clerk
to
read
it
out.
C
Because
we
haven't
seconded
it
yet
there
is
no
issue
with
that.
Please,
if
I
could
ask
the
clerk
to
read
out
the
motion.
E
D
What
I've
heard
very
clearly,
what
has
emerged
from
the
panel
hearing
this
morning
is
that
this
property
well
applications
are
made
and
then
they're
automatic,
and
it
may
be
later
through
complaints
or
audits
that
we
find
that
they're
not
compliant
with
our
bylaw.
It's
become
clear
through
the
discussion
today
that
this
property
isn't
eligible
for
short-term
rental,
because
the
nature
of
the
dwellings
and
and
the
two
units
independent
units,
and
so
it's
on
that
basis.
I
think
we've
been
advised
legally
that
we
can't
issue
a
short-term
rental
license
at
this
property.
C
Thank
you
seeing
no
one
else
on
the
queue
I
will
move
us
to
a
vote
and
counsel
it
or
and
and
panel.
If
you
could
please
vote
on
screen
because
we're
not
all
together
here.
C
C
Okay,
thank
you
and
if
you
could
pull
up
the
vote,
that
is
that
passes
with
unanimous
consent,
and
I'm
wondering
if
there's
a
motion
to
adjourn
someone
like
to
move
a
motion
so
moved.