Move to delay short-term rental regulation changes in HRM scuttled

Changes to Airbnb regulations in Halifax Regional Municipality will go ahead as planned on Sept. 1.

Shawn Cleary, the regional council representative for the district of Halifax West Armdale, had requested an additional motion to Tuesday’s council meeting agenda that would propose delaying the municipality’s short-term rental regulations until May 2024.

The motion was ruled out of order and was not added to the agenda.

“Coun. Cleary circulated a motion to postpone the short-term rental changes,” Mayor Mike Savage said as council was confirming the agenda early in Tuesday’s marathon meeting.

“That motion, I’m afraid, is not in order.”

City staff have said the new short-term rental restrictions prioritize the protection of the long-term housing supply and affordability, while considering the tourism sector. The changes include: 

• in residential zones, short-term rentals would be limited to a host’s primary residence.
• in commercial and mixed-use zones, short-term rentals would be allowed outside of a primary residence, and staff say they will monitor for any multi-unit buildings that switch to short-term rentals and will come back to council for other provisions if necessary.
•  a provision for short-term rentals of individual bedrooms to separate parties, which will replace the bed and breakfast approach.
•  existing rules related to parking, bedroom limits, and maximum signage requirements for bed and breakfasts will be extended to short-term bedroom rentals.

In February, councillors voted in favour of the regulation changes, which are set to be implemented in nine days’ time.

John Traves, HRM’s legal director, explained the out-of-order ruling that applied to Cleary’s motion.

“It’s akin to trying to unring the bell,” Traves said. “The bell has rung and it’s been done.

“The challenge is, as council recognizes, that a motion of rescission, which essentially this would be, is not in order in matters involving planning documents and the passing of bylaws.”

Traves said the challenge with the motion is the timing issue of when the bylaw would be implemented and whether or not moving that timing is a substantive change or not.

“The rules are council’s,” he said.

Council could, with a two-thirds majority, vote to add the motion to the agenda.

“Then, my advice would be to add some legal research as to what its effect would be. Circumstances where this was the outcome of a public hearing and that council considered this and settled on that date, it would be a challenge to find that this would not impact somebody at the end of the day in terms of having arrangements based on the day that council has set.”

“Council’s kind of tied its hands on this matter.”

Cleary, one of three councillors who voted against the bylaw in February, says he’s heard from a number of constituents who will be negatively affected by the regulation changes.