 There we go. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. And we'll say goodbye to Athena and we'll make sure everyone. Who needs to come in is in and everything. And here we go. Okay. Seeing a presence of a quorum. I am calling this community resources. Committee. Council to order at 431 p.m. On July 20th 2023 pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and extended by chapters 22 and 107 of the acts of 2022 and further extended by chapter two of the acts of 2023. This meeting will be conducted via remote means members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via zoom or 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. Also, this meeting is being recorded. Both audio and some of us are on video. And with that, I am going to take roll call to make sure. Committee members can hear and be heard. We're going to start with Shawnee. Present. Pat. Present. Mandy is present. Pam. I'm here. And we are missing Jennifer top right now. If she arrives in, we will catch her and make sure and test that she can hear and be heard. With that, we're going to go right into our meeting. There are no public hearings. We have one action item. Well, it might be three, but I'm hoping we get to votes today, but residential rental bylaws is what we're going to start with right away. We're going to start with the bylaw. We're going to start with the bylaw. We're going to start with the bylaw. We're going to start with the regulations and then we will move to the permitting fee structure. As we go through, I will hope to save the votes for the end of the full discussion between them. Just in case. As we get to say regulations or fee, we have to pop back to bylaw because we're doing something between the two. So it would just be cleaner if we, if we get through it all on a ready to vote that we do it all on a ready to vote that we do it all on a ready to vote. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thanks for joining us. So Jennifer, can you hear us? Oh, I'm not. Yes, I can hear you. Sorry. There we go. No, no problem. I'm just making sure everyone. Okay. With that, I had asked last week that everyone come with their potential or their desired changes to. The bylaw. So we will start, as I said, with the bylaw itself, I am going to put on the screen. The bylaw that is in the packet. And I'm going to give you. We're going to go through section by section. But I will say, as I was going through it, I saw some, what I thought of were. Clerical errors or things that hadn't been corrected. They are marked changes in here. I thought it would speed us up if I just put them in, we will go over them so you can see them. I have some others myself that I'd like to that were not that. But, and if anyone doesn't like the clerical changes I've made, let me know. There aren't too many of them, but we're going to start with penalties and section a. Are there any. Any other questions? Requested changes, revisions, questions to penalties or section a. Yeah. In section a. Item number three, it's one of our purposes that we started out with, and it was to encourage energy efficiency in the portion of housing stock that is rental property. It's still a very great goal. It's a wonderful purpose, but we completely eliminated it. And I think we should not be, I think we should not include it as a, as a purpose. Because we, we. Have left nothing in that requires. Any kind of accounting for. Construction of buildings, furnaces, nothing is left. Does everyone agree with the deletion of that section based on what camera. I don't, I don't like eliminating it, but I, but I have to be honest that we didn't address it. I'm seeing a lot of nods. So we will go ahead and hit that deletion. Any. Sorry. Yeah. Could it be an aspirational goal? Like even though we're not in this moment doing anything, but. I don't know. Any thoughts on that, whether there's a rewriting. Well, I really care about energy efficiency, et cetera, particularly for people who are renting. If it's not in here, this is a bylaw. It's not the aspiration. And I think that we should eliminate it. Unless we're going to put back all that material, which we removed. If we get to a place where we want to amend the bylaw after it's passed, et cetera, because we're actually doing something or, or find something that seems. Okay. I don't know. Thank you, Pat. Jennifer. Jennifer looks frozen. She's added herself again. I had to, I, it just froze. So I had to. Resign. So how do I get myself down? Oh. How do I get out of here? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Wait a second. Okay. Just make your comment because we can hear you now. I muted your other self. Wow. Okay. I'll try and get. I can't get out of there. No, I'm sorry. I just have to apologize. I was going through. On my own, you know, in preparation for the meeting. I was really going through the draft with the attorney comments. Yeah, but I agree. In terms of the, I don't think we can be aspirational for better or worse in a bylaw. Is that correct? So, you know, bylaws are what we're going to do and enforce and law, right? The aspirations tend to be more in proclamations and resolutions and all. And bylaw purposes tend to state what the bylaws going to do. And Shalini, how are you feeling? Yeah. Okay. I'm okay for deleting it. I find there's anything that slightly alludes to this purpose in a bylaw. Then we can stick it back in, but for now we can delete it. Okay. Anything else for purpose or penalties? See none. We're going to move on to definitions. Yeah. Good for definitions. Well, you're not good for definition. We're moving on to definitions. I think there you had two questions on definitions. I know from last week, but there might be more. Is that a residual hand, Jennifer? Yes. Okay. Just wanted to make sure. We'll start with the two that Pam brought up last week lodging facilities. Things were brought up in and put in packets about lodging facilities. Pam, having read everything. What are your thoughts on lodging facilities? I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think we're moving on to our current. Bylaw. Zoning definition article 12. So you were apparently there was apparently an overriding override of the, of the Worcester finding. And so they were not deemed lodging houses. So we should not use that. I do appreciate. I agree with you, Pam, but I appreciated you bringing. You know, you know, You know, you know, And seeing the SJC, both, both opinions were very interesting to read. I will say that in how the courts and analyzed what is a lodging house versus what is a dwelling unit and tenants rights and all. It was, it was quite fascinating to me actually. So I appreciate you bringing that up for various thinking. And owner occupants. And I do appreciate it. I think we have a refined definition of an owner occupants. And at the moment, I don't actually have any wording. Unless you might Mandy Joe to, to insert. The, the essence of, of a trust named. For the. You know, current owners. The current occupants. I'll get my definition in article 12 was only by law, but I was looking at our definition of owner is the legal owner. Which can be the trust and all and I think your concern was if the trust is listed as the legal owner is a trustee and owner occupant, I think would be the best way to word that. Right. Your thinking was right. And certainly owner includes the trust here. Person is an individual or a trust and owner occupant in our bylaw. The only person in the bylaw is one or more natural persons who in their individual capacity as distinct from any representative capacity owns a whole or undivided interest in fee simple of certain real property, and at least one of whom occupies a dwelling unit there on as his principal So, given the zoning bylaw article 12 definition since it's a natural person trusts would not count as owner occupants probably right. If the owner occupant must be a natural person but the owner can be a trust they would not match in a sense. We could potentially add on to the owner occupant here I would hesitate to write our own new definition I would like to if we wanted to do something include the definition in article 12 and then maybe add on an or something specific to do something specific. The only concern I have and then we'll go to Jennifer is, can we get. Can we find something that covers the situations you're talking about Pam, but not the big corporate entities or, or what I worry about is trusts that then. Say, say the tenants are owners of the trust somehow. Right, right. Yeah, that would be my only worry Jennifer. Yeah, this I don't know if this is what you're getting at Nandy but so you know what we're, I don't know if we can specify you know like we want to allow. If there's a older person who, well, this has to be older but someone who's put there. This came to us from people that were older and it put it in like a Medicaid trust. Think is how they put it and they wanted, but they are the owner and they rent out units in their, in their property. So, there have been situations where a parent will buy a house. And their child will live in it and be considered an owner occupant, and that has sometimes those are sometimes nuisance properties. If they create a trust and their child who could be, you know, is one of on the trust, then then they would be an owner occupant I mean is there a way to distinguish, or sometimes they'll just say they're an owner occupant. And they haven't actually put them on the deed. And then they're, technically, they're not. But how do we, and I know that john Thompson and Rob have said this is problematic that this has been a way that people have sort of gotten around some of the owner occupancy issues. Yeah, no, I was going to ask Jennifer's for some quick factual backup, but she just provided it by talking about john and Rob. The house on the corner here was purchased by parents of a graduate woman young woman graduate student in the five year engineering program, she went through that there were other roommates in the program. They moved went to Princeton, and they kept running it to young women in the program. And it, it's never been a problem. So this is it's, I just want us to make sure that we're not creating definitions to, because we don't like something that somebody does. We don't like that parents buy a house for their kid, because after Kanani left and went on to Princeton University she no longer live there. So, but the house was still rented to students. So I, which happens all the time then it's just an owner, then it's a no but it isn't necessarily a problem. And I don't, I don't know if it necessarily is and I get I'm just kind of feeling like, come on. Well, sometimes it's they have more people living in the house and they try and get around it. They claim it's on your occupied, you know, there are all kinds of things that people do in their individual houses that are appropriate and inappropriate. But in terms of our bylaws but I, there's just this very narrow fear, fear, fear, fear. Yeah, this is something that has been a concern of the building department for a long time. But Pat and Jennifer let's, let's, let's, let's keep it to this definition and maybe something I'm going to say will help. So I just did a search for the use of owner occupant in our bylaw. It's literally used only in this definition, which means in some sense we can get rid of definition. If it shows up nowhere else in the bylaw, I have not searched the regulations yet but if it's nowhere else in the bylaw, we're not distinguishing in the bylaw a difference between owner occupant and non owner occupant except if we search for owner will get more. There are parts of the bylaw where the owner's dwelling unit is not inspected. Right and things like that but we don't use the term owner occupant. So the only place, you know, in the fee schedule, we're not using the term owner occupant but we're talking about owner occupied dwellings and all. If we don't define it in the bylaw, it might allow, if we delete this because it's technically not used at all, we have owner defined and so when we use owner later on, you go back to the word owner and all. If this is not, if this definition isn't used, we could delete it here and potentially allow during the fee schedule and all the building commissioner to make the determination as to what and who is an owner occupant instead of wrestling with the decision here, since it would appear from my search of using owner occupant that this particular definition does not need to be in this bylaw. I can do a search over here for owner, and then I can do a regulation search to see if we use it in the regs, if people would like to see where owner is used but so my thoughts to potentially give in seeing this just delete the whole thing. Pam. Yeah, I appreciate that explanation. You're just to confirm I heard what you said, you're saying that we don't actually use the owners owner hyphen occupant in the anywhere in this bylaw. So, in this navigation pane that you should be able to see you can see the, the word owner occupant shows up exactly four times. 1234, you can actually see all four times right on this page. Just in this definition. Yeah, just in that definition appears nowhere else in the bylaw and so in that case, well that's three. The fourth is the comment. Oh, okay. Sorry, it's very small. Yeah, the comments very small. The fourth is the comment so. Yeah, so we might be able to get around this by just deleting it since it has not, we did not separate owner occupancy from non owner occupancy generally in the bylaw at all. If we go to owner that one will have a lot more. Right. It talks about person in charge. It shows up who the permit is issued to. We can look at it further on but if we're not using owner occupant. We might not need the term. We use owner owner occupied three times it looks like in occasional rentals and so owner occupied. Even though we haven't defined it we've capitalized it. There is owner occupant here. Yeah, but isn't it in the fee schedule. We do talk about it is we talk about owner occupied in the fee schedule I have no idea why this one didn't pop up. I was gonna say we definitely have it in the fee schedule. Yeah, in the, in the draft bylaw. So these are the three sections where we talk about owner occupied it's all in inspections. And whether an inspection is required. Those are important issues and I think therefore we should have owner occupant in it, or owner occupied defined. Yeah, and the reason I froze is I was looking to see if John if Robert John were here so they could address what I said before is there better to address it. No, I use them and that's the reference you don't have to prove the reference from them. Yeah. Thanks Jen. So if this is the only time along with potentially the fee schedule which we can deal with the fee schedule separately that this comes up. So it's essential to add what owner occupied means but again we have to be careful because you know I appreciate Pat's concerns of how do you delineate one trust from another. Right, and all and so it might. And then you're treating different trusts differently based on what and that could be viewed as discrimination so I would be hesitant to do something like that but I'd like to hear others Jennifer. No, I agree that's why I wanted to ask the building department because I don't you know I know we can't say well, trust are okay unless it's this trust but the other one to ask and maybe it's more in the fee schedule but if, if an owner goes on sabbatical for a year then that year is do we would define it as not owner occupied. That year would fall under this they would need at this point it was something you wanted to talk about up above when we, when we get through definitions. It would under here they would have to have a permit but they would not need an inspection. Right, but okay. Right. Okay, but we can get to the fee schedule whether they're still paying the fee as an owner occupant. Right, I think they would be considered an owner occupant because of this occasional rental exception, but I don't know that would be a rob thing and roms not here. But they might not because of how owner occupant is defined residing in at the time of rental. So they wouldn't be residing in at the time of rental. They just wouldn't need an inspection maybe it could be interpreted either way. So what are we going to do with owner occupant in the definition. I'm going to lean toward keeping article 12, keeping the definition and article 12 as it is. And acknowledging that we're aware of situations where, you know, people have, have moved to put the property in the name of a trust. I was thinking of some fancy way of saying, well, maybe, you know, if they still live there, and the name of the trust reflected themselves, but again that just it's, it's so easy to create a different kind of trust that would be probably not what we're intending here. So I would say we, we leave that interpretation of article 12 up to the up to the building commissioner. Tony. I wouldn't, if the trustee was living in the house and wouldn't that be considered what would be the confusion if the trustee is living in the, in the house why would that not be considered on our occupied. So it would be up to the building commissioner because the definition and article 12 says one or more natural persons who in their individual capacity as distinct from any representative capacity own a whole or undivided interest in an individual, blah, blah, blah. So as a trust your representative, if you're a trustee, not just the trust owns it right as the trust owns it and so it's not a natural person owning it in their own capacity in their individual capacity not a representative capacity. But we want to give a break to people who are for whatever reasons in their family arrangements they have that and its owner occupied is just it's a technical term. But we also run into the situation where if we do that. Well Jennifer pointed out one where non trusts are considered on our occupants if there are parents buying it and an 18 or 19 year old lives in it without the parents that could be considered on our occupied. I also brought up the situation where a conglomerate trust might own it but see this depending on the fee break right and make the tenants no matter who the tenants are. Maybe when I was a tenant, they, they'd say I'm a trustee of the trust for that year. I'm an owner occupant to and so there's there's multiple ways that can be. Is that a thing though like is that is it that easy to just put replace trust easier after year, or are we just speculating. So I'm speculating but trustee replacements, generally not that hard depends on how the trust is written. I mean this actually came up because we want to make it possible for older people that have set up those trusts, we want them to be owner occupants. But it seems that there are there just too too many loophole that could be taken advantage of if someone were less than scrupulous. But do we know that we don't know that if that's even a thing we're speculating that that could be a thing but we don't know of any such case what we do know is that there are older people and families that have trust and we want them to live in their, you know, in those homes. And we would be then and if they rented out like if they want additional people or something then we are making it harder for them. No, the whole reason Pam brought we brought it up last time is to make it easier for the people that have medical trust. But I know that you know we were just saying when does that impact if somebody, which would it is a thing, you know, I mean I would want the air on the side of the older people being able to have their trust, but it is actually a thing where if there's any way people can be find can become financially advantaged by doing something they will. And then that does happen it doesn't pat it happens in it does happen. Not everybody's, you know, Pam, you don't know what I'm wincing about. Don't make assumptions. I know, I know you're right you're right. I, I'm, I'm going to, I'm going to, I'm going to say that I think the interpretation of owner occupant I think we all have a common understanding and put owner occupant means. And even if to the nth degree of the law, it may not be a fact that, you know, Mr and Mrs X who have put their house in a trust are not, you know, technically by law, the owner occupants anymore. I think, I think interpretation of this by our, by our town staff or by anyone reviewing, you know, this would understand exactly what we mean by owner occupant and I, and I think rather than craft some torturous root around this thing. I'm, I'm feeling that maybe we just leave it alone, and we don't touch article 12. Well we couldn't touch article 12 without earrings and everything we'd have to just craft a new definition or add on to this definition and not have it agree but I agree with Pam I would leave it as is and see how this works. The laws can always be amended, we can always, you know, depending on what Rob thinks and all after it's in place or even potentially before you know like it, you can, you can relook at it, if it's not working as we wanted it to that would be my thoughts. Jennifer. I think we all want to do what we can to encourage owner occupancy, and that's been something the town has had that sort of value for a long time so I would feel comfortable that building a safety would always want to accommodate that. Okay, so I will point out that I added a period at the end of this definition that was missing splits in red. I said I'd point out the changes I made as as we went along. Any other discussion of any definitions section be before we move on to section C. Pam. In terms of forms, we had originally a, a student home definition, and somewhere in this long process, it has been removed from the definitions, I don't believe we refer to it anywhere else in the text, or in the regulations, but I, but I would love to double check that if you checked regs and bylaw on student home. I would appreciate them. So student does not show up in the bylaw I know it shows up in the regulations in the application section, I won't flip to that now in the application we ask. I'm not going to share my screen for that in the regs. The application, there is a item. I want a one G, the number of dwelling units on the property that are occupied by one or more persons where during the leasing period at least one occupant will attend an educational institution as defined by the residential rental property bylaw, including properties where the owner or owner's family members are occupants of the dwelling unit. So that's the only place that I saw in the regs that that come up. In previous discussions, I think, given we got rid of point systems and we got rid of different types of permits and everything. It was thought that we can start this way by trying to ask that question so that we can start tracking. Yep. How many. Thank you. I think there were no other delineations beyond that. Yep. Thank you. We're ready to move on to section C. Section C. Any changes to see and then we'll move on to D. C seems basic. So, see none. Section D residential rental permit required. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. D one. Except the son of a in the second on the. The next page in my, in my. Version here. I'll read it. Let's see. Except is provided in section that below it shall be unlawful to operate a rent to individuals. Or households property or dwelling units being operated. Or boarding house being operated as a principal zoning use. Okay. I actually didn't see the word lodging or boarding house. And I was trying to figure out if it, if it applied to accessory dwelling units because those are accessory units. So I, I missed the word lodging or boarding house. Sorry. Yeah. So, so you bring up a good point. I missed that in my read. Okay. So in sections below we exempt lodging facilities. From this. Right. So why are we talking? Why are we calling rooming units and lodging and boring houses in here at all. If we exempt lodging facilities. And AD use. So the, any rooming unit in a lodging was the principal zoning use for a lodging house. Okay, so that's legit. But then we exempt lodging facilities below I would be hesitant without Rob here to actually get rid of that sentence completely but AD use. Owner residential rental property to operate. Or rent residential rental property or dwelling unit. So I think the user covered as a principal zoning use and an ADU is not a principal zoning use. But let's go back up to residential rental property. Any building or portion there of which is offered to rent or lease as a living facility, regardless of whether anyone is currently dwelling, residing in at a rooming unit as a group of rooms to let property is all lands and property of any nature. So if you have, if you have an ADU which is detached. It's not part of, it's not part of the portion there of any building or portion there of it would be separate. So I guess the question is, is this principal zoning use modifying just the lodging or boarding house or is it modifying at all. Probably it's probably probably modifying any rooming unit. So I think if it's, if it's modifying a rooming unit and a lodging or boarding house, then AD use would not be exempted from this, because they're not lodging or boarding houses I don't believe. They would be a dwelling unit and that qualifies. Yeah. So I think we're good. It was a good, good catch to ask. We could mark it as a question and even if we vote we could leave it as a check with Rob, if you want. So clarifying question. I remember is discussing that we would give the rental, we would allow people to rent, if, even if they don't have the registration yet, but they are like in process. So where is that reflected. F application will get down there. Okay. Are we going to leave this the same are we going to make a note to ask Rob. So we make a note. And it would be it's really it's really if principal zoning uses the is the intent or if it's principal zoning use of, of a lodging or boarding house. No, may anything else in section D. If not, we'll move on to exemptions. The note up Pam. If you want to talk about the note. Go ahead and do that first. Oh, I was just going to say the note from last week Pam said we well no I think this was Jennifer wanted to check on sabbatical permit requirements and so I looked through the bylaw. And yes, from my reading they would be required to have a permit because they are renting under section D. We have exempted the them from an inspection requirement they're fully exempted from the inspection for the first year, if the sabbatical or something extends for a second year they would then need to comply with the inspection. Thank you. Pam. So item three is dormitories owned and operated by educational institution. And that now includes the public private partnership, the P three field stone buildings that are not operated by the university they are owned. I think they I think they cleverly made them owned by the university but they are definitely not operated by the university. And I would like very much to have those come under the purview of this bylaw, and I'll be very honest as a step one to making. I'd like to see them tax and taxable. And, and we, we, if we if we don't include them in our in our purview now it will be harder to come back later and and ask them to be added to the tax base. So, as you stated they are not operated by the educational institution and so they are not exempt from this bylaw. They would have to comply with it. Right. That's that's we I know we've talked about this a lot with Rob. He wanted them included in this bylaw and at least as long as the situation remains how they are now they would have to comply with the bylaw. So we have application. We'll start with section one, the section of application you can see on the page because it's the easiest thing to start with, and then we'll page down and I can address Shalini's question from there. Any requests for changes. I will page down. Oh wait the application is not where it is it's in G sorry Shalini it's an issuance or denial. It's C and D for the application. Seeing nothing will move on to issuance or denial I'm going to page up. You can see Shalini that conditional permit. Oh, in section G one I added an S to permit here because the wording the principal code official may issue separate permit for each dwelling unit. I said, it should say permits. And then you'll see down here and for this was this is what Shalini was asking and also something we changed last week. In response to the town attorney's concerns about. Actually it might not have been the attorney's concerns. I can't remember I think there was something in the regulations or something about ensuring that the inspection happens before. When the permit is issued. We added that if inspection is scheduled, but has not taken place yet. Then the town can issue a conditional permit until the inspection takes place, thinking someone might not think well in advance that they need to apply for this and so they might apply for it two days before and not have time to schedule that inspection so if it's scheduled the permit can issue they would remain not they would remain in compliance as long as all the other parts of the application are complete other than the inspection. So that they would not be fined and all until and then they'd be operating under this conditional permit there. So a couple of additions of inspector reinspect because it used to just be the reinspection if the inspection failed. And so I, in reading it over again, I felt like it needed the words inspect in there, because it wasn't a reinspection always that the conditional permit was operating under. So that's why those show up there to recognize that it's not just reinspections now that might cause a conditional permit to issue. Any other in section G. Shalini. So do you think it's clear enough for people when they read the section above, where is that the D where it says that you can't rent until the applicable residential rental permit has been issued. So that's what it says in D. And then it's later on in G that they find out that, well, if you've applied and done all these things then, because they haven't been issued the things it's kind of a little. They will have to have been issued the conditional permit. And but in above it says until the applicable, applicable residential rental permit has been issued. So should we say until applicable residential rental slash conditional permit. Or does conditional fall under that. Or does it fall under because it when I read it I'm like, Oh, but what if I file but it's not approved. So it leaves it a little ambiguous for someone applying. So residential rental permit is defined as a permit issued to an owner pursuant to the provisions of this bylaw. So I would argue that a conditional permit would count as a residential rental permit. Because it would be, it would be a permit issued. So then maybe for people who are not that legal like me maybe within brackets, but we could say including conditional. So they don't freak out. You're thinking up here. Yeah, in the D section where it says until yeah over there within brackets including conditional. I would not have made that connection. Until I read and hopefully read all true and reached F but I might have just like, Oh no, I can't get it. You know, I may have just stopped over there. Thank you. Is that okay with everyone. I think it should say include including a because conditional permit. Yep. I just did that change. Yeah. Thanks. Thank you. So I have a question for you. I have a question for you. G. Any, oh, I have a shot. Is that all. Okay. I have two. Potentials bear with me as I toggle between things in section G to. Number F. This residential rental property has passed an inspection within the applicable timeframe in accordance with section I and the applicable regulations. Which is all requirements for a residential rental permit in section I of this bylaw have been met section I includes the inspection. And section I includes inspection required residential rental property shall have passed an inspection by the town of it's that and so I was just, it struck me it seemed duplicative. I'm not going to like live or die on whether we keep it, but in thinking about duplication. I thought F was covered under B and that F could probably be deleted. I think it can be deleted. The more we can slim this down but keep its intent and purpose. I think the better. Jennifer and Pam and Shalini, would that be okay. Do you see any problems with that. Do you see any problems with the town attorney looking at it anymore. We can always ask for the town attorney to know if it's worth it, but I mean, if he it seems okay, we can always ask for the town attorney to throw one more look at it. I assume this will go to GOL, even though we recommend passage since it doesn't automatically go there right now. Part of what's going through my head is that under G issuance or denial. There's sort of a summary of, I mean, I think we have some redundancy in some of the coverage anyway. But we talk about essentially the code official may issue a permit. And so it just reminds them of fees of all the requirements in a list, the applicant meets all the applicable code or bylaws, and it includes an inspection so I'm not sure that it's it's a little redundant, but then you you move on to, you know, age, which is all the fees that need to be paid. So you you address fees in that list as well. Inspection has been has been passed. It seems like I one I one a is just more of a definition of of the inspection required. So I'm not sure that it doesn't jump out at me as being inappropriate. So what if we in Section B said all requirements including passing an inspection within the applicable time frame, comma, for, well, all requirements for residential or permanent section I have this by lock, comma, and then including passing an inspection within the applicable time frame have been met in Section B. So just move some of it up to to bring forth the another inspection is required, but not repeat. Sort of the section, the reference to section I twice I think it just struck me as we reference section I twice. I have to admit that I did not follow I could not figure out what section B you were talking about so I was get losing track of right here where I'm typing now. I mean the one that I can hardly read. Yeah, I'll do it. So I think this be. So I think F is redundant in light of be that you can't delete be because B includes all of section I, but F is one part of section I and so I read it is redundant to section B but I can hear how reinforcing that an inspection is required up in this issuance or denial could be that you might not want to lose some of that language. So I guess my proposal is to include what's in red, and how now highlighted in section be to be able to delete this. So if, if we wanted to be really slim, we would have the item number two the principal code official may issue a residential rental permit to the applicant within 30 days upon proof that all of the requirements for a residential rental permit in section one of this bylaw including passing an inspection with in the applicable timeframe have been met period and we can get rid of a C. This is an I, this is I which applies only to additional requirements application is section like see right now, I think, or D. All of these are in different sections, not in section I. But we could we could just say all of the requirements of this bylaw period, but I like the idea of setting forth some of the different ones so that people know where to look and what what there are, but I'm just trying to reduce some redundancy. Does this work. Yeah, fine. My other question in section G was sections that G six. The transfer of permit. Oh, um, the reference here it references. Oh, I think we need to reference a payment of a fee in the transfer permit section. And I was wondering if we should have may instead of shall. And you'll see I, I'll explain these reds to but right now it requires the transfer that it requires the permit to be transferred. But up above an issuance of denial Rob actually wanted to say may and we do say may issue and so I was thinking. I probably want this to be may transfer be transferable upon change of owners not shall. I think that's an important change. I agree. And then, you know, we referenced in here, provided that the permitted use has not changed and inspection is completed pursuant to section I below. And the operation of the continued rental use shall be subject to the provisions which sounded weird to me so I said the operation of the continued rental use complies with the provisions of the permit and management plan. And I would add before that, because we actually have a fee for transfer, we have a potential fee for transferring the permit. So I would reference it in here and I think it's wise to reference that fee and make sure that's been paid before the permit is transferred. Does that work for people. Yep. There's a red one here we had somehow lost the word the, and we had also lost the in 15 feet so it had read notify the tank town of change of ownership with 15 calendar days. And so I added the within 15 calendar days. Yeah, any other changes to what is this this is issuance or denial any other requested changes before we move on to section H fees section H fees, any requested changes. I'm not hearing any will move on to I requirements to obtain a permit. So we'll go with what's on the screen each time if there's no changes I'll move on. I will scroll down. If someone find something as we move on we can always go back. I had a question in section see we're not quite there yet. But actually we kind of are. So section C says they may seek a search warrant from a court of competent jurisdiction down below in section of five. Down here. No, I think I've got the wrong section. We reference an administrative warrant, not a search warrant. It's in section L under consent. It's probably under section L. I had it listed as I would yeah this this court relief. Apply for an administrative warrant from the appropriate official, which is also interesting because we use here search warrant from a court of competent jurisdiction. I don't know whether we need to go to Rob for the correct language in both. Sorry, Mandy I'm sorry you asking should we call it an administrative warrant or should we call it a search warrant. That's what I'm asking. I think the words, the phrase should agree and I just don't know which one it is. I should probably ask I mean administrative sounds much less ominous than a search warrant. Yeah, I feel like administrative is the right word. Yeah. Right because we're not searching their personal possessions. Right. Hopefully, like the administration, the administrative is the right word. Those were all the changes I had in section I anyone else have any changes Oh, the here under was changed I changed to here in and I added a comma here under. It's more of a legal thing that here under would be everything below and here in is everything within the bylaw, not just below. And so we want all property regulated within the bylaw not below section I three, the technical thing. So the same thing under number four with regulations adopted here under and in number five also here under so they all need to get changed. So, yeah so the regular regulations are not adopted adopted within the bylaw they're adopted under the bylaw or person adopted pursuant to this bylaw we can change that one to pursuant to the bylaw. The question is, if, if we're considering here in instead of here under under in number three why would the same situation not apply to number four and number five. So, number three references the by the here under is referencing the bylaw itself numbers four and five are referencing the regulations adopted pursuant to the bylaw so I'm changing it if you look up at the screen. And then under to pursuant to this bylaw which is how we actually generally reference the regulations adoption. I think up here. Regulations adopted under this bylaw before permits so regulations adopted under this bylaw to keep the language consistent that work for people. So let's pause for section I, we're going to move to section J. There's our consistency regulations under this bylaw section K. What's on the screen at least so sections one a and B moved down to the rest of K includes the tenant information sheet leases available and coercive conduct. See no changes. See if I can get I can get there's all of L any requested changes. I have a few. Actually, I have to section L three, the tenant authorization. And I read it and then I read section L. So else to says you have to the owner has to give notice, good faith effort to arrange access. You know, for the purpose with notice to tenants right because you have to arrange access through the tenants, and then three says, you have to obtain consent from the tenants. And I wondered if they conflicted. I know we talked about if I make this smaller Jonathan, our KP law attorney said we might not need to include three four or five at all. But in reading two and three. I guess it's not necessarily a conflict, but sort of two says you just have to arrange a good faith effort to arrange access which would include notice right. And three requires authorization to me they're slightly different and I didn't know what people thought of the two we had left these highlighted because we weren't sure whether we wanted to leave three four and five in to begin with after last week. So, Jennifer, it's a question so one is saying the owner will notify the tenant and arrange a mutually convenient time for the inspection. The other is saying that is just that the tenant has to explicitly give permission. Yeah. And it's I guess it's implied if the tenant agrees to a time they can come. Right, and I think Jonathan said if you read the legal comment to the side that all of that state law regulated. Let me get you a whole legal comment here. That they would cite to state codes and all, which all have provisions for inspections, said we could keep the language. He was always referring to with emergency which I wasn't sure how to section three but it's just a question I don't. I don't know what people think I'm okay leaving it in I just had a big question. I just got a little bit of a, it's the person in charge they own their consent has to come from the tenants. If you're a landlord that is bullying your tenants. You won't get their consent. It seems to me that we, I don't know, I don't think that happens very often but if someone feels of a renter because their rent is affordable or whatever else, not in an affordable dwelling unit, not an official. Can they be kept from giving consent because they're afraid that they'll be retaliated against. And I just don't know. Yeah, I'm happy to leave it in. I think it's something that's in the current bylaw. It just struck me as strange right next to the other one. But, and then my other question. I think dealt with the court relief. Is it redundant in light of I one C is what I was, is this court relief. A known violation impeding the health and the tenant objects to the inspection, you can apply for, so I guess it's not redundant never mind, I withdraw that concern. Because the other one was talking about the renewal and you know the initial inspections not a complaint inspection and this one is right now, never mind. So I withdraw that one, the current bylaw, I'm looking for the section. Maybe it's not in the current bylaw, since there aren't really inspections in the bylaw. We can move on to the next section. Okay, so the only the current bylaw has access to properties and it really only includes section two of what we were referencing, which is notice to tenants. Yeah, yeah, yeah, it includes this language only the current bylaw. And we added this. So we must have added this from from other bylaws we've seen. It seems to me that that items one and two, pretty much cover the base and I think that's, especially that's in our current bylaw it, it seems to terribly complex, complicated to add the additional. If we're over overreaching or over emphasizing what's already expected by notice to tenants. Unless our building department requested it, which I don't, doesn't sound like they did. I don't think they did. And then the notice of additional inspections were mean attempt to give the owner reasonable notification, and then the court relief, I think it's okay to leave those in. And this is our violence is our last section, even if it's three pages long. We had, oh no that's that's inclusion in a report that's my note for inclusion and report I had one thing. And I'll page down to it. Section for is it for m4f. I'll go through why those all change to appeal. And you can tell me to not do that if you want so m4f down here. I got to find it. This last sentence is part of a consent agreement the board of licensed commissioners is authorized to require that additional penalties, financial or point based be included in the agreement for failure to comply with the terms of the agreement. We can delete the phrase financial or point based because we don't really have a point system anymore. And I just don't think we can just say additional penalties be included in the agreement, so that it reads like that. So, I changed anytime it referenced an administrative inquiry to administrative appeal under this section of appeals because it's called appeals not inquiries. It made sense to me if people still like the word inquiry, we can figure it out but it seemed to be more consistent if we referenced appeal instead of inquiry. Any other changes to section M. Sony clarification when we see criminal penalties on top and then we never ever talk about that anywhere. What does that mean. So that is. That's this monetary penalty. They can be either criminal or civil. So we do reference it imposed as listed above so they can be imposed on a criminal level or on a civil level. What is the difference between criminal enforcement and non criminal. Criminal enforcement is a criminal citation that can only be written by a police officer non non criminal can be written by whoever we've designated. Beyond that, I, I don't know how municipal criminal citations work in terms of the court system and all. So I can't answer it beyond that. I don't know what the difference between a criminal versus like what makes it a criminal versus non criminal penalty. A choice of the info of essentially I think if, if Rob wanted to enforce it criminally he would need to be bring police officers into to write the ticket. That would lead to him wanting to involve the police like what entails a criminal. I can't answer that Rob would have to answer that. So, do you think we should be clarifying what that is. We don't in any other bylaw. And we give the option of one or the other, Jennifer would be something like if you found something illegal in the. So, so I would guess, you know, I don't know whether Rob's ever written criminal site well whether Rob's had anyone write a criminal citation versus a civil under our current one right, but you could imagine that if the police are called and find there I'll we had the I don't know was it Phillips Street where the balcony fell and collapsed during a party right. I don't know whether they were violating the rental registration bylaw but if they were. You can imagine in a case like that that they would decide to write it as a criminal citation and not a civil citation, but I don't know. It's worthy of defining what that is like, it just says they could be a criminal but then I don't know when would it be considered a criminal. We've never defined and differentiated in terms of description as to in the bylaw telling the enforcement person when they should choose criminal versus civil we've always left it up to their. Okay, as long as I mean I guess as long as all the violations are listed, and then it's up to the staff to decide amongst themselves. That's fine. Okay. Anything else in this one. Seeing none, we are going to move on to the regulations section a application requirements. I can't get it all on here. I added a comma an Oxford comma. You're not leaving anything for GOL to do. I'm trying not to Pat make your life easy. So I'm sorry you, you've now, you've now transitioned to regulation. Yes. Any, any requested changes in section a of the regulations. Oh, I had one a h two and three we discussed these last week in terms in light of the attorney's opinion about whether we should whether this would be enforceable or not, but I had a question in reading it again. There's a shell in there. I know we don't normally use the word should, but would this one be better in light of the opinion of leaving it in there but saying should my guess is john would say I want to keep it a shell. Option. I'm in this one about responding to within an hour or three hours and same with the email address the 48 hours there, where we say shall. The response shall be responded to within 48 hours in here respond. I think that's a good compromise. I don't know if it's a compromise, but I mean it. expectation in there. Yeah, right, but you're not. Yeah. And then there's no, we have absolutely no authority to, you know, deny a permit because somebody called back within an hour and a half. I mean that's obviously just not going to be enforced. Right. I think so should makes more sense. I think given that our attorney indicated that he would probably delete these. And we want to leave it in because the expectation needs to be there should seems to, as you say Jennifer might be a logical compromise there. Yeah. And if john doesn't like it or Rob doesn't like it after the council passes the should the bylaw, the board of licensed commissioners can change it back to shall. I always think of shall may but it's nice to know should is another option. Yes should is sort of an expectation. Yeah. Yeah, it's not really a, I mean maybe responded to isn't quite the right word right now know it's a new option, but should is not a requirement either but it's a. Yeah. I think it's stronger than it's a different I don't know I seem differently but that was my thought. Anything else with applications. If not we'll move on to frequency. Oh sorry inspection requirements section be again I can't get it all on the page. We did a lot of work with this last week, because of all of Jennifer if you're looking at it because of all of the attorneys comments on this. I had one in section one C. Oh, um, This one one C to residential rental properly designated a problem property or nuisance property under the general bylaw. This is our nuisance bylaw that we haven't changed so there's no designations under either of these I don't think right now. So my suggested wording change I'll put it on the screen. So that people can see it. I'm not suggesting deleting it. That's good. I suggest changing it to residential rental property found in violation of general bylaw 3.26 we need the title of it. Shall be, but maybe I think it says may, maybe to inspections on a frequently sketch frequency schedule so we just need to come up with the definition of it which I think I can find from our nuisance house bylaw. So that's the current name of it. So I think that fixes that sort of, we're not doing them together, but keeps it in there. Does that work for everyone. So if we leave it nuisance house bylaw in this number two. I don't think anyone wants to have to come back and and modify this bylaw again to update it. This is the regulation so the board could just make that update immediately or we can leave out the title. It's generally good to put the title in in case for some reason the number changes, right, you know exactly which one they were referring to, we can make a note to tell the board of license commissioners, or keep that in mind. To send that over, or we can delete the title. I'm not wedded to it. Do you need a bigger. That was bigger. I don't mind, I don't mind having it like this. And you're right if they come back in the regulations and change it to the correct name that's fine. Okay, any other changes for. Okay. I think we have a big section. We're on the inspections section. It's one of our bigger sections. Section B. Move on to section C the plans property management plan. Hold on. Hold on. Sorry. Sorry. Under inspection requirements. We went back and forth on number two about the number of units. Infected. Yes. And I think. We've changed it to. 25% or something like that for B. So we have a is properties with less than 25 units. You inspect them all for those with more than 25 units. Okay, the code enforcement official shall have a discretion to select and inspect the sampling. Okay. We did not. We did not clarify the percent. We, we took the percentage out on the recommendation of the town attorney who mentioned up here under annual that we said that if you had more than 25 dwelling units, you have to be on a schedule that is necessary deemed necessary to inspect every dwelling unit at least every five years and he thought the other one was in conflict. So we changed the wording there to make an agreement. That's why the percentages are gone. Yeah, I'm good. Thank you. I'll move on to property management plans. Anything parking site plan. Tenant information sheet. If I move in too fast and you find something. Send me back. Appeals. I had one for appeals. It's not the one that's highlighted sections A and B are actually set forth in the bylaw are bylaw under appeals says that the application must be 14 days and the hearing must be 30 days from filing. I would delete it from the regulations then so that we don't risk any conflict between the bylaw and the regulations since the bylaw would always done. I would just delete these two. And where did we include that in the bylaw itself? In the bylaw. It's under appeals. Yeah, it is under appeals. Yeah, it's under number 4A. Yeah. Yep. And I would retitle this time requirement to decision time requirement or something or additional time requirement. Or actually, we don't have to say, we can just say decision. And then it'll just say the decision shall be made within 60 days from the date of the close of the public hearing. We had left this potentially open to revisiting our town attorney indicated that he would delete it completely because he's always concerned with time requirements. But, but we included the phrase may be extended. Yeah, we have maybe extended and we changed it from 60 days from the filing to 60 days within the close of the public hearing which gives you a lot more time than the 60 days of filing so I think it's reasonable to think that the decision should be made 60 days from the time the hearing closes. So, Okay, anything else for this Congratulations. Seeing none for now. We will go on. You'll see some red here. Just clear a conforming language in number one, it was for a parcel with up to. So, I just made the language match. That's all. We didn't have the words parcel and number four and five. So now we do just, I noticed that as I was reading it so I threw it in here to make it a little quicker for people to see we have a decision to make on this one. As noted in the note, we were unsure between number three or four and five for what to send off to the council I will make it bigger Jennifer. Thank you. I think that's what you were referencing. So, thoughts on that. Yeah. Okay, thanks. Sorry, sorry, didn't the official hand. Maybe shall I need to go first. So, I would, I would, I would like to encourage whoever establishes fees that number four which is permits for up to up to nine one to nine on a parcel with up to nine dwelling units that the the, the per additional unit be be modest and I don't know if it's the same additional per unit fee that number four ends up with, in which case, maybe it ends up getting merged into one category. But, you know, the small, small apartment complexes around town are are sort of in that range and they're not the big, they're not the big ones, they're not the Hobart lane complexes that are, you know, more than 10 units, lots more than 10 units and it just felt to me that that one itself should be modest, if, if any, if any additional unit be for unit fee. Tony. This regarding whether it should be per unit or a standard fee. That was one of the decisions right now one of the decisions is whether we keep after one and two whether everyone, every parcel pays the same fee or it should be separated out into potentially different fees based on the number of dwelling units and then also whether we have a per unit over those two. So, so there's a couple of decisions but So with respect to that I did look up Boston Lynn and Burlington for months so at least two cities in Massachusetts that are doing it per rental unit. And, again, I think I would emphasize that from an equity point of view, rather, you know, it's just the lens we're using to make this policy decision if we are looking at it from the point of view of how much staff time is used. It's the same amount of staff time and we should charge the same amount. But if you're looking at from the equity point of view of what is it costing the tenants. Because we know that these fees are going to be passed on to the tenants. And so that means a single unit is being passed on $100. And in the other case, the $100 is divided by $5 or even less over so many people so what it's costing the end of the day is not equitable when we charge the same thing. So I would really encourage us to have a per unit. Other thoughts. So Jennifer and then I will go. I really have a question so when you say per unit are we were still going to have it, you know in blocks. So if you have still be it is still be broken out it won't be that it's $20 a unit. Or is it if you have nine each ones 20 if you have 400 each ones 20. So, I guess I'm asking Shawnee if that's what she was. Yeah, I'm sorry I was getting distracted I was getting a note to put out my composting so sorry. But what I was saying was that it's not per parcel but it's pre unit on the parcel. So the extra would be per unit and then, in addition if you want to make it less for people like for less than six units or less than 10 units, it can, you know, it can be a really nominal additional fee or if you don't want to but it's mainly for the bigger units that I think it's really make it's not. It's it's better to make it per unit not per parcel. Another question, I know we're leaving the actual amount to the finance committee but would we want to leave part of this discussion for them as well. And so so that was actually going to be my comment I'm not sure which of these I want. It sounds like people are are are leaning towards four and five or number three that includes a plus that would include, say, number five. The, the, you can't really see it how the per unit above the plus a number per unit above one up to a maximum of expert building and expert complex or something without the differentiation between one and nine and 10. I would say if we go with four and five or any of this additional numbers, I would request that the, what we transmit to the council and then to the finance committee is that the per unit should be nominal, like $5 or something depending on what we're looking at, and all the other comment I have is, I guess this is a question for those that are sinking the one to nine and the 10 plus. When I had done the initial numbers. What I did with the base fee was say the one to nine would have a base fee of 100 and then if it's plus $5 a unit over one, then for a parcel with 10 or more. The base fee would be nine times five is 45 and 100 145 or 150 plus something above it. That includes that and so I guess my question for the committee itself is, do you see sort of, you know, and if it's 150 if it's the exact number that 10, nine units would pay, or 10 units would pay under for that's the base fee on number that you need a split or are people foreseeing that. For example, if number for the base unit is the base fee is 100 and the per unit fee over one is five, you've got 145 when you get up to nine, or no you get 140 when you get up to nine is the fee. So are you seeing then that the fee for a parcel of 10 or more might actually be 200 plus maybe even just $3 or something or might it be. Yeah, are you seeing a different sort of in that fee at the 10 split as a base fee beyond if 10 units was charged under item for such that we really need a split or that we don't need a split, or are you seeing a change in the per unit costs at 10, you know, in the per unit numbers that the reason we would split it out of the base fee doesn't change with the per unit for one to nine be potentially $10 but the per unit for 10 or more be $5 or something like that is that is that something people are thinking about. So we just moved to number three and add all the options and then tell finance, a good summary of this discussion. Yeah, I, if you give them how much we need to recover to pay for inspection for the staff and everything give them the end number and then give them this discussion that I think it's a question of doing the formula, you know, kind of an algebraic equation of this time x plus this plus this many units by this should equal this and and giving them the criteria that we're trying to be most equitable to the tenants, because if the Finance Committee is not familiar with the other conversations how the fees are passed on to tenants and how, you know, like we're trying to promote smaller which they probably know as a council all counselors know we're trying to promote workforce housing and make our housing affordable. But I think if you include all these different criteria for them and give them. Yeah, they can do the formula part themselves. I think one of the things I would say we're referring it to finances because well we have a high number but we don't know finances in a better position to say, if this program is going to cost 500,000 how much is going to be generated by fees and how much is going to be paid for under the current operating budget how much of the potentially how much of the strategic partnership agreement money will go towards this program. They have the ability to do that to then determine what that final number is they need to raise right we don't. So I would include that as a as part of the report as to why we're sending it to them or requesting it be sent to them Pam. Is there any documentation at all that the fees that have been raised this year because the fees doubled or more than doubled. I don't believe that there has been any change in staff staffing within that department and you know before we before we talk about, you know we must cover cost of this program. We don't, we don't really know what the projection is for staff cost and I want to make sure that that money is raised under this program actually help to perpetuate it and keep it as a sustainable program because we think it will benefit the town. How do we, how do we mandate, I guess is the word that I need to, to use that these funds are used for this purpose. And so we don't, we can only put it in a report we have to trust Paul that he'll fund it appropriately, right. I think that's part of the reason we would send the fees off to the finance committee, I would send as part of that packet as the report on all of this gets written for over a year and about a half of discussion. So most all the documents we've generated the response that Rob more gave us a good response to questions about fees and what he expects the cost of the program to be and all of that I would ship all of that off to the counselor include in the report that goes then hopefully to finance along with the spreadsheets that we've created that gave some options and stuff. Just so they have as much information as they can and they don't repeat what we've done. Yeah, I think that's a good answer then Pam. Yeah, no just Andy's been very clear that he wants it, that it's not revenue generating it's to pay for the, it's to cover the costs and pay for the program. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry I forgot what I was going to say. So I want to bring us back to the highlighted sections because I think we should send this like this because it kind of conflicts. Yeah. It has to do with the, the spreadsheets, the tables that were, you know, if this many units at this price. I think before we send that off, can we please actually look at that array of costs and projections and whatever and really clean it up. I mean that was that was a very nice effort on your part to sell it out. But I think we before we just hand that off it's, it's way more complicated, and so many different options that I think we have a little bit better idea now of how we might structure it. So yeah, I think if we decide to hand something off. I would make sure it's only got options for whatever this looks like, not everything we've been through and talking about other schedules right and so we would not include the, the charts that had the fee included in the residential rental permit fee because that's not what we're recommending so that we don't want to confuse them so yeah I could definitely clean it up to make sure it complies with whatever this fee schedule is in the end, and has only those parts. Does that make sense. Yes, and I definitely want to take a look at it and we could we in theory would have some time we could put looking at that on an agenda in the future. Once we have this to prep for sending that over. Thank you. And, but we definitely send them the number of properties that are like with one unit with, you know, because they can be like, we have only two which are multiple and they decide to keep it a $3 but you're not really recouping so they need that information. I don't intend to remove pages two or three from this document before we send it to the council. So that they will have that now when it gets adopted by the council in the end when it comes back from finance I would expect them to be removed because they get old quick but for the purposes of our vote and transmitting to the council I intend to keep them on this document. Pam. That's the good segue to the fact that we asked probably a year ago for more current numbers on estimated rental units in town. We asked for, you know, listings of, of all of those properties that didn't appear to have the, the tax bill being sent to the same location as the address of the property. And that was a very, very long time ago that we asked for that I was hoping Rob was going to be here today to ask him that if we have, please we really need that information. Prior to this conversation coming up for town council to discuss and we, I will, I will send an email today, asking for it again. So, everybody supports that same request we, we, we need that kind of information. This is only those units that, that, you know, volunteered to do the program this past year. And we know that this is fewer than the ones that did the first year around. So I think Rob answered that question a couple of meetings ago, but verbally, I don't think we've ever gotten it in writing I do believe if we go back to minutes he talked about how many they were going after that didn't match and everything but I don't think we ever got a report. That may have been, that may have been, you know, the, the low hang or maybe they've gotten the low hanging fruit, and that there were, you know, a handful left. I'd like to see the total number. I will ask him again, because we have some other things to send so I will ask him to put that information in writing. Thank you. It includes total number of estimated dwelling units in, you know, one, two, three, four, how many every unit per parcel that that they think we're missing. I will ask him for an update from this October 2022 chart to give us one as of now, because it's almost a year old now and then I will also ask him for his progress on finding those mismatches. And we want, we want that number, whatever it is whatever he's come up with so far we need before town council discusses it, whatever they whatever they've assembled so far. But I will ask for it. In my emails to Rob so back to the highlighted what are we going to include in this schedule. It sounds like, but I had questions but it sounds like people are leaning towards these two, but I'm still not convinced people are leaning towards the breakdown versus just the fact that if you add a per unit. You covered it. I guess I'm not sure people are thinking that for one to nine, the total number here when added up would be different than the 10 plus number, respectively. So that if you applied, what would now be number three, instead of to nine units to 20 units that that would be a different number than if you applied whatever for is to 20 units. Yes, that's my question are people thinking that applying the rule in number three to 20 units would be a different fee than applying the rule in four to 20 units, other than this maximum. Attempt to say something about this. I think the goal is that for the smaller land owner is that we keep the base fee low enough. The basic would be so the base probably should be the same for all, and it's the pro unit that's changing that brings in more money for the town. And it doesn't cost more to the tenants because it's being divided by over so many people. So, yeah, so if you were charging $100 for a single home. You know, I don't think we can ever equate it because that hundred would be one person being 100 and then, if you have 200 people living it's 100 plus $2, let's say $5 per unit. So it's 100, you know that person, but it's 100 divided by 200 that's 50 cents or that person is still paying two and a half cents in the 10 in the 200 units. So, maybe. While you think Pam. Yes. Well, I keep going back and forth. I'm not sure. Numbers are now number three, which is the lower the lower end of the dwelling units. You know, maybe, maybe having the same base fee is the same base fee. I'm trying to add cost to, you know, to dwelling units. And so my intent is not to, to add dollars just because there are more of them. But if, if, you know, who started across the board, I mean, my gut feeling and this is again based on anecdotal information from Rob and and john. That in terms of inspections. There are very few buildings in town residences in town that have mandated inspections. So the inspection thing is in their mind. What they're looking for. This is this is obviously just permitting we're still talking permitting fee, excuse me. It seems to me that that the, the former owner occupied or single family homes. Although, although we don't want to, you know, have the 25, the $100 fee divided by the four, you know, folks living there $25 a person right, which seems more onerous than a $5 per unit add on. In some other in some other complex. But we also understand that the single family dwelling have been some of the most problematic. So, we, we're going to charge inspection fee separately for that. So that will take care of the right and I think I keep blending those two categories. We really do feel our basic fee should be lower because that everyone is going to have to pay and then we try to get so that from the tenants point of view what they are paying us. The base fee should be the lowest possible that we can and then we, and it's, and then add the $5 for or whatever we decide. And that way the cost to the tenant is not going to be that much onerous. We're not going to be receiving collected even a $50 base. What was it early it was 100 right I mean we don't have to go lower than that we can bring it down because we increase it and now if we bring it down to what it used to be which was 100 I think people should be happy with that. We're going to let finance decide that but we're trying to figure out what type of structure we want to recommend to the council, not the cost, not the prices but the structure and that's where we're getting stuck in. What I'm Pam. It's so it does sound that, in fact, then having a basic base fee may make sense for anything with multi multi use building multi multi unit building. The one starting with, with a non owner occupied right. Maybe we just, we just keep it for all other parcels right we bring all these things up to number three. We have a base fee we have plus every unit over one up to a maximum of and so much for complex that probably makes sense so that as scary as some of the numbers are even though it's a per unit. Add on. You know, I can, I can see those complexes with 400 units going, oh my gosh, this is a $10,000 cost that we never budgeted for help, you know, it's way above $100. And I'm just making it up but is also possibility of saying up to a maximum of this much for parcel. Yeah, I've got a per building potential and a per parcel potential. Right. So, thinking differently some buildings have, you know, in mixed use buildings, the buildings are different, but leave that up to find out on which of those might be more logical. Does this in the residential rental fees look, is everyone good with this for now. Okay, that means. I'm going to stop the share we've seen everything we've gone through it I have some potential motions. So I'm going to read them one at a time. And I can go through them fast and we can talk about them as we get there. But I believe Kelly has them. So I think Kelly can get it actually before we do the motions. I want to actually before we actually do the motions we're going to pause the motions. We're going to pause this discussion and go to public comment before we finally do the motions. I'm going to open public comment on matters within jurisdiction of the CRC. You're welcome to express your views for up to three minutes. If you'd like to make a public comment please raise your hand. We have one person that would like to so held a green bomb please unmute yourself. I'm I on. Yes you are. Okay, I wanted to speak last week but I had to run off to zoning board and I never got called on. First of all, my experience first as an assessor and also my my eight years on the zoning board I've been in a lot of units. And I want to tell you that you're going to find the worst public health and safety standards in the single family homes where you don't even know that they're renting out a cell with no egress or an attic with no egress and you're not going to find them. And those are serious problems and where the deaths occur where we have had over the years a couple in people in attic apartments without egress that have died in a fire. And so I that that's one plan I want to make that just don't assume and stereotype, a single family home that's owner occupied is going to be pristine castle for for these tenants to live it. And I know this because I've been in them where the oven door and the refrigerator door held together by duct tape, because they applied for a on a baitment on their taxes it was too high so I got to see the house, and the steps were rotten. And it's been a house that to me has been a problem for 40 years but finally I think it got sold so something may happen to it. The other comment I make is the per unit is grossly unfair. I own buildings. Now I own for one is a single family home attached to a unit at 351 Main Street. It has one very small two bedroom and six studio one bedroom type to room one but whatever you want to call it a studio or one better way. Two rooms, a living room and a bedroom with a kitchen in the living room. So there's a beds there. If it were a three family I wouldn't have to pay the bid fee, which is equal to 0.01% of my, my assist value which is something over $500 the effort which I get my benefit happens to be I get a earn a flowers from the bed at the bus stop but they don't even shovel out the bus stop so that's 500 bucks those kids have to pay through their their rent. So that's eight bedrooms, you're charging me the same thing. As a two family house would pay that's full of 1415 year old well acting 14 or 15 year old column 16 and 17 year old freshman and sophomores living in a house. And that's a problematic you're charging me the same fee you're charging them because that's grossly unfair. Nicarbaca has 20 units. We have owned that building for more than 45 years it has never had a complaint. And I don't really think that the per unit fee is fair, because a 200 square foot studio does not have the problems that a 3600 square foot two family house has. And, and therefore I think either you need to look at number of bedrooms or look at the number of square feet, and try to come up with something that's more reasonable. I think shelving he has a finger on it, but, but I think that you need to think in terms of why should the stock and biochemistry who's in the lab all day long have to have to suffer the same thing as a bunch of kids a party 24 hours a day. It's just not fair. And so the per student fee per room fee for the round is probably about the same at this point I have to pay all the utilities. My tenants don't have to pay that. But I think that you got to think another way than per unit because as I say, a four bedroom house has many more problems than a, than a 150 to 200 square foot studio which basically as a shower sink and a little 20 inch stove in it, what's going to go wrong because the heating the plumbing and all that is not within that unit. It's aside from it so. Yeah, I mean, you've got to think fair and you got to think of, you know, where are the problems it's not with my units. Thank you for your comments. People don't people don't even know the Nica blocker is there. Down at 85 North Whitney Street then I enroll it's there. I mean just for an example, those are the two things that are on the top of my head that have been for a few weeks and by the make make it fair otherwise you're going to find yourself in trouble. Thank you for your comments Hilda. With that there are no more public comments so we will go back to proposed motions. The first one is move. I'm going to move to recommend the town council rescind general bylaw 3.50 residential rental property and replace it with general bylaw 3.50 residential rental property. As shown on the document titled three general bylaw 3.50 residential rental property CRC working draft revision 1720 2307 14 as modified at CRC on July 20 2023 with effective date of April 1 2024. So that is the proposed motion. We can talk about the effective date. Before I formally make that motion, if there are questions on that Pam. We had a couple of unanswered questions. And I don't want to commit to anything so we've resolved those questions. I just want to make sure that people feel the same that we should not vote today and bring it back next time for a final. The other alternate way of thinking about that is how do we cover the fact that we have a couple of updates or changes that need to be included and aren't in this version. I personally feel better if it were wrapped up in a bow rather than having some loose ends, but if others want to move it along with the caveat that we fixed it later, I don't know how to do that. Lots. Jennifer. Are we meeting again before it goes to the council so we could. So it can't go to the council until we vote, but. We have a meeting scheduled for August 3rd. We could put it on that meeting to be able to look at the loose ends and potentially make any final changes if necessary. It might be nice to have votes now so that we can tell Lynn that and then I could get a date she might schedule it right right now until we're voting. It's hard to know when she might put it on an agenda, whether it would be August 7th or whether whether it would be later. But if I tell her we voted, we would always have the chance I could re put it on the August 3rd agenda here, but we could put most of the packet together if she decides to put it on the 7th. Pam. I'm just thinking that it would require a fairly expensive report. That seems really awkward if we have if we have dangling loose and and somehow those have to be covered in a report and and town council needs some time to read it because it's very complicated. I feel like something should go in town council packet at least two weeks before the meeting occurs. I mean, So I can't write a report to submit to the council until there's a vote. I can always write updated reports I think it's one of the reasons I'm pushing for a vote so that I can start the report. And then we can always do updated or supplemental reports, if we continue, but I don't think Lynn will put this on an agenda until we've actually voted. So I would recommend we vote at least one of these now so that I can get these on so I can get to Lynn and say we need these scheduled for an agenda, and that we can then figure that out we have at least one more meeting and CRC before we go to the before it could possibly go to the council I don't know whether she would put it on that meeting or not. I need to, I can't write, and I cannot submit a report till there's been a vote so if Lynn would want to put this on the August 7 meeting I couldn't even submit a report till August 8 at the earliest, August 4 at the earliest which I agree is too late for an August 7 meeting. I think we've voted now I could submit one next week for publication in the packet, even if that report says will be supplemented on August 4. I know with big bold things but I could at least start it with a preliminary vote. Jennifer. Well it at the last council meeting Lynn said I think she said that the proposed zoning revisions and the streetlight, we're going to be on August 7 so I don't see how this could happen. I don't know, I don't know what she would do. But I don't think she'll think of any scheduling until we've actually voted. I'm going to ask then how, how would you propose covering the, and I'll be really honest to have a, you know, how many of her pages we have to read with any kind of commentary with a loose end and then expect people to a read a report and read any updates that will freak people out it freaks me out. When I'm even when I'm reading the wrong version of something and I've looked through it carefully and oh, I actually wasn't reading the most current version. It's not fair to people to load them up with multiple, you know, reading materials. I'm sorry, it's just really, this is a big deal. Felony. You're muted, shall any. Is there a, you know, the timeline Monday Joe like given that we want to give finance committee time to do their thing and everything like what is, what do you see like if it goes to the next gets bumped to the next council meeting with that to everything off or. So, I don't know what Lynn would do but I doubt she would put it on the second August council meeting given what all's already on that one there might be a possibility that she'd add it to the first count August meeting and the August seventh meeting if we voted today otherwise this would not get heard at minimum until September it probably needs a referral to GOL after that council meeting is heard for clear consistent and action ability because that bylaws require that then it needs to readings after that. Because I don't expect this this version would get posted on the bulletin board for the 14 days for voting, or that our recommendation would be the first reading although I don't know whether Lynn would consider it a first reading or not but it needs to readings after that. If we don't get it into the council in September, we're looking at adopting it in November that would also be about the time I don't know when the council would decide to refer a fee schedule probably not until adoption. The fee schedule would need to be in place well before any bylaw becomes actually effective. So the longer we wait, the less likely it is that a fee schedule gets adopted before the end of the year. Can we vote on just the fee structure that asking are recommending to town council to send this fee structure to finance committee before and what and meanwhile we can close all the We can I'm just not sure that they will know what to do with it until they've got a bylaw in hand. I was wondering if we could modify your motion and we could take a straw vote to express general agreement or disagreement with this bylaw as we currently have it pending resolution of a couple loose ends which in my mind work. They weren't big deals. They're just, you know, questions that are left hanging. And I don't know how people feel about going that route to give to give somebody the, at least the go ahead to start working on her for it. So I would do that by at the end of that motion that said as you know in the document titled blah blah blah as modified on July 20 2023 comma pending resolution of final questions. And then we'll revoke when we resolve those and we'll just have a new recommendation. Does that work. Yeah. So that's the motion. I'll read it quickly again. And I'm just going to read it quickly without all of the full length of things so it's moved to recommend the town council rescind general bylaw 3.50 and replace it with general bylaw 3.50 as shown in the document titled general bylaw as modified at CRC on July 20 2023 pending resolution of final questions with effective date of April 1 2024. Any further discussion on that. Jennifer. This is a dumb question, but it does not include the fee structure. We're just voting on the, we're doing three different motions, three different. Okay, the bylaw. Okay. We'll start the vote. Shalini. Yes. Pat. Hi. Mandy's an eye Pam. Yes. Jennifer. Yes. Thank you. Okay. The next motion is, I'll just say Kelly, Kelly's no longer here. It's going to add that same phrase. Move to recommend in accordance with general bylaw 3.50 residential rental property. 3.5 zero residential rental property CRC working draft revision nine twenty twenty three oh seven fourteen as modified at CRC on July twenty twenty twenty three pending resolution of final questions with effective date of April one twenty twenty four. Is there a second. Second. Thank you. Any further discussion. This is the regulations. Seeing none Pat. By. Pam. I'm sorry. I forgot me. I'm an eye. Jennifer. Yes. I'm Shalini. Shalini. Yes. That one is also unanimous. Final one moved to recommend the town council refer to the finance committee the document titled three residential oops sorry three rental registration fee schedule proposed for vision five twenty twenty three seven fourteen as modified at CRC for a recommendation on the fees to charge under three point five zero residential rental property with a report to town council by November thirty twenty twenty three. Does that one need the pending resolution of questions to. I think we need more discussion on it. Do you want. Rather than trying to vote it down. I just. So I will withdraw that motion and we will put that one on the agenda for next week. Because we really didn't talk about inspection fees either so it's. Okay. Seeing that we are done action items we are not doing any discussion items the minutes were not in the packet I don't have announcements next agenda we've talked about but it will also have a brief of. So we'll have some of this on it and it will have the intro to. Specialized. Jennifer. I did see minutes in the packet. We don't have to. Twenty second minutes that we passed last week. Yeah. Okay that's funny because I thought the board entirety had been left off of last week's and it okay. But they were in both packets is the same. They were adopted last week. Sorry about that. I don't have anticipated items so with that I'm adjourning the meeting at six forty p.m. Bye all. It's like a splitting word.