Community Board made resolution about 8-weeks-rule
During the February Motueka Community Board meeting a historic decision has been made: the Board made a resolution to recommend to Council to have the TRMP’s famous 8-weeks-rule changed. The three Councillors on the Board abstained from voting, so that they will be able to partake in the discussion when this matter will be before Council. The remaining Motueka Community Board members voted to support the change. Board Member David Armstrong voted against it.
The 8-week-rule is Council’s discretionary figure to determine whether an accommodation is considered temporary or permanent. This effects people living in various arrangements around the district, including Tiny Homes. This matter was tabled at the Community Board since latest 2019 clearly acknowledging the community’s request for more clarity around the matter and the impact this 8-week-rule is currently having on various members of the community. During the meeting Board Member Hughes was highlighting the vulnerability of such determination. When a CEO takes on a role somewhere else for a year, this is called temporary.
One could have hoped to have access to the recording of that meeting to make sure the quotes used are correctly. However, at the time of writing, no recording has been uploaded so my recollection is based on memory rather than on the recording. Yet, there was already Council’s Policy and Strategy committee meeting held last week where Councillor Walker and Councillor Maru talked about this resolution and made clear this needs to be put before the Council soon for discussion. Staff was not able to commit to a date when this will happen as the matter was considered “not a straight-forward process”. Both Councillors were expressing their frustration about that, as this rule is currently effecting a number of people in their community.
Here are some comments from the Policy and Strategy committee meeting:
Councillor Maru:
I am not sure if it has come yet, but the Motueka Community Board has proposed a minor change to the TRMP in terms of how long a temporary tiny home or structure becomes a dwelling in terms of 8 weeks. When do we get to have a discussion about that what’s that process?
Staff response:
I don’t want to raise expectation here. We have received the resolution and the recommendation through the minutes. I think it has been explained on a number of occasions that this is not straight-forward process and in fact it is quite difficult. I know some barriers, list of things to do and respond to, but it has to come back into Council for discussion. I want to set expectations that is not a thing that can happen overnight if at all under the current legislation.
Councillor Walker:
That response has thrown me a little. I grapple with the fact we have a Cat Bylaw coming up when we get a response like that and please don’t take it that personally because I know that’s coming from your sector. The implication that we have in our community currently around the current TRMP and the effects that it is having widely across not just Motueka ward but further afield. I grapple. I grapple with how many times the Community Board have raised this and the process they have been through to get it to where it is and then this big kind of caution question mark you now it’s not going to happen overnight. Yet, this Council is prepared to spend copious amounts of money on the Cat Bylaw. I am lost the words. And I am going to stop now before I regret what I say.
Staff response:
What we are really keen to do is have a proper conversation in here and explain the challenges of changing this. We will come back to you. […] There are some wider TRMP conversation we need to have. So this is going to be part of a package. Please don’t think I am offended by your passion on the issue.
Councillor Maling:
Could you email the timeline to them so that they have got some idea?
Staff response:
We will respond to that in some shape or form whether or not it will be this time or next time. We just need to get our wording right.
Councilor Maru picked up the topic again:
We are currently displacing people from properties in tiny homes because of some discrete legislation or bylaw and we are actively saying we don’t go looking for this. In our town there is a lot of people that could be displaced if somebody like somebody who has just come to me. Not a neighbour, not somebody who lives closely, but someone who doesn’t like them made a complaint and we have got to act. To leave this and have it sitting here, just absolutely frustrates me, because we know this occurs everywhere, but we don’t look for it. We don’t do anything unless there is a complaint which tells me there is a part belief from staff that in some cases don’t even go looking for this, because this is silly. It sounds like a silly rule, it is having consequences in terms of displacing people and I am just frustrated. I look forward to the paper and I really hope it comes sooner rather than later.
Council has various Activity Management Plans, one for managing the environment. In regards to the 8-week-rule it is worth highlighting the following from page 14 of this plan.
In addition, there will be case heard before the Environment Court on 10 and 11 June in Nelson which will provide more clarity on the issue as well. As a result from the judgment, we will get to know about the aspects of something being considered fixed to land, therefore falling under the definition of a building. This is crucial for the 8-week-rule, as a dwelling, what this rule relates to, must be a building first.