 All right, we're recording, yep, because we've got everyone. So let me do this. Pursuant to chapter. No, so let me start again. I see in the presence of a quorum I'm calling this November 30 2023 meeting regular meeting of the Community Resources Committee of the Town Council to order at 431pm. Pursuant now it's pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 extended by chapters 22 and 107 of the acts of 2022 and extended by chapter two of the acts of 2023 this meeting will be conducted by remote means members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via zoom or no in person attendance of members of the public will be permitted but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the meeting, the proceedings in real time. This meeting is being video and audio recorded and at this point I'm going to take a roll call of attendance to make sure that everyone can hear and be heard we'll start with Shalini. Present. Pat. Present. Mandy is present. Pam. I'm here. Jennifer here. That is all five of our members so we will get right into our meeting. And the first thing we do not have any public hearing so our first action item if chief team can just be patient with us for a little bit is the ZBA vacancies. We still have not made a decision on sufficiency of the applicant pool. We do make a positive decision on that we will move on to selection guidance and interview questions. We can also talk about interview dates today. But let's start with sufficiency of the applicant pool as everyone knows we have one full membership vacant vacancy and finishing a term for a full member and one associate member vacancy finishing a term. We have the bulletin board notices now been out for approximately four weeks not quite four weeks now. And there are by the rules of the town council policy to applicants. Both applicants have been emailed to ask them to fill out the survey on interview dates. And first of all I want to thank the entire committee has filled out the survey. I think that's a record. Yay to us. One of the two applicants has filled out the survey the applicant that has filled out the survey is the one that submitted a CAF this week. The other applicant has not. So that that would go into can we set interview dates number one but I just thought I'd let people know. So we're back to discussion as to whether the applicant pool is sufficient Pam. A quick question. Can you in the in the active list. It's a little difficult to see who actually applied recently and then and then what action was taken because I know it was not done by me so it had to been done by you. Yeah, it was, it was me and sorry for that I didn't put the one that recently filled out the CAF on yet. I just haven't gotten around to putting it in the in the thing so let me, I am now highlighting that one. So the highlighted ones in green are the ones that are have filled out the, and again I haven't updated the date. Oh no this is, I put the wrong date in here. The two in green on that list are the two that we have received CAFs from after the bulletin board notice was posted so those are per our council policy applicants. They both received emails, everyone that is on the on that list with a November 2023 note that says email received an email were regarding that the new bulletin board notice was posting who what what the openings were, and that they needed to fill out a new CAF if they wanted to be considered an applicant. Other than having not put those in. And I will update the, the most recent CAF here. The responses I have received are noted. So, so they were all emailed one wrote back and declined to apply. Actually to did Mandy. Yeah, I can't find what you're looking at. So this is in SharePoint. I've been in SharePoint looking for it. Not in. It's, it's in the folder is. Sorry. No, that's okay the folder. It starts with ZBA. Yeah, it's under ZBA and planning board appointment procedures. And then there is a separate way from. It's not in meeting packet folder come out of meeting folder. And then there is a planning board and ZBA applicant. An applicant list. And this is where the, the lists are kept for transitioning between committees and all. So this. But everyone has seen the recent CAFs because those come to the entire. Everyone else on this list that is in white was emailed specifically if they were an associate member, they were emailed specifically. And I am, you have received everything is noted on that I emailed all of the people who were not currently candidates that had currently on the board that had submitted a CAF within the last two years per the policy. And I also emailed every current associate member, because there is a full membership vacancy. And, and we, I have received, I have received responses by email from two of the three current associate members, all of you were copied on one of those. And I received a response from another person who is not a current member declining to apply and then there have been two people who have submitted CAFs. Each time I've received a CAF after the last meeting. So, so after the last meeting when we decided to do a poll for interviews, I. Well, each time I received a CAF, I respond that we've received it. When we decided to do the poll, I responded to the one that submitted the CAF before Thanksgiving. With please fill out the pool poll for interviews dates, and I sent that before Thanksgiving, right after our last meeting well between our last meeting and Thanksgiving, and then the one that was received this week I sent that same email of we've received your CAF. Please fill out this poll, and then I'll be in touch with you about later steps. That person received that email on Tuesday and filled out the CA and filled out the survey today. But the person who applied before who submitted a CAF before Thanksgiving has not filled out the survey. The question we have right now, Pat, your hand. No, I'm sorry, I didn't lower it. The question we mostly I think it, I don't think we have a sufficient pool and I don't know what to do about that. So, that's where I am. Other thoughts. I could probably go along with that. I, I know we in the past we have ended up interviewing with the number of people for the number of slots, and it would be nice to have a few more people express interest. Jennifer. Yeah, it's hard to say, you know, one person's a sufficient pool would be. I guess we can all. So I have to admit, I, because I was out of town for a little while. I haven't done outreach, which I usually do do so I can, I mean, maybe we just really all commit to contacting a couple of people. Yeah, I think that's a good idea. Thank you so much. I want to thank all of you for joining us. I think the meeting is nodding with a thumbs up there. So given that information, here is the plan. It sounds like there is consensus or. Fairly decent agreement that there is not a sufficient pool to move forward to interviews at this time. We only have one meeting scheduled from now to the end of the year. Pam. the conditions or the criteria and the questions just so that we're done with that no matter when we no matter when we end up interviewing. And though the the policy that we need to follow does not allow us to do that until after we've declared the pool sufficient. And the other thing is we have Chief Tang here and I don't like holding up staff for a discussion that we can have during the same meeting later. We can come back to the degree. We can come back to this. If we're not declaring the pool sufficient, we can come back to discuss next steps after we're done with nuisance. Does that sound like a decent plan? So we will pause this and then come back to it after we've discussed nuisance. Which means we're going to move on to the nuisance house bylaw. Welcome Chief Ting. Welcome Building Commissioner Mora. Thank you all for joining us. Let me and David. And Dave, well Dave's supposed to be here all the times. He doesn't get thanked. And we're glad to see him. He's our liaison to staff. So he's generally here. But this is the draft that is revised after the last meeting and the last meeting discussion. So that's what's been in the packet. So this is the one, it is not the one that was sent out for public comment. The one before this one was the one sent out for public comment that we've been receiving comments on. And I have been trying to forward every comment that I received that did not come to either the town council email address or have all committee members CC'd to all committee members in case some of them came just to me. I've made sure I've sent them on to everyone so everyone can see any of the comments we've perceived from that. And I want to thank Rob, Mora and his department for sending that out to the landlords on their email list. That is very helpful to us. So thank you for doing that, Pam. Question, please scroll so we can see the exact revision number and date at the top. It's revision 12 from 1116. It's the one that's in today's packet. Right. And so this is the one that basically doesn't have any comments because everything has generally been resolved from some of the last comments. But I think we have a couple of, we want to see if anyone's got requested changes or anything based on some of the comments we've received, based on their own review. And then we have a decision to make about, as I paged through this slowly about what and when next steps might be. I mean, just put it that way. So thoughts on, I want to go to Chief Ting and Rob Mora, building questioner Mora first to see if they have any thoughts, questions, requests, anything on this at this point in time. I have none at this point. I don't have any either. So does that mean, I'm going to ask a question before I go to Pam. Does that mean if we recommended this version to the council and that's just a hypothetical right now, both of you would be happy with where it's sitting now if that was a vote that was taken? I would support it. So. Okay, Pam. The one comment that was made that came in from Ms. Talman talked about making, trying to make clear that this applies to any property, whether it's a rental or not. And that secondly, that there might be some emphasis on the fact that it could be either behavior or property management. And I looked at what we have through that perspective. And I think her second point, which is not just behavior, but also property management issues and types of things, I feel like we have covered. It's not clear if you were to scroll down to yes, all of the all of the mass laws relating all the zoning and all the general bylaws relating. We certainly cover the gamut. It's not spelled out per se that it's management necessarily. So I am okay recommending that we not adjust something from that perspective. The comment about making sure that it was clear that it's for both owner occupied and non owner occupied property is perhaps something we could add to the very first paragraph, which is the purpose of it. Yeah. And then I just we need to look at that and I agree because Pam that was not the only comment. I got a couple of questions from from people responding to our outreach and said will this apply to every property. So it seems like that was not necessarily clear. I also just realized we don't define property, although we do capitalize property later in the bylaw, which is kind of strange. So we might want to add that definition in we had had property for quite some time. I thought we have it in the we have it in the registration. It's in the registration. We just pull the definition from that probably. Chief, you just unmuted. So I wonder if you had a comment. I did. I just wanted to chime in, you know, when we respond to different types of disturbances where we end up requiring a nuisance bylaw violation and we issue a citation. We don't ascertain if if the property itself is a rental or not. So we apply it to all properties. So I turned down my. So I just wanted to make that notation that that we don't investigate what type of property it is. We go upon the the activity at hand. I don't know if that helps or not. Hopefully it does. No, I think it does, but it's it's also a question of clarity. I think just when people read this and see, right, you know, and of course, you know, there are instances where we may not issue a citation right on the spot. You know, we may document and find out who the landlord is down the line and issue a citation after the fact. So it's really dependent on the circumstances. That makes sense. Did you have any suggestions for how to revise the purpose? It perhaps let's see if you could maybe enlarge it just a time. Actually, I have my own copy here. It could simply be a sentence at the end of that first very long one that says this applies to any property and is not specific to rental rental properties. Even though we don't say that anywhere else in our bylaws or any other bylaw because typically it applies to everything. If people are unclear about it or we've heard from several, could it could it just say this applies to all properties in town, whether a rental or not rental or not rental? I think if you're going to say that may be saying whether it's whether their owner occupied or rented because otherwise it's too much emphasis on whether they're rented or not rented. Yep. I could live with that. Owner occupied properties can also be a rental property, but I guess that's the definition that applies. Why do we have commercial there? Because it does. So a drug story that's not maintaining its properties can be a nuisance. The nuisance bylaw is written, correct me if I'm wrong, Chief, but the ticket would, so public nuisance violations, it's a violation to create, host, allow, attend or engage in a public nuisance. That generally applies to a person, right? The ticket will be written to a person. When you get three on the third infraction in connection with a property, the property is designated a nuisance property. And so we're saying that if that infraction is on a commercial property drugstore or non-drugstore, right, it could be designated a nuisance property too. I mean, we could potentially limit it only to residential properties. I mean, we've never applied it to a commercial. Right, that doesn't make any sense. Usually, and I think the way that this is written is that usually we would apply it to whoever's in charge of the house, so usually a resident. So after the, upon the third offense, I guess the notion is that because we would notify the landlord or the owner of the property that the infraction was taken the first and the second place, and if nothing's being done about it, then I think the inference is that the landlord should now be involved and have some culpability because their tenants are not adhering to our standards. Thank you. I mean, it doesn't, I think it seems to me that while we are saying that this applies to all properties, all owner-occupied and rental properties, we really know that it's about rental properties more than anything. And so putting commercial in there just feels like what is that about? It's not about anything in the bylaw really. So Rob. So, you know, dealing with things that might become disturbances for say a nightclub or say a restaurant not properly disposing of grease into the town sewer system, managing their trash and recycling properly at any commercial business. So there could be, you know, situation, there are situations where we're dealing with every one of those examples I just mentioned, but, you know, if it ever rose to the level of having to designate the property in this way, it would just be a tool that's available if needed. Okay. Well, that makes some sense. Thank you, Rob. Yeah. So that's not to say that all of the bylaws that we reference in here are not in play. They're all still in place. So the grease, the refuse, that all that is already covered. So I'd hate to think that we would have a commercial property or an actively used property that becomes a nuisance. But if we just say all properties, I mean, what are we really restricting it to? That's even easier and simpler. I changed rented to least. I think that's good. Yeah, I do too. It's more of a commercialish term too. And this is the definition I added of property came directly from rental registration. So I just pulled it up from there. Shalini. Yeah, I agree with all of this. I was going to a different point about the criminal enforcement. And do we want to add where it says enforcement by police officers, inspection services, or other designated agents? Because I wonder at some point, if we if crest might be looking into noise or in the future, it could be some other body. So we have to be specific in that section is my understanding. And so if another department would want to be added in at some point, it would just require a change in the bylaw. Because, you know, think of it this way. A person needs to be able to understand who can give them a ticket. And should be able to read the bylaw and know that a ticket was issued lawfully and other designated individuals does not give you that that knowledge. So I don't think that would pass legal muster. And so I'm guessing if we put that in there, KP law would come back and say, no, you need to list your departments. Okay, that's good to know. Pam? Yeah, thanks. I'm just thinking out loud about the definition number six that you in that you added, which is the property. I feel really redundant here. And I'm, I guess, I guess it's okay. You know, we have we have person identified in other bylaws, we have property identified in some of the bylaws, or actually probably in our in our main definition section. You know, I'd be happy to leave it in. It just feels like, you know, really extra. I think for now we should leave it in and put it on a list of things for when the bylaws get reviewed in another five years that they need to go through and determine which ones are used enough that they get pulled out of each bylaw and put into the general deaf bylaw definitions in a different part of the general bylaws or something. They've done that. They've done that somehow. And, and yeah, I think that's where we, we put that for now. That's my, my thinking. That's fine. You have an absolute point where we really should just have a general set of definitions. Any other thoughts on this? Pam? Yeah, on page three. Well, when I printed it. It is section G. I wanted to hear from our staff folks. It's notification and this is probably correction process. And the first paragraph says first and second infractions that a lot. This is property violation notification notification infraction of public nuisance shall be delivered to all property owners and persons in charge. I didn't know if and or really minor thing property owners and or persons in charge. I would ask what does what does APD APD do now in terms of actual notification? So right now we notify the landlord that we have on file, you know, a lot of times most of these, the resonances that we deal with are known to us. There's very few that aren't and I'm sure there are some homes within town that are not, are not necessarily within the rental registration because a lot of times if they are landlord occupied, they don't fall within the rental registration. But also when they're landlord occupied, rarely do we have these type of disturbances. So we usually know who the who the landlords are. And if we don't we'll research it and find out who's in charge. A lot of times they belong to a rental agency and we'll notify them. So we have our ways to figure it out. We make sure that notification is made right now. We've been doing it through Bill Laramie who's been processing all of that. And certainly that could change down the line. There's a question I think, Pam. Yeah, so that that that was the point that you are sometimes having to reach out to the management company rather than the actual owner. That process is not likely to change. You're going to hear your local contact typically for that property. And that's why I said, you know, the notification could be delivered to all property owners. I would love to have it and and. But it sounds like and or is is more typical. Now I'm looking at Rob. Right. I would assume that persons in charge might fit that bill in terms of rental agencies. So for for our practice, you know, will any formal notice will be delivered to the owner and copied to the property manager. So anything written will be addressed to the owner of the property. And we will always also deliver a copy of that to property manager or resident manager, whatever the case may be, whoever the the contact person is for us. So that's just the way we would handle. So the current language would work fine for us. But it sounds like the option of the and or would be better for APD. How do folks feel about that? No. And just if I can add to, you know, we can certainly change our methods to to make sure that both the and it would make sense that both the landlord as well as the rental agency are notified. So that way, you know, not one entity can say, well, I didn't know. Yeah, I think my only concern is that if it only goes to a person in charge, the owner will say, well, I didn't know. And so then you can't hold the owner responsible. So we could potentially maybe add in a sentence that says notice to a person, notice to persons in charge shall constitute notice to property owners. That might work. I don't know whether that would work or not. Pam, I would I would vote to keep it simpler and simply leave it as and. So so both entities are required to be contacted. And same in this one then, rather than and or. Let's let's make it consistent and and if we in other words, we leave it the way it is. Yep. Anything else? There is a note here about cross referencing revisions to be made for this. So revisions to the rental registration by law would be need to be made to make sure that it is consistent with this statement. And it is not yet consistent with the statement. I looked up. Let me pull up what this one says. So the residential rental bylaw that is sitting and posted on the bulletin board for voting in three days does not. So the bylaw itself doesn't say anything about nuisance so it must be in the regulations. I know I looked it up somewhere. Let me pull up the regulations. So the regulations reference that if a rental property was found in violation of the nuisance house bylaw so that would need fixed if the bylaw name changes that that property can be subject to inspections on a frequency deemed necessary but not less than annually by the principal code official. And that's regulation. It's on of the regulations. It's on page two in the regulations B one C two. And that's the only thing we've done right now. So we would need to look at the bylaw and think about amendments to it to for the current draft of the nuisance property one regarding loss of rental permit. I hesitate to do that until we know whether it passes or not on Monday. So we know what we'd be looking at modifying thoughts on that. So right now it's oh sorry Jennifer. No this might be a it's gonna have we done a first reading like we're gonna vote on it. First reading was last meeting. It was a very quick first reading. You're right. It was in a different time zone so that I spaced on that. Okay thank you. Pam. I kind of forgot what I was gonna say sorry. So really the regulations only affect the timing and frequency of of inspections. It doesn't really say you might in fact not be able to rent your property if you are in frequent by or you know if you're a nuisance house sometimes over. So in short to answer your question yes the regulations right now do talk about the nuisance house bylaw because it's got a different title and and say that if you have been cited under that bylaw a property has been cited sort of in connection with that bylaw that property that the building inspector can require more frequent inspections of that property and that would have to be at least annually. But the regulations themselves the only thing we are regulating within the regulations the draft regulations are the application requirements the inspection requirements the property management plan requirements the parking site plan requirements the tenant information sheet and the appeals process so the regulations themselves are not where you talk about issuance denial or suspension of permits at all that happens in the bylaw and so to make in in short to make the nuisance house the the revised nuisance house bylaw if it were to be adopted consistent then with the loss you know that that turn that loss of rental permit enforcement and penalties that says the designation of a property as a nuisance property may result in suspension revocation or denial of the residential rental permit would also require a change to the bylaw not to the regulations because the bylaw is where um we discuss the residential rental bylaw is where is discussed what when you can deny suspend or revoke a residential rental permit so the the nuisance property bylaw would need to be added into that and we talked about that months ago but we weren't ready to do that because nuisance didn't have the nuisance the current nuisance house bylaw doesn't really have all of that so we needed the nuisance the new nuisance property bylaw to be more settled before we could think about how to put it into the rental registration permit bylaw Pam so in our in our registration bylaw under under g which is issuance or denial um there's a section three that says permit denial uh application for property will be not be denied and a permit will not be issued if that's pretty emphatic and it and it seems quite final but it if the property fails to comply with all applicable requirements the application is incomplete or a residential permit is currently subject to a suspension or revocation and um again it does say the permit will be denied if so it you know if we add something in here it does that really mean that we would not be able to issue a permit um number four is conditional permit but permit if if we added something like under C um if the residential rental permit for the applicable property is currently subject to a suspension or revocation or repeated um determine determination or something as a nuisance property does that it seems like this would be a logical place to put something like that so yeah i think you would put something either in g three or four um or and or putting it in um in section m two which is penalties um m2c is suspension or revocation of residential rental permit that's where we have the outstanding violations for notice of violations that's where we could put um designation you know current designation as a nuisance property something like that i think my recommendation at this point is given where we are and and knowing that nuisance property itself that that the residential rental permit bylaw is set for a vote on Monday four days from now um that we're turning over terms with one more meeting um and that nuisance property cannot no matter what get a vote this council because it needs two readings and it still has to go through go l which isn't happening for two readings g ol review cannot happen before December 4th and there are only two council meetings left so i think most logically we could potentially vote a recommendations on the nuisance property bylaw itself while putting into the transition memo um we could either vote a recommendation or leave that vote at some point for the next committee or for two weeks um we can come back in two weeks and think about how we can put the what we want to into the residential rental property bylaw um so that those two go up in the new council together because both would happen together right you don't want to amend i think it would it might be problematic to try and put the amendments into the residential rental property bylaw on Monday night when nuisance can't be voted for a while and so it's probably best procedurally to let residential rental property be voted see what happens with that come back to CRC on December 14th with potential with a discussion about amending the residential rental property bylaw to conform with what we are planning on recommending with nuisance property and then voting those two recommendations together on the 14th did any of that make sense i hope i tried to make that clear so in other words we push we push rental registration on its normal course but we come back with the nuisance because i wouldn't mind voting on the nuisance bylaw but we come back with nuisance and and a recommendation to do the following xxx relative to hopefully the bylaw that they just voted on yeah and it doesn't even have it it's a recommendation just like a vote on nuisance would be to recommend the town council i mean i haven't drafted a motion right we're sinned three point three point four six or whatever it is two six nuisance house and replace with three point two six nuisance property and also revise three point five oh residential rental property by amending sections x and x that could be a full a full vote all at once in one recommendation but i wouldn't i wouldn't want us to start that conversation until we know what happens monday night because we don't know what that bylaw is going to look like until it gets voted up or down with or without amendments on monday night i think the likelihood of it passing is not high right now i think that we're not gonna talk about that because that's not our agenda but but that's why i recommend we wait till the 14th to know what happened on monday night yeah because that can inform what we're doing regarding nuisance property and any amendments that might be made be need to be made to residential rental property um jennifer so what we're saying is it's passed conceivably it could pass and then we'll come back at the next council meeting and amend what we just passed no i wouldn't say at the next council meeting at the next crc meeting we would talk about what amendments would need to be made to conform it to what the nuisance the what presumably this body will recommend the council adopt for nuisance property and so would we come back to that would it it would be the next council session and then and then all of that will go to the next council session starting in january because both of those items would then need to go to gol for review of clarity consistency and actionability and then two readings at the council which can't be done this month um so i guess i'm recommending we hold off on a nuisance property vote until recommendation until next meeting even if it's practically done now we can have the clean version we've amended stuff i'll put a clean version in um i i'll put i'll have for that meeting i'll also put on the agenda residential rental property bylaw and then i'll throw in the packet whichever bylaw is appropriate to put in the packet um after monday's meeting um and then we can talk about how to amend that bylaw whatever one we will be looking at at that time um to do what we as a committee have been discussing we wanted to do to tie nuisance property violations to residential rental permits ham so there is some logic in coming back to the rental registration bylaw simply because we need to we as we can state we need to link it to this third piece that hasn't had the same trajectory and time frame and therefore it's lagging we need to marry them up and so it will it will in invariably require a change in modification and amendment to that brand new bylaw i'm i mean that sounds very legitimate and rational can i can i make another comment um yes i i we had no discussion within crc about how we were going to present the rental registration bylaw and there was i don't even remember if we did a report on it it's a very complex item and you know many things have a staff report and a you know and a committee report and it kind of lays the groundwork for people to understand this very complex that we've been dealing with for a year and i almost two years um was there and we never talked about this in this meeting was there a reason that we didn't do that so there were three reports written i think one of them was included in the council packet last week um because there were two reports written back in september um and then after the finance committee brought stuff back to us for discussion the report i wrote to finance committee was also to town council and that was on the second time we recommended adoption um and that report was that's the report that was in the packet so the council's seen three reports on this the first one was the most extensive i will say the the report that was in the packet last week was not very extensive because it was talking only about the finance committee stuff and the changes that were made from the first recommendation vote that we did but that first recommendation vote was extremely extensive um and then there was a supplemental report to that report regarding fees um and then there was the report that was in the packet last week um i always trust that our committee our council members read those reports and will have their questions formed so in order to save time my report at the meeting itself basically is what we voted and read the report um i don't spend hours writing the report to rehash it at a meeting that's why i spend hours writing a report so we don't have to take time at the meeting i had i had forgotten about some of the earlier work so it sounds like next steps on this are um i will put the new draft in the draft modified today in the december 14th packet i will put on the agenda both nuisance property and residential rental property i will wait to put the packet in the packet a residential rental property bylaw wait until i know on december 4th which thing i need to put in um and we will plan on discussing a recommendation for nuisance property and a next recommendation for integrating nuisance property violations into the residential rental permitting bylaw whichever one is the most appropriate to integrate it into when we get to the meeting on the 14th those will be so we'll hold off on voting until then and maybe be able to get through both of those on the 14th the 14th will also have the transfer memo the transition memo in it that will be the last item we do on the 14th because we have to vote that transition memo and we're going to vote it as accurate as we can so if we get through nuisance property and those items are out we can delete we won't fully delete them from the transition memo but we won't be transitioning those items to a new committee we would be transitioning them to gol um as something so so we'll we'll make sure that memo is as as accurate as possible so we won't vote that until that will be the very last thing on the december 14th meeting um so i think that takes care of then nuisance house action items today does anyone else have i see your hand pan does anyone else have any questions requests anything related to nuisance house that includes chief and building commissioner anything else before we move off of this item pan my question is more uh to pat maybe oh what are you hearing that you replied that there's not a good chance that this might not go through i that makes me very worried i'm not going to discuss that right now because that is not on our agenda and i don't want any any concern that this might be a violation of open meeting law even though we do not have a quorum of the council here so i'm just asking you know what are people's concerns is what i'm asking but yeah what have what have people heard that are concerns about the parental registration bylaw there we go it is not on our agenda pan so i'm going to keep it off of this discussion um because it is not on crc's agenda um thank you okay nothing else with nuisance house that means i want to thank chief ting and rob mora i'm going to thank chief ting a lot because you're you're here but i you know for coming for nuisance house for all of that um rob you know this in the last two years frankly if you and residential rental firm in a nuisance house um thank you so much for all the work you've done you can feel free to come back in two weeks chief i'm not sure we'll need you in two weeks to deal with the final votes and all because we're not going to be doing much with the nuisance property itself rob um you might want be interested in how we amend the residential rental property to deal with that um but this is probably the last big meeting we'll have with both of you before we switch councils so thank you thank you thank you your help has been invaluable to us we can't i appreciate being included thank you everyone yeah thanks i thank you i hope it passes so you don't have to keep coming back agreed agreed and rob and rob many thanks to the staff especially john thompson who retired probably because of this right right no no no no so important that we understand what these initiatives do to your workload and to your ability to get things done so thank you thank you thank you everyone so with that i'm going to let the two of you go we're going to move back to zba vacancy you're happy you're welcome to stay but you don't have to the only other thing on our agenda is the vacancy and then public comment so feel free to enjoy the rest of your evening we'll move back to zba vacancy next steps on that my thought was to add it to the transition memo frankly um as as an item that needs dealt with a high importance item for the beginning of the next term um not just regarding these vacancies but to add more to the transition memo about the vacancies and the high need for dealing with it in the next term early but also to add to the transition memo the difficulty this committee in particular has had getting sufficient applicant pools for both years and all vacancies we've had but you know we have to do these appointments every year in june and we have struggled both years that it's been done to get sufficient applicant pools particularly for zba not as much for planning board but but putting a statement regarding the difficulty we have had um getting to the point where we could make recommendations because our applicant pools have not been sufficient i i don't know what else we can talk more about what to add to the transition memo when we get their next meeting um when we talk about the transition memo but the new draft that i put in the packet i would recommend have something about this zba vacancy in and of itself because it needs transitioned um these vacancies but also about just difficulty of getting sufficient applicant pools um other thoughts jennifer well i did just want to ask when is the position already vacant so the full membership position both positions are vacant because the full membership position was resigned immediately so she already resigned okay that was effective immediately when we had it and the um the one associate member vacancy has been there since july that when we only appointed three of the four positions then and so they would really like it yeah they would like it filled by well obviously as soon as possible so yeah i think the zba is intimidating to people that don't feel that they really have a background i think that's one reason this is hard you know sometimes people just say they don't think they're a match for it and so pam you had asked um you would ask could we move on to the selection guidance and the questions right um and so let me let me pull up the reason we can't um at least in in my interpretation but it'll take me a little bit to it made sense that we could have that settled and then as soon as we get a certain pool and and a polling date or interview date that we've got it all lined up so it doesn't get we don't have to do it later it just made sense to talk about it in preparation well let's let's pull up the policy because i'll go with however people interpret it um so this is the the council policy and so i've always interpreted it as an in order vacancy we advertise the caf sufficiency of the applicant pool um and then selection guidance is here prior to soliciting statements of interest developing interview questions or holding interviews the committee has to adopt selection guidance um and then this is what it is so so maybe we could potentially do that one statements of interest is after the recommending committee declares the pool sufficient and adopts selection guidance then we can solicit statements of interest and um interview questions the recommending committee shall by majority vote adopt interview questions which will be asked of all applicants the committee shall consider the adopted selection guidance and solicit questions from the council um time limits may be there so i guess maybe we could do both uh but we can talk about whether it's wise to or not shall any is that a question about public comment to be announced when it's going to happen it it'll be after this action item after this one okay which is how it's listed on the agenda so we Jennifer yeah no i'm just wondering why would having the applicant pool i mean seems that we could the questions are independent from the applicant pool pretty i mean we don't i don't think we've ever tailored them to the applicants responses no we have not um like i said maybe i've always interpreted that this says you've got to do one before you do the other but the only thing that actually says we can't do something until the pool has been declared sufficient is solicit the statements of interest so maybe we could do both um um i would wonder if if we're not going to do the interviews this term whether it would be more appropriate to allow the next CRC committee to actually adopt the selection guidance and the interview questions um if we're not going to do interviews this term because they will be the ones that actually do any of the interviews and we do not know who will be on that committee that makes sense Jennifer can we i don't know if we part of the transition memo or just in the file to have the questions that we have available it might help them so it's always available in SharePoint because we put them i'll make sure updated copies go into SharePoint thanks for the reminder of the updated ones i always make sure the last set we used is in SharePoint for that purpose as training but it will also because this is a transition item um i will make sure um that the draft selection guidance draft questions and um bulletin board notice and um it's the other one that we have the the zba handout are included as attachments to the transition memo okay because they might not have a lot of time to right no i'll i'll make sure they're i think that's great thank you but they're always accessible um and it reminds me the other thing i need to do is ask Athena to extend the bulletin board notice because i like that but i'd appreciate an email thanks man i will i i know you heard that it's on my list to email you you'll get an email with a date i'm gonna pick another random date but you'll get an email Athena it was just talking out loud because i know i told you december 31st so we'll extend it Pam um i'm curious about extent having to physically or or by notice extend the bulletin notice um i just thought it went until it's kind of open until if that needed anymore um Athena can probably explain it better but i'll try when she posts it on the bulletin board it must have an end date um so it disappears from the bulletin board after a certain amount of time um i normally what i've learned my lesson um by because i've inadvertently caused Athena extra work by putting them too soon and then she's had to post them again because you can't go back and just reactivate one so um normally in the spring interview in the spring season when we're aiming to make appointments by july 1 i have the notice expire june 30 whenever we post it and this time i had it expire december 31 i will i will post it for i'll probably ask Athena to extend it through march 31 um just to give the new council committee time to figure out what they're going to do with it um before it expires but i believe as long as it is still up that date can be changed but once the date of expiration passes you can't change it and reactivate it so it needs done before the date comes any other comments questions anything on zba vacancy seeing none um we will move to there's no discussion item so we're going to move to general public comment at this time uh public comments on matters within the jurisdiction of crc will be taken at this time residents are welcome to express their views for up to three minutes um crc does not engage in dialogue or comment on a matter raised during public comment if you would like to make a public comment um at this time please raise your hand seeing no hands raised i am going to close general public comment um i think both Athena and i confirmed before the meeting that we do not have minutes to adopt at this time um so unless i am wrong with that um we will postpone the minutes to next meeting um announcements are there any announcements next agenda preview i have practically previewed it it will include at this time it will include nuisance house residential rental property transition memo and that is all and minutes and minutes and hopefully we'll be able to fully catch up on minutes um we'll have three sets of minutes at the time um that's it is all i'm intending to put on it is there anything i missed for that agenda it will be our last meeting of the seat of the term really and it on December 14th it will be our last crc meeting of the term okay i had i thought i had one on the twenty why shawnee you get your throat whenever you get a lot of time back yeah i'm sure you're i'm sure you're feeling it yeah there's a lot happening right now really i'm not seeing any late but just trying to be as present as i can so yeah if there are no other agenda preview items are there any items not anticipated by myself right now see none i'm going to save all my thank yous for two weeks from now to the committee if everyone will be there but i'll i'll take a little preview of it now which is thank you you guys have all been a great committee but we'll do all of that next time too as we take to our last meeting are you're going to have presents i can throw a green pad i'll just throw cookies stick in the screen and then show like i have some eggnog all we could all drink eggnog i want to know and i'll note it again next week that you're getting a back most of your five or six minute overages of the last six months today but um also that our transition memo as you will see will be very slim because we will not be transitioning basically any referrals because this committee was able to get through all of the referrals it had i was hoping we'd transition almost nothing but we are going to have to transition the zba vacancies that was unplanned and unfortunate but if we make the recommendations on nuisance next time that will end up with a different type of transition than a holdover because we'll have finished our work on it even if we didn't get it to the council in time to finish their work so um fena has her hand raised so at fena one thing that you you may have to transition depending on what happens on monday is the solar bylaw that's coming to the council for a presentation and their request will be to send it to crc for further development not to crc and planning board for hearings so um there won't be much to transition just what's presented on monday but i'm expecting um that referral to happen i want to say thank you in advance for a motion that does not include scheduling hearings within 45 days of december that i had to do two years ago for a new council and we were setting a zoning hearing on a zoning bylaw that was forwarded to us in december and had a 45 and we had no idea who the committee was going to be in that 45 days so i want to say thank you for not doing that recommending that not happen again because that was not fun so that's the solar bylaw i will make sure so nobody likes that draft transition memo if it comes to us so thank you for the warning so i can be prepared to add it to the transition memo when is the solar bylaw coming at our next meeting no on monday on monday it will be on the monday meeting so okay with that i am going to adjourn the meeting at 5 41 p.m thank you