 Yes, we are recording. Thank you. I'm seeing a presence of a quorum I am calling this regular meeting of the community resources committee of the town council to order at 430pm on October 27, 2022 pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 21 and extended by chapter 22 and chapter 107 of the acts of 22. This meeting will be conducted by remote means members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via zoom or by telephone. 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 proceedings in real time by a technological means. At this time I'm going to take attendance of the call the role of the community resources committee members to make sure that they can hear us and we can hear them. I'm going to start with Pat D'Angeles present and Mandy Johanna case president present and Jennifer top present and Shawnee is not here yet we will catch her when she comes in though. With that we're going to start immediately into our public hearings. So let me get that script up. So, in accordance with the provisions of MGL chapter 40 a this public hearing of the community resources committee of the Amherst town council has been duly advertised and notice there have has been posted and is being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity for interested residents to be heard regarding the proposed amendments to the zoning bylaw. This is actually a continued public hearing that began on May 26 and continued on September 8 and September 29 of 2022. And it is on zoning bylaw article two zoning districts article three use regulations and article 16 female floodplain overlay district to see if the town will vote to add article 16 female floodplain overlay district to the zoning bylaw amend article two zoning districts to add female floodplain overlay district and amend related sections of article three use regulations to regulate activities in the hundred year floodplain as shown on the flood insurance rate maps issued by FEMA. For the administration of the national flood insurance program for maps indicate areas that have a 1% chance of flooding in a given year the purpose of the floodplain management regulations is to protect public health safety and general welfare and to minimize the harmful impacts of flooding upon the community. So we are opening or we're continuing this public hearing. Chris or Nate would you like to address this one and it's starting at 432 I believe I started reading all of that. Chris or Nate would you like to address this portion of the public hearing and any changes or anything that have been gone on. I have a short intro and then Nate is going to go into the particulars. Okay. So I just wanted to update the CRC members about where we are with the project. We've been talking to town council about flood mapping since the council was established. We've been working on the project since 2012. There have been a number of delays in moving forward but we're finally in a position where the CRC and the planning board can make recommendations to town council. So as Mandy Joe stated this has been a continuing public hearing initially the town council referred the project four parts of the project to both the planning board and the CRC. Actually the CRC only received the planning board only received referral for the zoning portion but in any event. We finally received our letter of final determination in August and the maps have finally arrived they arrived sometime in mid October and that was one of the reasons for all of the delay. As you know the town of Amherst is a participant in the national flood insurance program which is administered by FEMA. The program provides flood insurance for property owners whose properties are subject to flooding. The municipality in which the property is located participates in the national flood insurance program. I'm not going to repeat a lot of the things I told you earlier on in previous meetings about the history of the project. I mentioned the fact that the old maps from 1983 were based on USGS topography with 10 foot contour intervals. And they're also based on data gathered up until the early 1970s and the new maps are based on Amherst GIS topography which is one foot contour intervals. They're also based on more recently gathered data. And this means that the new maps are much more accurate in terms of where the flooding occurs. The action steps that the town needs to take are that the town council needs to adopt the FEMA maps, the firm maps and the flood insurance study which I think you're going to be talking about later in this meeting possibly. And the town also needs to adopt associated zoning amendments and changes to the official zoning map and the CRC and the planning board are called upon to make recommendations on the zoning portions of this project. And the CRC needs to make a recommendation to town council on the firm maps and the flood insurance study. So if the town fails to adopt the new maps, the town of Amherst will no longer be able to participate in the flood insurance program and people in Amherst won't be able to purchase flood insurance through the flood insurance program. So now Nate Malloyd is here to present the zoning amendment articles to three 16 and the new flood maps to you and we'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you for that before Nate starts I just need to confirm that Shalini can hear awesome. Yes, sorry. Thank you. Okay, Nate. Sure, thanks so you know as part of the being in the firm program we have to have local regulations to regulate development in the floodplain and the simplest solution was to take the model bylaw provided by FEMA in the state and then you know and that becomes a proposed article 16. And in doing so we have to then reference changes in article two and article three so you know article two. I'll share my screen is um, was disabled screen sharing all right. So article two is, can you, can you let us the Nate share screen. Yes, sorry about that it's a new default setting. Yeah. I think I counter that earlier. Great. Thanks Athena. The, is that visible for everyone. Yes. Yes so this hasn't changed since you know for a number of months and so really an article to we're defining the new zoning district so the FEMA floodplain overlay district. And it's really a what Mandy read in terms of the legal add it's the you know the area that's one percent chance of flooding. And you know that's been confirmed by the new maps and the flood insurance study. And so, you know, the chain is article two is really now just, you know, describing the district. In article three, the Townsend by its use regulations and so there's a few sections where we mentioned development and floodways. And one is in section 3.13 where it's a, it's own discrete section. And so we're just providing new language proposed here, see also article 16, just to direct people so rather than trying to change everything in the bylaw, the states review this, the state FEMA represent, you know, the state representative who works with FEMA, and says this is a fine approach. And then we have our flood prone conservancy district, which is a base zoning district, and that's not proposed to be changed. So similarly now we have our FPC and we have the FEMA which is separate. And now we're going to have the FPC which will remain and then also the FEMA which is an overlay. So we're saying, you know, proposed language here to say, you know, that that the FEMA and the new, the new proposed FEMA district will take precedent over any less restrictive language in the FPC district. And so, you know, someone will have to read both and it's pretty clear what, you know, what, what is less restrictive or more restrictive FEMA does allow development. You know, FPC doesn't in a lot of cases and so our local FPC bylaw in some instances is more restrictive than FEMA. And then really the, the big one is Article 16, which has been looked at the CRC looked at at the planning board has looked at it. It's based on an updated model from the state from 2020. The revision date is October 21, this incorporates all changes that has been discussed at the previous hearings. There's an intent and purpose. There were some comments about some grammar in here and spelling, we've added since the last time 1606 to allow the floodplain to operate naturally and drain floodwaters without development that could add to flooding. So, you know, we have a number of purposes here, really is public safety, protection of buildings and property. The definitions are from us, you know, the standard FEMA language. One change is from last time we and right in the beginning here we say that the definitions really only apply within the overlay district that's always been the case. But we say that these definitions are based on state building code, standard references found in state building code and then FEMA regulations found in the code of federal regulations and we did this because after every defined term previously we had actually parenthetically referenced a specific section in the code or something and acknowledgement was if that was ever changed then every every section in this bylaw every definition would have to be changed and so you know we put this, this one kind of generic statement up top and otherwise the definitions have not changed. So, we provide them slightly from the FEMA language to apply to Amherst or make things more understandable so you know for the start of construction, we, we changed this language was changed previously but you know we really say it is the issuance of a building permit and work must start 180 days from that building permit. And for FEMA's purposes what it means for the first placement of a permit construction and so, you know, if you looked at the FEMA standard template, this would be one paragraph, we separated it out just for clarity. FEMA defines a structure and repair of foundation. Again, this is only within the overlay district and so you know the bylaw itself may have a definition for something, the building code may have a definition but when it comes to work in the flood you know, this is what you know, when it says repair of a foundation we separate it out into A and B. The building commissioner understands this. So we have these definitions. We have to designate a floodplain administrator, we're recommending the planning director and then in the planning director's absence they're designee. We can define that say as a senior planner or a certain position but the designee is fine, and that can happen in an absence or you know planned absence. You know, we do list the duties of the flood floodplain administrator and these were modified slightly. One big one is may include. So the bylaws don't have to include every, you know, every job description of the floodplain administrator some don't. We do list in terms of just providing guidance both to the town and to applicants, you know what what the floodplain administrator does so it says may include, and then it lists these things and so, you know, it's, it's pretty thorough. There's a language here about notifying FEMA we used to have specific addresses and you know locations and we've just notified you know we just kept this the floodplain administrator on the FEMA risk analysis just so that again something changes the bylaw doesn't have to change. And then really is these regulations are the you know 16.3 is what what regulates development and actions in the floodplain and so one is local permitting 16.3 one. We have to have some type of permit or review for every development. And so, you know we're saying that you know a permit is required for all proposed construction in the overlay district including new construction changes to existing buildings placement of manufactured homes agriculture facilities fill shed storage facilities drilling mining paving. This is FEMA language. What we've added is in addition to any building permit or other local state or federal permits needed any development in the FEMA floodplain overlay district. Shall require a review by the wetlands administrator to determine if review and approval by the conservation commission is required. And so this is actually happening now with our new permitting software so anytime there's a building permit or electrical permit. It's in the floodplain but the wetlands administrator has to, you know, approve it before it can move forward and so you know we don't see this as a big step but it does mean any, you know, any permit in that area will be reviewed and then there can be notes and so that's really what FEMA wants to know that we're monitoring any activity or development in the floodplain. You know these are the rest standard regulations from FEMA. We did add that we're site plan review under article 11 of the bylaw. They shall incorporate these standards in review if there's a subdivision being proposed and so just an acknowledgement that you know it's not just the construction of homes it's also the plan development so through subdivision if someone's proposing to, you know put roadways in or other things that is also applicable. See so these are, you know these haven't changed really at all. Since last time we there's some some recommendations to clean up some language, you know very small grammatical things. And then enforcement, we've named the building commissioner at one point we had the wetlands administrator or another staff person but really it's the building commissioner. They are the zoning enforcement officer. Again this section is somewhat redundant we have an enforcement section in the zoning bylaw but you know it's nice to call it out here just so that it's something we can rely on if there is any question as to what how or why we're enforcing the FEMA overlay district. And so those are the three pieces of the bylaw. One of the things the bylaw has to reference the, the approval date so in our letter of final determination. These approved local regulations need to be approved by FEMA by February nine 2023. And so typically the local adoption should occur, you know four to six weeks before that deadline to give, you know once these are approved locally we send them to the state for their final review again and then they send them to FEMA. And so our local bylaw has to reference that date. And it does above and so, you know, really that's the important piece that the flood insurance study. And the maps are all from February nine so I'm just going to do a quick share. So now if you go to the FEMA map center. The pending products, they list all the map panels here with the date of February nine so the effective date is February nine 2023. And there's also the flood insurance study with the date of February nine 2023. And so what those panels look like here. So we have a web page it's been updated. It's under the planning department, we have the pending firm maps and an interactive comparison map. I was, I downloaded one of the maps, but they're very large files. I'll try to download again and so what's nice about these. You know the old ones were based on somewhat inaccurate, both base data and then you know Chris mentioned 10 foot contours the new maps are based on aerial photographs one foot contours, and then, you know very detailed analysis of stream profiles and so we can zoom in on these what's nice about them is we can see a structure through the transparent layer of the FEMA floodplain so typically on the old map. It was really hard to tell if a structure was in or out of the floodplain. Here we can have a better visual understanding and then there's with, you know, with each area of a floodplain there's also an elevation associated with it so sometimes we'll ask actually a property owner to have a survey. To determine if it's you know in the floodplain or not but this is what the new maps look like. They haven't changed much really in the last two years there's been Chris mentioned some delays and some of those delays were technical in nature in terms of providing certain labels on cross sections. So I'm recognizing some of the legends and how the maps presented in terms of how the data has changed in. In the Northwest corner of Amherst there was some, some missing floodplain it wasn't as if the data the data had caught up but it wasn't mapped correctly so you know like this blue area wasn't shown on the opposite side of town. I think the data hasn't changed that use that developed this in a few years it was really just the production of the maps themselves that has caused the delay. And so this is what you know each panel will look like. They're actually you know 24 by 36 sheet so when we actually have them in paper copy each sheet is really big. And then we have them digitally here through FEMA. In terms of how it's changed the interactive map it's a slider map. And so both layers are available right now we'll just zoom in so the, the yellow is the previous or the current the 83 map in the will say blue is the is the new map, and you can just see the articulation of the boundaries is a lot more detailed following contours. And so what you can do with this map you can have it. Sorry it's really sensitive, it can be a swipe map, which is now you know becoming more popular but you can slide back and forth so you can really zoom in on an area to see, you know how things have changed and so. You know this will remain in effect, just for even applicants in the public to see. And so if you zoom around town. You can just see where previously the contours weren't as defined so even in this area behind belcher town road and now it looks, you know, the floodplain is is like this so the actual river for rivers here. And based on topography market topography and flood elevations you know this area right here is now excluded. So wherever you just see yellow it's no longer part of the floodplain. And so, the overlay district really is just this blue area so when we say it applies to the FEMA floodplain, you know, the regulated area, the overlay and all those regulations we just looked at is just this blue area. So we can. And so that's really what it is so the zoom out just a little bit. So the regulations you can see most of town is not in the FEMA overlay district so right any any place that is not covered by this is not regulated by anything we just looked at so it really only applies strictly to, you know, this area. You know, you can just see the accuracy of the new maps. So, that's, I guess that's it if there's any questions I can stop share or move around town if you've got questions. Thank you Nate, we'll move into the questions are there any questions from CRC members. Pam. Can you go back to section 16.1 it's one of the definitions, please. And it has to do with it's the 16.1 it's actually the very beginning of that section. And it says, if I'm reading it correctly on my copy, the following definition definitions comply with FEMA region one standard shall apply only within the FEMA floodplain overlay district. Okay, I was reading that as our as our flood prone conservancy district, so that I just answered my own question. I was trying to figure out if there was ever a situation where, where the floodplain overlay would be would be outside of the flood prone conservancy so it will. There will there will be there will be areas where the FPC is bigger than FEMA and other places where FEMA is bigger than FPC so. Okay, but I think but but I, but I did answer my own question. Sorry, thank you. Okay, Pam, thank you. And are there any other questions from the committee. Seeing none this is a public hearing are there any questions from the public that are in attendance regarding the floodplain, basically what Nate just summarized. If there are please raise your hand. Seeing no hands raised, are there any comments from the public on the floodplain summary that Nate just gave. Seeing none to CRC members have any other questions. Seeing no questions, I'm going to make a motion at this time to close the public hearing on zoning by law article two zoning districts article three use regulations and article 16 female floodplain overlay district is there a second second. Jennifer Jennifer beat me. Jennifer gets the second. With that any discussion. Seeing none we're going to go to a vote Shalini. Yes. Mandy is an eye of Pat. What did you say Mandy Joe because we're voting to close the hearing. Yes I heard that part but then you're frozen again or I'm frozen. Sorry, I called on you Pat to vote. Hi. Pam. And Jennifer. So that is unanimous to close the hearing we will move on to our next hearing which is a continued hearing on where's my script again. So it is now 454 and we are in accordance with the provisions of MGL chapter 40 a we are opening this continued public hearing of the community resources of the town of Amherst. Amherst town council, which has been duly noticed, duly advertised and notice there have has been posted and is being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity for interested residents to be heard regarding the following proposed amendments to the zoning by law, zoning by law official zoning map female floodplain overlay district to see if the town will vote to amend the official zoning map to add female floodplain overlay district for the purpose of regulating activities as described in article 16 female floodplain district. I think I said that at 454, we are opening it this is continued from May 26, September 8 and September 29 2022. Nate, would you like to add anything to what you just said regarding to the prior hearing I know we've described this multiple times. No, thanks. I don't think so. Just, you know, like I can reiterate that the overlay will be tied to the FEMA boundaries that were shown on the interactive map so just the proposed, you know, new regulated areas and so. So the second hearing is really, you know, for that overlay piece so the regulations will only affect that overlay so they work you know they work together. Otherwise, the, you know, article 16 doesn't apply anywhere unless the overlays in place. Thank you Nate are there any questions from CRC members. Seeing none are there any questions from the public if there are please raise your hand at this time. And this is again on the FEMA, the actual overlay map the zoning map will change with as Nate said all of the blue that was in that map he was showing no questions are there any comments from the public. Seeing no hands for public comment on the zoning map. Any further questions from CRC members. Seeing none I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing on zoning bylaw official zoning map FEMA floodplain overlay district. Is there a second. Second Shawnee. Thank you Shawnee any discussion on the motion to close the hearing. Seeing none we're going to vote we're going to start with Pat. Hi, Mandy is an eye Pam. Hi, Jennifer. I, and Shawnee. Yes. That is also unanimous. So we are closed with the hearings. I'm going to ask the committee if they think we can get through four more motions in the next two minutes. I'm going to make a motion to recommend the town council adopt the proposed revisions to article two zoning districts article three use regulations. Article 16 and article 16 FEMA floodplain overlay district as presented. And then we'll move on to rental registration. I think we can finish this up in about two minutes. I told, I told attorney Goldberg we'd get to her at five. I. And I just tteokbokki to work on two 沒有 street.ورENTS review version three use regulations article sixteen and article 16 FEMA floodplain overlay district as presented as presented. Oh, Pat, Pat thank you to that any, any discussion on that. You just got. Okay. Pam, are you ready to vote? Yes. I. Okay. Jennifer. I. Shalini. Yes. And Pat. Hi. We will make that rec that recommendation is unanimous. I'm going to make a second motion, a motion to recommend the town council adopt zoning by law, official zoning map, female floodplain overlay district. Is there a second? Second. Pam Rooney. Thank you for that. Is there any discussion? I'm going to move on to the flood insurance rate maps and the flood insurance study. Those votes and discussion and recommendations. I'm going to start with a motion on the flood insurance rate maps is to recommend that I move to recommend the town council adopt. I'm going to move on to the flood insurance rate maps. I'm going to move on to the flood insurance rate maps. Seeing none, we start with Pam. I. Jennifer. I. Shalini. Yes. Pat. Hi. And Mandy is an eye that is also unanimous. I'm going to make a second motion. I'm going to move on to the town council adopt. The flood insurance or approve. Chris, is it approved or Nate? Is it approved or adopt. These maps. I believe it's adopt. Is that right? Right. We adopt them and they're approved by FEMA. Gotcha. So I'm going to move to recommend that the town council adopt the flood insurance rate maps. Is as presented. Is there a second? Okay. Thank you. Pam. Is there any discussion? I will say that these are the same maps that we just recommended would be the floodplain overlay district. Seeing no discussion. We'll start with Jennifer, I think. I. Shalini. Yes. Pat. Hi. Mandy is an eye and Pam. I. And then we've got one last one and then we will move on to the final date. And this is to, I move to recommend that the town council adopt the flood insurance study. With a final approval date of when it's, I think right now we don't have the final date on it. So when the final date changes with that date represented on the study itself. At least I couldn't find a copy that it said preliminary the last time I saw a copy. So I received a copy in the mail. And then we'll move on to the final date. And then we'll move on to the final date. And then we'll move on to the final date. It has a date. Revised February 9th, 2023. There we go with the date. Let's have a date on it. That's the one we're moving to adopt or recommend adoption of. Is there a second to that motion? Okay. Really. Thank you, Pam. Any discussion on that? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Melanie. Hold on. Yes, Pam. Before, before we finish off, I really would like to say thank you to the town staff for. Yes. Shepherds. Through the process. I'm very happy to support it and, and make the recommendation to town council that. They also adopt it. So. Thank you. Yes. Ten years, maybe a record. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We're starting with Shalini. Yes. Pat. Hi. Mandy is an eye Pam. Hi. And Jennifer. Hi. With a unanimous vote. Congratulations. Chris and Nate. You are done at CRC with blood maps. Good luck at the planning board next week with them. And then on to FEMA. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for that. I want to, we will go to item three C on our agenda, which is residential rental bylaw. I want to welcome, welcome attorney Goldberg here for this discussion. And I saw. Attorney Goldberg that in the audience is. Michael. Do you are 10 zero? Would you like him brought in for this discussion? You're muted. You know, that was my one time, I hope. First of all, hello everyone. I'm sure Michael and Michael would be very welcome to join. He also took a close look at these regulations and bylaw and would be. You know, if he needs, if he wants to add anything, I think that would be useful. Thank you. So I think that they knew you're in the middle of bringing him in. So welcome to attorney. Dear 10 zero two. Thank you both for coming today for this discussion. I think we're going to start with the, the discussion on what we're going to have for the attendees in the audience as a discussion and conversation with the town attorneys regarding. In specifically the questions that were asked them, but in general the, the, the concepts surrounding the questions that were sent to KP law. Regarding rental permitting and, and. What we can and can't do. We can do this either by going through the questions or just taking those concepts and saying what you might be concerned about or not concerned about. Based on the questions that were sent. Well, I don't want to ignore the questions because you went to such trouble to write them out. No, I'm kidding. I think that we can have a general discussion and maybe actually move through. The by-law itself and kind of get some of the issues that we have. The, let me just, I just want to get it up on my screen so that I am. Because I lost you guys before and I couldn't open it. So now I'm back. And if you think it would be helpful to put it as a shared screen, we can do that too. I am happy to. Although I would like to, I would like to, I would like to, I would like to, I would like to make sure that. I am happy too, although I would like to provide a caveat that it is, it is not intended to be a formal response from council. And I assure you, we will provide something more specific in writing. Anything that I'm not covering that you want me to or any questions that come up, I'm happy to answer as we go. So no issue. And then I want to show the comments to here. Yes. And so with that, with that attorney Goldberg, I would just say if any committee members have any questions or want to delve in deeper into any areas want clarification. I want to ask additional questions related to them just raise your hand and and we'll have that conversation. We're going to be doing this until about 520. Unless we end early. That's funny. Okay, I think I can get there now. So review show. Why doesn't it want to show. That's makes it too big. All right, I think I'm, I think I'm going to figure this out to make the whole screen smaller. I never have computer problems when people aren't watching me I just want that to be done. If you try the minus at the bottom on the right hand side. I couldn't get to it because the bar was in front of it and there you go. I don't know if we can get. Okay. So, I know this is kind of small, but I'm going to explain anyway. So the first question that you, you all had was about the penalty section and the difference between non criminal disposition and, you know, enforcement in the district and essentially the, the way in which this typically works is that if this were a matter that went to court, the court would have the flexibility, the discretion to issue a fine of up to $300 and that's it. That's the limit for not for for bylaws for non criminal and the criminal version. So, in terms of the difference, you know, one involves filing a complaint and having someone go and usually in response to can someone else go it's usually the police prosecutor. If you have one, but we certainly could talk about whether the court would be comfortable with a different person I think we'd have to figure out how to explain who they are and all of that I know the building inspector wouldn't usually go to court by themselves that usually go through your counsel or the police prosecutor I would imagine. So, we can follow up on that based on what you guys are doing right now and what what it is that you'd like to accomplish for that. But could a small table of examples be provided. Oh, so you're saying like the building inspector could go for building code violations that that's the kind of table that you're looking for. Yeah. So, because enforcement is essentially the prosecution of a claim, typically that would have to go through the executive to get authorization to do so. Because it's an expenditure municipal resources and because there are some things that may not be as critical or it could be budget issues or some some situations like that so I think we should talk to Paul and see what what he does now with the building inspector and zoning enforcement officer health director police chief and see what they're doing now. If if they're each now filing without conferring with the town manager and prosecuting without the use of town council or the police prosecutor. We do the same thing here. The fact that there are so many potential enforcing authorities was one of the things I wanted to mention. I know that, certainly, you know that under the state sanitary code and electrical code and fire code and what am I missing the gas and wires, all of that. There are particular persons who are authorized to enforce those. And so, you know, it seems to me that in kind of connection with this as a theme. It is very much the case that a lot of these things seem to be addressed in state law already or state law regulations, and I don't know what the committee thought process is. But I'm interested to hear what was the goal to try to put everything in one place, even though in theory, you know, it could be done under state law, not as cordon you know without without this bylaw. I'll try and take that I think. I think the committee isn't sure, and it's not a. Well, we haven't had that particular discussion is what I'll say. There has been a desire to bring some of those into like if you violate a sanitary code that you also violate this code and that discussion has sort of said but we've recently received a number of comments that from the public that say, we're going to be doing that. And so I believe it's probably a discussion will return to as to whether we want to bring them in and make them both a violation of their own right and also a violation here recommendations that you have or thoughts you have on that I know I would appreciate hearing. Oh, absolutely. Am I jumping in front of anyone else wanting to talk or. Okay. So, um, it's, it's our kind of general approach that we don't have to restate what exists in state law, meaning, you know, if, if, if the standards that we're holding these rentals to is compliance with the state sanitary code, then we can just say, that's the standard. And, you know, any violation of the state sanitary code would be a violation of this bylaw, or is a violation of this bylaw as well, because it's not a criminal issue there's no double jeopardy or anything like that. So we define both locally and at the state. The state sanitary code covers a lot of what you all are trying to do. It doesn't connect it to rentals, but the code itself has a number of standards and and authorizations. It defines for example, life safety problem which isn't defined in this. And so there's some benefit of using what already exists, either in the zoning bylaws or in the state law to, to kind of work to your advantage in this without having to say it all again. But, you know, I know this is consistent with the way that you all usually have bylaws they're very specific. We get questions with sub paragraphs we got a lot of sub paragraphs here and that is always the case. And the important thing is to recognize that if a if a code enforcement officer has authority under the code, you know the state sanitary code. The enforcement action is taken as the state sanitary, you know is enforcement of the state sanitary code. And basically what we're saying here is that if there's a state sanitary code violation. It's going to be deemed a violation of the bylaw and that has implications for the owner. So, so again, I think thinking about using terms that exist, whether they're in the zoning bylaw, or in the state sanitary code may be a good idea. It also may be worthwhile to say, you know, to the extent that the code enforcement aspect of this varies from state laws that may be amended from time to time. This is not meant to supersede those standards with regard to the, the standards that the code officer is looking at. And that way, I think we have a good argument to say, Hey, this bylaw stands on its own. If the state sanitary code requires something else, then that's what we're going to do and requires less than that's what we're going to do. You could of course also just amend the regulations. And I will talk about that in a bit, but the bylaws a little more work to amend so it's worth, I think thinking about. In the zoning section, you know, we have, we'd like right away come up with this issue. So the building commissioner and the zoning enforcement officer are both the same person that's really good typing learn in the zoning, the zoning bylaws. And so, you know, I don't know if you want to write out both you can, but they are, they are the same. Although the building commissioner has authority, different authority under different statutes as you know. And actually very timely as my comment about, you know, thinking about using those definitions that already exist, whether in statute, or in the zoning bylaw, rather than defining existing definitions differently. You're not going to find the rental, which I'm going to call it. You're not going to find a person in charge, right? There's no person in charge definition your definition. You're not going to find a resident manager except maybe in a, you could, you could compare it to the responsible manager under the liquor licensing process. So for those, I think, you know, you really do need to have a definition in here. Anyhow, but I can talk certainly and I can make some suggestions in writing. Obviously, this is intended just to have a conversation. You all have brought this to this point and, you know, we want to help you get it over the line in terms of reducing potential risk because Mandy Joe as I know, you know, I always say this. It's a risk a first person when it comes to, to bylaws. I always kind of go to the worst case scenario. And so sometimes what I'm saying sounds like no, but really that's a policy decision for you all to make and I'm trying to be very aware of that as we go through. And if anyone, you know, again, if anyone wants to say what do you mean by that, please, please do. Okay, so that was the first. I guess, another thing to think about for this code enforcement officer going to court to enforce to enforce a violation or to force a violation. One of the questions may be, would they, they probably won't go under this bylaw. Anyway, they've gone to the state sanitary code or the electrical code or the zoning bylaw. So this bylaw seems to me more of a bridge between that type of violation and the permission to rent units in town. Okay. So green was what again, Mandy do something you're thinking about. So so green was stuff we just haven't decided we actually changed the person in charge definition recently to instead of do 20 air miles reference counties. So right now we're moving away from the distance to Hampshire Franklin and Hamden County, but they still have to live within that a jurisdictional framework. And I think, you know, for every one of these the question has to be, you know, do we have a rational reason of rationally based purpose for, for this law and so, you know, example for that, you know, I was thinking, well, how far to firefighters live, how far can firefighters live how far can police officers live. Is there a reason for that as compared to this so I think, you know, expanding into the counties is probably a really good idea, because the rationale appears to be we want someone close enough to actually get here. Right, not like three days later. So I think giving the choice about the counties is is a good one. Defensible. Okay, so the idea of the person in charge being not being a current tenant of the owner you want to tell me what the rationale is for that. There have been concerns in town that particularly I think in duplexes more than in any other locations that there are that that landlord will name one of the tenants as a person in charge, even though that tenant has what could be considered no qualifications to be sort of a manager and they're not receiving reduced rent for that they're not that but it's a way for the landlord and the property owner to quote have someone even though there might not be any experience at all, or any attention for them to really be taken over because they might be still residing with friends they don't really think they can challenge or, or do control over we've heard concerns about that which would be why we have that in there although we did say if there's that reduced rent and employee relationship that can be a tenant, but yeah. Okay, that makes a lot of sense to me. I don't know if maybe there's something I'm not in my own office so excuse me well I should. I can understand that. And I think, again, I think that makes sense and it's defensible. The one thing about it that just kind of seemed a little bit funny is that if. The owner intends to let person X do this job and they do a bad job. Really, it's the owner who's going to get in trouble for that. So, if, and if the owner if the person in charge is the owner, then you know just it's because the person in charge could enter an owner designate themselves as the person in charge. Yes, they can as long as they live within that geographic area. Okay, okay, all right. Resident managers yes okay so the next thing oh I'm not just noted here that the definitions that you have in the exemptions section. I think we're thinking about putting them up into the definition section. I noticed that I had to go back and forth I was like wait what's up blah blah blah, and I had to like go further into the bylaw to find it. So, organizationally I think it's fine legally it's fine, just kind of a readability issue. It's an advertisement issue. So, right now, it's my. Before you start on that. That is one I think I talked last week that we had actually deleted that in our conversation that happened after we said that so okay advertising no longer would have to we've deleted that sentence completely. Okay. And within that we've also deleted. We've deleted the offer to rent requirement so it's just operate rent, operate rent. Gotcha. Yeah, I think, again, you know, just kind of reading this with an eye towards land landlord tenant law and contracts law. I think the, you know, the, the more restrictive this is the, the more difficult it may be to to defend. So I think that makes a lot of sense I think that's very reasonable. Okay. All right. So, oh yeah here it is nothing shall supersede alter or vary the requirements of the law. I wonder if we put that upfront. After the, the mission and the purpose. So the point of like bringing to people's attention. Hey, those codes are those codes. This is this about rentals that might be useful to kind of focus on that. So having it as its own section. Yeah, I just wonder if that's useful and then I was also thinking, man to do I know the purpose behind this is to ensure that landlords maintain their property. Giving a ticket, what the town wants to do enforcing isn't what the town wants to do the town wants people to comply with their obligations under law. So I'm wondering if you also put that upfront. You know that that the town's goal is to ensure compliance for safety purposes. And that, you know, the, the, the use of fines is kind of, I don't know, I don't know the right way to say kind of a meant is meant to encourage compliance, but not the town's first priority. Right. Like you, you all want them to do the right thing. And, you know, I know you're usually and you are so transparent in terms of what your reasoning is and all of that. So I thought it may make sense to say that it also shifts the kind of, I don't know, like the way it hits because it's like, hey, you know, this is, we, we don't want to do all these things, you know, this is a lot of work for us, but we will because if we need to. And I think that kind of that issue of cooperation, having that, you know, at the front, I think that looks more like a partnership with the landlords and the students and it does kind of us telling them what they're doing or showed or shouldn't do. Okay. You. Oh, sorry, you asked about the definition of occupant. So any person sleeping in a dwelling. So my, my, my brother lives in Florida, his family comes up, they're supposed to say week they stay three weeks I, you know, I'm not renting to them but they're not. You know, they wouldn't count I don't think they should count towards, you know, this. So that was my roundabout way of saying, is it sleeping in on a regular basis is it sleeping in permanently is it. A lot of people crash on couches as we know. And so are we, you know, are we addressing that and I really didn't feel like that was the intent of the bylaws to deal with rooms being rented. So, I don't know if there's a way to do it I didn't do anything to it but I thought about it. So that's something. Okay, well, let's move on it looks like Pam's got a question. Oh, great. I do on that topic. So one of the issues is that Elise might, might have the legal for people on it. But in fact that there are other people who are living there that it year round or or whatever the duration of the lease. And so there may be often six or more people living in that same premises. Being able to define who is an occupant and who is not I think is fairly important. So, that's because we don't want the non occupants actually living there because that that increases the that increases the friction with around that property. Right and also more wear and tear and the talent know when it goes to license it. Yeah. Okay. And then Jennifer. Yeah and related to that when we're counting the unrelated people so if there are let's say for unrelated people and one of them has a girlfriend so they kind of they relate like it's a couple they're a couple so with that count is five or that count is for unrelated but these two are related. So, how do we count the numbers. It looks like the word resident. Hold on I believe it's in here. It says, they're in alphabetical order so the resident will be lower. Thank you. I did go to school like I really did. So, residential. I can't. Here it is. This business about a student rental. So there, that language appears there. One of our persons unrelated by blood marriage or legal adoption. So that seems to me what we're using, or what's intended to be used as a standard for the unrelated people. It's basically saying, you either need to be related by blood, or there needs to be some legal document that says you're a couple, or you're a, you know, a care provider or whatever it might be. Jennifer. Yes. Well, first of all, I don't think we're trying to say that you're only, this is even why it raised my hand but since it just came up, we were not trying to say you're only a couple if you're legally married or civil union I think that's. Yeah, you know I don't think, you know, we're, anyone's trying to define that. But I just wanted to say I was really surprised I was speaking with someone from one of the large property management companies, and they said that in their lease. They actually say that, like guests can't stay more than two nights. If I was hearing correctly so I'm not saying that we want to put that in the bylaw but I just thought it was interesting that legally they could do that in their lease and I guess that's how they get around, you know if they're renting to four people of everybody, you know having two friends, they can come and live there on some, you know, longer short term basis. I just want to share that. So, I, yeah, I, I, I agree that I do think that a landlord has the ability to say what the conditions are for the use of their property and it is often the case that they limit the number of people that can live there and or the number of guests that can stay for a period of time. In fact, sometimes they have to move out for two weeks before they can move back in. I, I guess what you're saying with the word occupant is that a person who is domiciled there. So, it's not just that they came in overnight, and you know they're, they're planning on leaving tomorrow it's that they're there and they're not really planning to leave. So, I can ask Michael who very good researcher to go ahead and grab that definition not right now from the Hearst coffee register of voters case. There is, there is a definition of domicile for voting purposes. I think we're trying to create a definition of domicile for rental purposes. And so, you know, we can look at what some of those factors are that they use to identify whether a person is actually a resident and domiciled appropriately. Does that make sense. It does I want to ask Pam to clarify for her when she was saying, we have, we've heard there's experience where there are say six people living domiciled. I'm just wondering about that permanent living in a in a unit, but only four on the lease Pam are you trying to get this occupant to include all six of them, or just those four. No, I would like it to, well, our zoning bylaw limits the number, not this, not this bylaw. So I don't want to overrun or override our existing bylaw. I just thought it would be helpful, since we're talking about occupants that we could, we can point to who is actually an occupant, because they're on a lease, as opposed to someone who is domiciled there, but is not on the lease because legally they can't be because they will exceed the occupancy limit. So you're essentially looking at differentiate between a person who is a legal occupant, meaning they've signed a lease, or someone else is paying for them, as compared to someone who is domiciled there and unauthorized occupant or whatever it might be. Yeah, I can I can see the difference there. I do, I do echo your concerns about how zoning and this kind of get along. So, it's something to think about we should look in the zoning bylaw how they define an occupant or a number of people. Maybe the answer is there for us and we don't even need to be creative. So, the zoning bylaw on 12 section 12.17 defines family, and there's four ways to create a family. So that might help you. The question I would have is, is that sort of occupants, you know, like is that how we should be doing this then with occupants, potentially, and then Jennifer before you answer that Jennifer. Yeah, and then the same section of the zoning bylaw. I think it's maybe 2.16 that may not be correct but in the same section then it defines a household, I think no more than for unrelated people. So that's where so that section of the bylaw defines family and then it defines occupancy limits for those households that don't meet the family definition. Yeah, so is it, is it a good idea to figure out how to use those definitions here to say as defined in the zoning bylaw whatever. I think that's what it has now I mean now I think it doesn't just say, you know, it refers to the zoning bylaw that the rental property bylaw complies with the zoning bylaw. It refers to the zoning bylaw as it would be a violation of the permitting bylaw to if you violated the zoning bylaw, but I think, Lauren you were going with figure out maybe we don't want to define occupant we want to define occupant as or include the zoning definition of family and household bylaw definition of occupant. Because how are I mean, if, if the answer is that it's just a person his name is on a lease, I mean, I have a child I had to co-sign his lease. I he didn't need to sign it at all, but, but he did because he works for himself, you know. I mean, I guess it's just, there's a lot of concepts here. And if there's a way to kind of boil down some of those concepts to things that the town already understands, then that may be useful. You know, I think one of the themes in my head when I was reading through this is, there's just, there's a lot here. And it, it seems like, let's, let's leave the landlords and the tenants out of it for now. Let's leave it for the town to do. And that, you know, that when, when you're establishing a permitting scheme like that, right, you want to make sure that you can do it, the town can do it. And so it, every bylaw and every regulation is not enforced 100% of the time and that's fine as long as it's not enforced in a, you know, in an illegal way, meaning I don't like you because you're this or that or, you know, trying to, you know, treat someone in an inappropriate manner, like, you know, that whatever. So that, that issue, it doesn't have to be enforced, the inspection requirement doesn't have to be enforced 100% of the time, right. But if it's going to be enforced 100% of the time, you know, the I started thinking about like what records are we going to keep of that. And where are they going to go, you know, maybe we'll scan them all now that we're all super, super techie. But if, if you did a permit by dwelling unit, for example, I know that's one of your questions. How many permits you have to issue. And then each inspection would be a separate form. And then, you know, each license. So dwelling unit one has a problem dwelling unit two doesn't now you are giving a having a hearing on dwelling unit one and, you know, dwelling unit two is right there they don't have the hearing I just I think there's some thought on the on the side of what kind of scheme do we create internally to make sure that this works and then take a look back at the bylaw and what it says to see does that match you know are we are we creating something that we can actually do. And, and some of that has to do with the fact that people people know when you have a lease you are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of your property, even the landlord has limited rights as to whether they can enter and under what conditions, and so it is any time we get near there, get near we're going in, like there has to be a thought about is there a due process issue, are people able to appeal, do they have the right to have a hearing about that before you know their permit is pulled out, etc. So, I think that kind of thing kind of layers on to this, you know are we going to do that for 75 units and one building are we going to say landlord you have 75 units that need to be corrected that's these and that's one hearing. So, again, I think, you know, just, how are we going to do this is a good question to be asking now. Yes, I just want to clarify because that would be very complicated we were trying to do one permit per unit it's more. It would be one rental permit for the building but how would we price it. I mean that's really what we're we might price per unit or person group of units. One permit. To meet me changing the subject a little bit, I wanted to address the fees aspect of this as well. So the Emerson test and I'm sure you already know this but I'm just repeating it because obviously I like to hear myself talk. It basically says that any fee that you impose has to be reasonably related to the cost to the town. So, you know, that's, yes, I think an an an a permit fee for building with 50 units is really different than a building with two. And so I do think that reasonably related, but but bear in mind, we're counting these costs, like, one time so if we're inspecting and, you know, we need to make sure that when if we go back for a inspection that we're not bringing the cost of that initial inspection to the cost of the inspection. So I do. I noticed that the fee section is very specific there's a significant number of fees. And each one will have to be calculated based upon the reasonable cost of the town it doesn't have to be exact it's not required by law to be exact. You can do things like lights and computers and, you know, heat and that kind of stuff in in that calculation, but you do have to have a calculation to be able to demonstrate yeah this is reasonable. It's reasonably related because x. So, I don't know if you have all those fees in place right now. I know that that are mentioned in the fee section but it's a good idea to kind of check and to say, you know, what, what are we, what are we including in this application fee. How, how does it relate to what the town is contributing. Want an answer right now. We do have a fee structure but um, no that that's some good advice I think as we talk more about the draft fees that that you saw which were really just placeholders and numbers at some point and talk about the drafts. Yeah, absolutely. All right, so I'm just looking at the questions quickly. Okay. So the issue of student rental and whether student rental is should be or units dwellings with student rentals treated differently than rather than rentals out with not with no with no students. Again, I think, as you're going through this, you know, there has to be an explainable rational basis for making that decision and I think, you know, obviously protection of students is the rational reason. But you need to be able to articulate. Why are they more vulnerable, are they less able to, you know, just to speak up because they don't know how are these, you know, they don't have lawyers each one of them, a lot of people, especially, you know, that go to a state school might have a significant scholarship and so, you know, they're not, you know, they don't have the ability to pay more based on what you know what someone says oh that's going to cost you more money and so is the is the goal to make sure that they're safer. And I think and that that all the codes are being complied with so that they aren't put it in an additional danger. I'd like to respond to that and I think if you look across college towns with, you know, with universities in larger universities in them. There have been there have been guidelines in place for in some cases 40 years and not, you know, for 40 years kind of late here. You're never late, are you kidding me, you guys are on the cutting edge. Yeah, right now we are. Student student activity tends to differ from families who have to put their kids to bed at seven o'clock at night, or who are just in just in basic activity levels and activity timeframes. And we understand that that there are. Yes, they yes they need protection, they have every protection under state law for tenants rights. We just had a seminar the other day about that. So I think the intent of the intent of part of this bylaw is there are a number of dwelling units in town that are not in good condition that are probably unsafe and unhealthy. And those students you're right do not have necessarily the wherewithal or the financial means to push back sometimes, and there is such a drive to accommodate students off campus that they're really stuck. It's not the students fault. A number of these units are in the middle of neighborhoods with the children riding bicycles on the street or trying to be enjoying their quiet enjoyment their properties and having no information on what is housing occupied by students, as opposed to not students. I think it's something that helps us strategize how we spend town resources, how we work, you know, both with fire department, police department inspection services. It's something that they did that we really, that we really need to know. Right, that's useful to the town, because it's a basis for making decisions about services, and, and the need for services. And I do think, I mean, I think that that in a place like Amherst where everything is up for grabs right like you know the students want what they want and we had the case a few years ago where a student wanted us to change the day of the primary or something like that because they're just getting back from school and, you know, and all of that makes sense, and it's great to have an active student body like that. But I do agree that the, there are several factors that I think emphasize the need for that kind of a distinction. One of them is the temporary nature of residents. Because most students don't rent for four years they rent for one year and or for half a semester because you know someone goes away and another friend moves in. So that's another reason why it's useful. You know, you're only allowed to vote if you're domiciled in the town of Amherst. And so, you know that's another thing that if people aren't using their real address, you know, should they be voting in that location. So I do think that that there is a value of that and also God forbid something should happen you know we want to be able to communicate with UMass and UMass with us. So that's that's why I see the where I see the difference. The difference is things like noise or activity or something those there's already existing town, you know there's existing state laws and there's existing town stuff so I again I think the kind of thinking about what is that on the basis, you know if if we had to go before a judge, are we going to go before a judge and say blank, and what what would a judge think of that. And I should remind you that, I know you know that the AG reviews by laws and towns, and so the AG goes through with a fine tooth comb makes me look lax, like, relaxed, and that is not the thing. It makes out all these little things, and some of the things they strike because they say inconsistent with state law in the Constitution, some things they don't strike, but they say hey this could be a liability later on. So, you know, I think also thinking about what would be subject to challenge, and why, who would be the challenger. And, you know, kind of looking at it from that from that viewpoint like Mandy Joe and you guys were doing the charter. I think I said something like, Hey, you can propose anything you want but you got to make sure you can sell it. So I think you know that's another issue here in terms of, are you going to be able to sell it but are you going to be able to make a case to a judge. And I think there are lots and lots of examples that you can bring to it. But I do think that if, if we're using this instead of some other applicable, you know, by law or law or code, etc. It's much more likely that a court's going to deal with that part. And if there's a state sanitary code violation and the code officer goes to enforce it, you can bet that, you know, that is going to be the issue that a court looks at. If we then say look if that happens to you form our times you might lose, blah, blah, blah. They're still going to go back to is that a safe space, you know, is that building up to code. So, again, I think just kind of thinking through that theme as you go through who might challenge this and why. Okay. Jennifer first and then I wonder if we can move further down on our question list just being mindful of some time. Yes. Yeah, I just wanted to say a lot of what's in here we're not looking at changing. I mean, you know, exactly. You can see we're not looking at changing it so it's been there for years and hasn't been an issue since 2014. Yeah, and that's what happens I think when you look at a bylaw when you're making changes, you know, you look to see does everything work together is adding this going to bring more attention to that and so, you know, I, I, you know, I look at it anyway you know is that because I have to have a resident manager does that make me, you know am I saying, I don't have the money for that or I don't want to pay someone or, you know, Joe lives here and he's always done that and you know we have an agreement. So, those things, you know are just things to keep in mind. Alright, is information provided on the application public. Because if you have to submit something to get a permit, then what you submit is a public record. There may be people who have other reasons why they don't want their name or address to be revealed. And, you know, like a restraining order that authorizes a person to use a code like a different name for their transactions or, you know, you know, federal government witness there's there are some of those didn't this wouldn't change that even though this says it's public it's subject to state and federal law so I don't think you have to worry about that. And certainly case by case consideration of issues is never out of the question you know it really is part of the job of licensing so I think you know a discussion could be had do we need this piece of information do we want it. And so so that's where that's where I am for that and so looking at the questions on the application or what the town is asking for is important because now you're a caretaker of that information. And, and it is subject to disclosure upon request unless it is, you know fits into one of those very narrow exemptions. Well, I told you you're on the cutting edge because I have never in my. 22 plus for 26 years of practice seen anywhere where the fee structure is split with one entity doing it first and then a second. That being said, I don't think it's prohibited. And one of the things that surprised me is that, you know that the, I can see that the council would want to approve those regulations or at least be confer, have a conferral right. You know, is there a public hearing requirement to change the regulations and I don't and I don't think there is, but especially with something like this. A really big change in the regulations could change the entire nature of the enforcement program so I would add I mean I would consider whether we want to require the licensing board to confer with the council in the future. Or whether we want to say that, you know, these regulations can be amended time to time, following two weeks notice and opportunity for hearing something like that. But it can be done this way. Yes. I don't see anything. I don't see why can't be, but I also have never seen before. You know, that's why I said cutting edge. Okay disclosure notification so we deal with this all the time not this type of disclosure but we, we usually say that trying to enforce this would be so difficult that, you know, are we going to we could ask the realtors will you hand this out. When you are, we can ask the landlords will you hand this out. The reality is we have no idea and they're not likely to hold on to that sheet forever and ever and ever. So one thing that you can just do is kind of what they did with the, you know, they were creating farm friendly towns and farm commissions. They basically said, you know, this town is blah, blah, blah, and it shall be posted at, and then they'd say on the website and a prominent location at the clerk's office at the assessor's office where people will likely go if they're buying a home, or renting a home that you know to change your address you can do it online but a lot of people walk in and do it at the clerk's office. You know, I think this is one of those things where the way you want to do this may be harder than doing it a different way and not having to worry about enforcing that as well. And, you know, people are going to come to the website if they're looking to move here and they're going to see that. But again, if we have it posted publicly, you know, I find it hard to believe that people could miss it. Don't agree, Pam. Yeah, well, is it something we could potentially require be put in like property tax notices through the bylaw. I'm just thinking of potential other ways. I would recommend giving it up or be included with the annual census something of that nature. And I would recommend giving it to the realtors and giving it to the landlords as part of their, you know, their permit they should get a few copies of that, of that information so that can be passed along and, you know, not everyone's going to do it but certainly if we make it easy for them, they'd be more likely to more likely to. I think that's something to think about. Also, and I know this sounds ridiculous and we're not putting in the bylaw but print it on a brightly colored piece of paper. Do not send it on just a plain white paper because people don't. They don't they can't. They're like I have 17 pieces of white paper, but putting it on a bright color is definitely at an attention getter. All right. So, this part, the next part the consent issue. As I said earlier it's kind of like every time we add something on to to the requirements. Okay, so it's well down there. Oh gosh yes it is. You just passed it. I love that you've memorized this. I just saw K go by that's why. That's that's about where it is. Yeah. So, the text that we have in here already that's not a different color is the text that's in the existing bylaw, correct. I'm not all of it. Okay. So, I guess my. My take on this is the Constitution and says something like towns can make bylaws that aren't inconsistent with law but can't interfere in the landlord tenant relationship something like that, or laws relative to to landlord tenant. And if you want to look for that it's in the, the home rule amendment actually. It's I think it's section six. It's a kind of it. The way it's enforced especially I mean because we have lots of examples of it from the Attorney General and it's, it also says you can't make laws relative to elections and it's true but you can do it if it doesn't interfere with the state laws relative to elections. So, you know my inclination is to say it. I know that every landlord is going to use the same lease, right. We just don't know. And so, by kind of by requiring that in the, in the lease. You know, essentially we're asking each landlord to alter their lease to contain that information. Even if it did include a consent, it wouldn't change the fact that there would have to be a reasonable notice and authority, you know, under the particular circumstances at issue. And, and so we can, you know, even though boards of health have the right to go on properties to address, you know, life and death health situations. We often go to court and get an authority we get a warrant to go and go inside their house. And so, you know, I think if we're saying, you know it's once a year or once every three years. I think it needs to be an lease, I can see that being acceptable, but I do think that what they're agreeing to the landlord isn't agreeing to us coming in at will, and not nor is the tenant, even in housing that municipalities own, we have to provide significant notice and, you know, and be sure that the individual is essentially cooperating in terms of getting into their apartment. So you have their subject to and as limited by the laws of the Commonwealth. And, you know, that essentially is a, you can have it there and then if someone challenges it, you wind up, you know, discussing how how to implement this and whether it was reasonable or not reasonable. I think it's more perhaps just an acknowledgement that the town has this bylaw, and that the landlord acknowledges it because we're giving notice to the landlord that they have to comply with this bylaw as part of the application packet and the permit. So, the tenants not complying makes the landlord out of compliance. So I don't I guess what I'm trying to say is, I think the tenants have the rights they have under state law, and under the terms of their lease already, as to whether someone can go in their home or not for an inspection. And I saw that your proposed inspection schedule is what seven days notice at least and I forget what the other, yeah, seven calendar days advance notice I mean that's a lot. And it says, make a good faith effort to arrange access. Okay. But if you don't, for example, if you aren't allowed access. Then they then the town can go in there. Now, with the initial permit application being dependent upon the acquisition of a permit, you're putting certain requirements in the permit application that you know that you will manage in that in that way. So, I do think that the landlords can be held accountable for that. I'll stop talking and listen. I think there's gonna be a lot of questions we'll start with Shawnee. One of the concerns we heard from the tenants in the surveys we did was that landlord some of the landlords would just enter without and this is not regarding inspections. What is a state law or that protects tenants from landlords entering and I think the reason for putting all the things in this one place is because many tenants know noted that they didn't know way to find what and so. So, I believe I don't have the tenants bill of rights access to it right now, but I am virtually certain it says that there has to be notice to enter and a lot of times. It'll say like notice to enter for code inspections and to re rent it if you're not going to redo your lease. So, I don't think there is the right to come in randomly, but certainly, especially if you know students are watching this read the lease, you know, because if it does say that you can cross it out you don't have to agree to that turn. So, John, John is our town inspector so he might want to comment on some of what they do John. 24 hours. 24 hours notice. Landlords have to give that and that's what we asked for as well. And so is that the minimum like we could change the seven calendar days to 24 hours if we wanted to. Yep. Can I ask a question to john Mandita. Yes. John, if you have authority to enter for, or if there is authority to enter because there's a health or safety issue. You know, we're essentially saying someone, you know this house is going to fall down we're going in, we go and get a permit for inspections routine inspections I can understand that there would be a shorter time. But I do wonder here where there's, there is a middle person. And so I think the seven calendar days actually is helpful for making potential due process issues. We have to, we have to get a search warrant we can't just go in. Exactly, exactly. So that's I think what the important messages where the town isn't just walking into people's houses to do inspections or anything else we have authority under state law, but continue to go to court to get a search warrant, because I'm not a search warrant a warrant allowing entrance. So that, you know, so that the town is protected in potential lawsuits. So my, my question is, is it possible, you know, it sounds like tenants would always have a right even for a, you know, an inspection that's required to obtain a permit to say no to that inspection. The dwelling unit is occupied. Is it then possible for us to refuse to issue a permit, because an inspection hasn't occurred within that amount of time, or would that be problematic under landlord tenant law. Good question, which is my way of stalling for thinking a minute. I think that puts us in the middle of potential problems, because we're essentially putting ourselves in the middle of the landlord and the tenant, right, we're saying, you know, we're going to go in there, even if you don't say yes. But it's the tenant really, who gets the choice and I feel as though if, if the tenant says no and you know john thinks it's an emergency he's going to go and get a 24 hour notice and go in. So I think there's a remedy already for that. And, you know, especially with code enforcement, like they exist for a reason, and it's to protect people and so, you know, if people won't cooperate with that, then we go and have the force of the law and the court behind us to go and do that. So, I, you know, again, it could be on the disclosure. You know, this is, you may be asked to, to make your, your dwelling unit available for inspections, in order to comply with the blah blah blah section of the residential rental bylaw. And I think, you know, that's notice. It's different. It's not saying we're going to come in at any time. So, and I, again, I do think tenants have some, and I could look at the tenant bill of rights is that they do have to allow reasonable access to the owner of the management company because it belongs to them. So compared to for us, I mean, for rental rental unit purposes. The tenant has now not agree not lived up to the provisions of their lease there's contract issues, and then there may be, you know, code violation issues that need to be addressed. So, where it says subject to and as limited by the laws of the Commonwealth. You know, maybe you give a choice as to where it goes. So you say the lease for a dwelling unit or other whatever shall be accompanied by the from the blah blah from the owner. Is it going to happen every time we don't we don't know. But it would, again, if we're like giving it to them when they come in for their application, and we're putting it on great pink paper or something. It's more likely that that it's easier for them to just pass that along. And then if some management companies want to put in the lease, or some owners do then great. It's not our problem. And if some don't, you know, we've me at least have taken a step to make them aware of the issues. Thanks. Any other questions on this consent section. I think we should go on to violations enforcement and penalties then. All right, what page is that on. You're already in it. Okay. It's on like four pages. It's long. All right, here we go. Violation. Yeah, I think that's fine. One of the issues that I saw is this denial of a permit because of violations. So I mentioned in your questions, well, you know, if a property owner has X number of violations, then that can result in a denial and I agree that it could. I think they have to be provided with notice and the opportunity for a hearing to comply with due process. Perhaps as well, you know, there, there might be some concern over, you know, Landlord one had a lot of problems in the past year. And so they, you know, make a private corporation a closely held corporation to take that property to own that property for a year or two. I do think you could say, you know, if there are X many violations of this bylaw on any property under this, you know, under that's regulated here, that a certain number of them over a certain time period could lead to that so maybe it's, right. And if it's a different owner, I'm just putting it in quotes that, that's a question I mean the licensing commission has the ability and should, you know, take a look at that if that's going to change and it does say if the owners change that that's going to, they have to be notified. So it may be that they say hey you need to come in. And without this, it may be that if they have a violation, they have to come in, and, or they have the opportunity to come in. But I think anything that has a significant effect on a person's property, or their use of their property that is opposing, we want to make sure that, again, it makes it makes sense. There's a there's a rational basis for it, and also that it doesn't have unintended consequences. For example, you know, there could be property that's owned by one entity for three years, the brother, and then the other brother says, you aren't handling this well. And that's not what dad or mom wanted when they left us the building. I'm going to take care of it from now on I'm going to be the owner. You know, I'll buy you out. Is that the same is it different they are both owners. We just don't know and so if the new owner is at a price basically for what happened three years ago. I think they have arguments about whether you know that is an interference with their ability to, to use their property for legal purpose or interference with a contract or even you know, even regulatory taking possibilities could be could be argued. So, I think, you know that I think we have to find some good discrete period of time that accomplishes what you want which is these units to be in good shape. Right. So, if if an owner proves to be unreliable. You know, and, and there are a ton of violations, and they sell it to someone who is really still themselves they sell it to a corporation. That would be investigated right you can look at the corporate the corporate documents on the sacrifice seats website and the licensing commission would have the ability to ask questions. You know, to come back further than that and not and holding someone else accountable for our previous owners failures is is pushing, pushing the limits, if it's extensive you know I think a two year look back I can see that that makes sense. If you look back, you know, people keep people can turn around in in five years and it should be a decision based on the current facts and could include as a, you know, it might, you might have a list like potential reasons for for denial and, you know, have a list in there about that kind of thing, you know, repeated problems at this address over time regardless of the owner and that because of that situation unless they can demonstrate that they're going to handle it differently. The commission isn't comfortable giving them the permit. Thank you, Pam. I'm not sure exactly how to phrase this as a statement or question. If the if the reason for closure or let our denial of a permit. I totally agree we should have a fair hearing a process consideration of that but how do we how do we enforce that the, the, the tenants, the activity or the behavior of the tenants could very heavily be a factor could be the primary factor in one deny a permit. So how does, how does our clamping down on a, on a, on a behavior or series of behaviors affect the tenant landlord relationship. Well, I don't know if there's an answer to that that can be, you know, a yes or no or how does, I think that we create individual as applied issues. If we're holding a landlord accountable under this, I actually had that the thought of, what if the landlord and the tenant don't get along. The tenant calls in complaints and calls it complaints and calls or you know files a complaint files a complaint. And this then would shift the expense to the landlord of that, even though the landlord was being harassed now. I know that's not the intent but it's a possibility. Another thing is, it, it does. It creates a perhaps a disincentive to have people who are younger or, you know, going to be there for a shorter time, a disincentive to rent to them. In some ways, because then as a landlord you're like yeah I can't control these kids or I can control the that group of people. I really don't want that responsibility I'm going to try and focus my renting to to other applicants now they can't discriminate under the Fair Housing Act and I'm not suggesting that this would I'm just saying, I wonder if that's kind of an unintended consequence of that of shifting all that to the landlord. I failed to mention something that I want to make sure that I, I do say, so I also don't think the look back can be based on insignificant violations. I think if it's like there's a torn screen. I mean, I was talking to someone about this today as you can see you had me all all ready for any questions that might come. Like, would we really think that having a broken screen, which is a violation for which you notice, you know, for which a fine can be levied, is that a reason not to reauthorize a permit. I think one of the correct maybe if there's a few more criteria here to bulk up the rational basis that that would be a great idea. Perhaps, for example, that any violation that is confirmed after an appeal or is, you know, as there's always that that there is an opportunity for a notice and a hearing for those things because you can, I guess, I mean, you know, I think I would be probably problematic if someone said, you know, gee, the screen's been broken there for three years, we're not going to give you a new permit, and we've given you a ton of violations and yeah that's that's bad behavior, I didn't pay my violations but I didn't ever have a hearing. Like, so I could demonstrate that maybe it wasn't in violation so I think the look back we want to kind of insulate from from due process issues by saying it has to be something for which there was an opportunity. There was notice and opportunity for hearing. Does that seem, Mandy Jo, is that seem wrong to you. So, I think we have to think about how that would work into this if we're doing something like that and, and how to do that it goes to the question I was going to ask, or part of the question I was going to ask, which is, you know, in some sense what is significant is one of the questions that came up but when we were talking about tenant behavior. You know, if you look at the regulations which CRC has not discussed at all so I don't know where CRC will end up but other states, particularly State College have regulations with this point system that say an assault on the property is taken to, you know, final adjudication and criminal court constitutes this adds points to the system and you get enough of them and the permit is suspended. Given Massachusetts landlord tenant law, are we allowed to hold the landlord responsible for tenant behavior and there's a whole wide range of tenant behavior you know, ignore sometimes the tenants the one that does disable the fire system and things like that but, but thinking about noise complaints on parties or littering on the lawn despite, you know, the landlord having trash pickup or something, you know, versus, and then to, to the to further things of just playing criminal behavior on the tenants part of, you know assault battery, things like that. Well, I can tell you that when I was reading all this little, you know, questions were like popping up in bubbles like in cartoons, and they really were that kind of, of issue. I think we can require landlords to use their property in an appropriate manner that's what we're doing here, right, we're saying you're going to have an appropriate, you know, level of compliance with code etc. And that's easy to justify. There's a case that we actually have I'll try and find it where we went to court to try to take a motel or hotel license away from a particular motel or hotel, where there was a lot of you know criminal behavior, and it was a tough slog. And it really was because the owner, basically the hotel motel argued, like, we followed the rules we followed the laws, you know, look what these people did, you know, we can't be expected to monitor them they have their own responsibilities. I don't remember how that case turned out. But I do think, again, I kind of think of this as like a sliding scale. And I that may be a useful kind of analogy. Sometimes we like pile on that create a burden on the landlord. The more potentially the landlords will not like that. Right. And, and say, hey, you know, why are we carrying the boat on me carrying the ball on this why isn't that, why isn't it good enough that if an assault happens and the police arrest the person like that's, that's the remedy. It's like an assault with a police officer, arresting someone. The other thing is, and I'm not sure about this non criminally, I don't think it matters but if someone is accused of a crime. They typically can only be prosecuted one time by one end. Right. So I wonder whether tenant representatives would argue that, or landlord representatives that the problem about this person who did this bad thing is that person's problem, and the landlord, you know, if they punish the landlord that the landlord, it's essentially being punished for something that is a crime committed by someone else who's being punished for that under under criminal law. It's like, it's like a piggyback piggyback issue. Plus, what are we going to do with, I mean, it doesn't say in here I think, as clearly as maybe we wanted to about that those need to be adjudicated matters. You know, it's not, if someone commits a crime, and it's just an accusation, or what if it's continued without a finding, or, you know, it stays on the record for five years and it's expunged there. I think there are a lot of individual issues that could come up with us. Again, I kind of go back to, are they complying with code. So the code violations are the most concrete thing to approach these issues. And, yeah, under the state sanitary code, if the, you know, the landlord isn't complying that's going to affect everyone if, and yeah, everyone's everyone's kind of paying a price for that but we have the ability to force them to do that. Here, bad act can occur and have nothing to do with the landlord at all. And the landlord certainly wouldn't want, you know, criminal behavior to happen on their property. I think it is it is definitely the case, once it's been adjudicated, and it's a criminal finding a guilty finding, then I think you could say that, you know, that's, that's an issue. Another thing that happened, like, is that does this crime have to happen in Amherst. I mean, there's people that live all over the place, you know, the, the nearby three counties. What if the crime happened somewhere else, but they live in Amherst. Like, how are we going to even know about that. So, I, I think that there's some practical implementation issues and I know as well that, as we were talking about earlier, the goal here really isn't to make trouble for landlords it's to make sure that landlords are keeping their properties in an appropriate condition. And so, you know, perhaps we think about whether, you know, with a warning or this or, you know, the first time it's a, it's a warning the second time it's a fine the third time it's whatever, but maybe we also put in here that you know appropriate services will be the town will connect them with appropriate services or something like that. You know, again, to, to get compliance is really the goal. So, that's, those are those are food for thought. Thank you. I'm mindful of the time so I want to offer CRC members one last opportunity to ask questions right now. I'm guessing that if you have additional questions based on this conversation and thinking that I can collect them and send them to Paul who will then send them to Attorney Goldberg for additional expounding on them and all and certainly this will not be the only time because when we finally get to much closer to a final draft. And then you'll get to see it again. And you'll get to see the regulations again and all. But I think we're draft right. Yeah. It's, it's got a lot of really important concepts in there and I think that, you know, how to, how to make them work is going to be is going to be part of the struggle so you know maybe it is talking to all the inspectors and the court and to what was the police chief and the fire chief health director to say, you know, what do you do, like what's your policy. You know, we can go in and give someone a ticket for, you know, a bylaw violation like a dirty front yard or something, or like they left cars out there or there's tires and big circles or whatever it is. We can issue a violation notice for that and then they clean it up. You know, is that something that counts for this purpose of, you know, prior complaints. So I do think there's those issues need to be sorted. Any final questions for now from committee members. I just want to say to Attorney Goldberg and I know Attorney Dior Tenzio was very quiet, but I want to thank both of you for coming today. I personally thought it was very helpful as we continue on in this process to hear your thoughts. Thank you for taking the time out and for being willing to come in and answer our questions and, and we look forward to hearing more, as I'm sure we will. And I look forward to seeing more so thank you very much. And thank you for having me we, I really appreciate being asked to participate. You know, it's, it's kind of nice for me to be able to say, I'm super conservative about this and so you know, my final comments may not be what you would hope, but it doesn't mean that, you know, I don't think that the work is impressive or that I don't understand the goal. So it's nice to have a chance to say that rather than just send comments saying have you considered data. So, thank you. Thank you. We're going to move on to general public comment. It's the only other thing we're going to do on our agenda we will move the minutes adoption to next week's meeting. And we will also move the associate member vacancies to I think actually based on what Pam sent today to two meetings from now, given the timeline that Pam Rooney gave for those ZBA vacancy responses so we're done with you and thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Good evening Goldberg. Feel free to have a nice evening. Okay, you can. Yep. And at this time, so public comments on matters within jurisdiction of CRC are going to be accepted at this time. Residents are welcome to express their views for one to three minutes, but for three minutes. I have a comment on a matter that is raised during public comment. After public comment I did see your hand Pam will go to anything that needs said after public comment before we adjourn the meeting. So with that, we're not a shepherd, please unmute yourself and make your public comment. Hi, we're not a shepherd from justice drive. It was very informative and very helpful. And I have a couple of comments. You know, I'm against the restriction regarding the person in charge. You put an age and you know requirement there and what if one of my adult children for instance in a 1821 24, who are for children who are responsible and wants to you know being the family business is the person in charge. Now, we've had state representatives younger than 25. Their restrictions is unreasonable. And as you know turning over mentioned the ultimate responsibility is the owners or the landlord. If the owner finds the person in charge is adequate why would the town, you know interfere interject itself in that professional choice. 18 is actually the legal adult age. So starting removing the ability, you know to rent a property for over a number of years should not apply if the property is sold or transferred otherwise you're impacting on sale value. Like if I decide to sell a property to an investor, and, and you are affecting my ability to do so, you know, legal liability I would assume. You know, for attorney Goldberg, you know, holding someone else accountable. This shouldn't even be considered, I think. And she has touched on several issues that I and other landlords have raised before, as landlord concerns such as tennis retaliating against landlords discrimination, confidentiality, etc. And I like her is on top of it. Thank you. Thank you for your comments for nada. There are no other hands raised for public comments so that closes our public comment period as I said we will move minutes to the November 3 meeting because I promised we'd be done this meeting at 630 and no later than that. I will have an amended agenda out for the November 3 meeting tomorrow. So there's one posted right now because there are public hearings on set for that meeting but I will be amending it based on this and so that will that that's my next agenda preview look for it tomorrow. Any other announcements comments questions before I adjourn the meeting. Seeing none I'm adjourning the meeting at 629pm. Thank you all and thank you Robin john and Dave for and Athena for all being here for the two hours. Thank you.