Refuse Business Licence AL0227857
Motion 1 · Business Licence Hearing Panel, June 10, 2026
Summary
- Proposed refusal of a 2026 business licence to Wayne Lamb for short-term rental accommodation at 6165 Main Street.
- Basis: evidence from audits, inspection photos, portal booking data, and the audit interview collectively failed to establish that 6165 Main Street is Lamb's principal residence as required by the licence by-law.
- Key factors cited: occupancy rates of 80-90%, sparse personal effects in the suite, Lamb's personal belongings stored upstairs at 6167, and contradictory statements about when he moved into the suite.
- Panel acknowledged Lamb's personal circumstances, including caring for his elderly mother and relying on rental income for her care costs, but found these did not satisfy the legal principal residence requirement.
- Panel noted the by-law's principal residence rule applies regardless of whether a secondary suite has a distinct address, and that long-term rental of the unit remains an option for Lamb.
Vote
In favour 3
Public comments
Read all 2 statements
Transcript
4 segments
No, no opportunity.
Unfortunately not, Councillor Montague. Understood, thank you, Chair. No problem. So a reminder to any panel member participating virtually whose video is disabled, that you'll be marked absent for the vote pursuant of section 14.13 of the procedure bylaw. So please ensure your video is on. I'm now going to call the vote. Clerk, if you could please take us to the voting screen and panel, if you could please register your vote on the voting panel.
Would someone like to move a motion to adjourn? Councillor Maloney, seconder, please. Second. Councillor Montague. All in favour, say aye. Aye. Thank you. None opposed. So the motion carries unanimously and the business license hearing is adjourned. Thank you, everybody.
Statement Watch
Okay. Hello, everyone. I'M HERE TO APPEAL THE DECISION TO DENY MY SHORT-TERM RENTAL LICENSE APPLICANT. I AM IN THE SUMMER OF 2024 I APPLIED FOR A SHORT-TERM RENTAL LICENSE AND WAS PROVIDED APPROVED IT FOR 2024. THE LICENSE ALSO WAS RENEWED AGAIN FOR 2025. MY RENEWAL FOR 2026 was called for inspection and review. And through this process, I was denied unknowingly. As city staff advised that I have a second address on my property. Last year after audition, I was told I couldn't run an Airbnb because the suite I was renting was part of a different address that I wasn't aware of. Until then, I wasn't aware of this address. During the inspection, I also had asked the inspector, where did this second address come from? and the only response I got was it is on one of the internal city database. Since I was told 6165 was an additional address to my home at 6167 Main Street, I decided to apply for a license under 6165. Instead of renewing my license for 6167, in order to comply with the short-term rental requirements. And that's when I moved into the supposed 6165 address. I live in my home for the past 50 years. I built a new house in 2013, and I currently live there with my 90-year-old mother who requires regular health care and who has dementia. She has a caretaker that comes five days a week, which is funded by the fund from the short-term rental. Home support also come three times a day, seven days a week, give her her medication, and once a week for a bath. I always follow city process. When it come to time for inspection, I follow the process and did what was asked to ensure I'm complying as a long-term resident of Vancouver. The city tell me that I have a second address for 6165. To information, I cannot find any such address on any of the documentation. This short-term rental has helped me pay for medicine expense and care for my mother. And this cost us both hardship as we are just trying to renew our license so we can continue on with this. My concern is that the second address of 6165 never came out. We probably wouldn't be here discussing this matter. Thank you.
Statement Watch
There's a mention of 6165. In pulling some information, we looked at the title search. There's no mention of it. We looked at the city detailed tax report. There's also no mention of it. We pulled the city as-built drawings that were from city records. And through view of those drawings, there's also no mention of 6165. You know, if it does have it, Shouldn't there be an address that's been stamped, that's been installed on the building as part of construction?
I'm just going to intervene for a minute. I don't believe that this gentleman is the applicant. So if he's not, perhaps we can have him introduce himself. Yes. in what capacity he's involved with this hearing. Sorry, I... A reminder to...
I just presumed it was the applicant, but...
I thought that was the case, but I don't... Yeah.
Sir, would you please introduce yourself? My name's Jeffrey Lee. I'm just a good friend of Mr. Lamb. I've known Mr. Lamb for 25 years. And, yeah, he's asked me to come join him.
Okay, and just to confirm with counsel, is that permitted?
If Mr. Lee is asking the gentleman to assist, I don't take issue with that. Okay.
Thanks for clarifying. And I believe you asked a question of the witness. Yes. Do you need the representative to repeat it?
permit that was issued in 2013 which indicates the addition of the and of the secondary suite and legalization of that suite and also the assignment of an address I do not have records beyond that to I do know that VAMAPS indicates both addresses, and that was provided to Mr. Lam by our staff.
Okay. Thank you. So VAMAPS is an internal city document program? um because when we looked at it through bc assessment and all the searches were able to pull 6165 does not come up anywhere even in bc assessment so there we as residents as the resident we are unable to find any information on this so if the city has confirmation that there is we'd like to see it because when looking through the permit that documentation i don't see we don't see a number that says 6165 We see the document on the van maps that was provided, and it does, yes, there's mention of 6165. Other than that, we cannot find any documentation.
Fortunately, I can't really speak to that process. I'm not familiar enough with the zoning and development process to, yeah, to... Yeah, just to provide an answer as to why that is.
Because the basis of this is around 6165. Mr. Lamb didn't know that there was 6165. He submitted for a long-term permit, for a long-term rental. He pays a fee. He receives a permit. Doesn't even look at the permit.