 Do you have you heard from Kelly Athena, because I know I'm going to reach out now, but we're recording. So if we need to jump, we can do that. Okay. Cause I don't want to put you out by not having Kelly here. Okay, so we are recording seeing a presence of a quorum. I am calling the community resources committee meeting to order at 432 on February 9th, 2023. Pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and extended by chapters 22 and 107 of the acts of 2022. This meeting will be conducted by a remote means members of the public who wish to access The meeting may do so by zoom or telephone. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted. Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time. And with that, we're going to announce that we are recording and we're also going to announce that while we're going to take roll call to make sure that everyone can be heard and here. So in alphabetical order right now we are missing Shalini Balmillan and Pat DeAngelis. So Mandy is present, Pam and Jennifer present we are expecting at least there is Shalini. I will wait until we've got Shalini. Shalini, are you present? Can you hear us? You look unmuted. So Shalini, can you hear us? So, yes, now I hear you guys is all so good. I'm going to double double correct it. I'm going to, I'm muting Shalini. I think Shalini might have some sort of odd going on, but maybe it was Kelly. We'll see. Welcome Kelly. Kelly is our minute taker. So we just called to order at 432 Kelly and we did announce recording and do the roll call. Pat DeAngelis is absent at this point. Thank you very much. You're welcome. With that, we're going to move right on to our agenda. We're starting with a review of the draft bylaw and draft regulations. We're actually not going to deal with the fee schedule today. So I should have deleted that from there, but we're going to start with the draft bylaw. I believe I asked everyone to come ready for the sections they wanted to discuss, give me a second and I will put it up on the screen. I've got extra buttons because I've been made host. So So this is the draft that is in the packet. We're going to start at the top. And I'm just going to trust that anyone who has a desire to request some changes to it raises their hands as we go section by section. So it would be nice and I'm going to try and keep the hands. I just by doing that lost my hands. So I'm trying here to juggle multiple screens. Okay, so Pam, we're going to start with the the data block and section a purpose. So, Pam, you've got your hands up. Yeah, before before you start Pam, sorry, one of the things I intend to do today, we'll see if we can reach consensus on any requested changes. If we can't, if there's an objection, we'll actually take a straw poll and see if there's a vote one way or the other to see we are missing one member. If there is a tie vote, I will make a note in the comments to re vote at another meeting and do it that way. Does that make some sense so that we can get to document. But I'm hoping we can reach consensus on as many changes as possible so that we don't have to do this. Does it stay in or out based on the vote. Jennifer. So I just wanted to ask if this is so I met with actually a constituent and spoke with somebody else who's a landlord, and they had some requested changes and should I present those now, or should I wait till after the listening session I didn't know what. So that should be they should, if they can they should make those requests at the listening session, which would be for that and then we can make note of those and then discuss them after they have been made there. That would be my preferred because then we get to hear who it came from right, but if you're willing to disclose names we can do that now and discuss some of that too. Otherwise I would request that they try to email the committee first or come to the listening session and then we can discuss them the next time we take it up after the listening session. Okay. Pam, you had your hand up. Yeah, I did. And when you say listening session you don't mean public comment today, I mean public comment today is also fine right or Monday's listening session yes. Okay, so section a. If you actually read these items 123451 and two are extremely redundant. And so I'm suggesting that we. We take number two and make that essentially the first sentence and it goes to implement a proactive inspection program to eliminate housing blight. And to ensure the safety health and welfare of its residents through permitting. So it combines sentence one and sentence two and it and it. And then, and then so eliminate. Yeah, most of. Right. So it eliminates most of number one. And then number three is says almost exactly the same thing. Because we're talking about a, you know, a permitting process and number three monitor enhanced compliance with basic life safety and sanitary codes is exactly the same as number one. So I'm suggesting we eliminate number three as well. That's this current number two right. Correct. Yes. Yes. And then if we wanted to add something back in that we don't seem to have, or that seems to have been lost is, is the suggestion to incentivize efficient energy efficiency in our rental housing stock, and we have yet to sort of agree how appropriate that is, and, and how to do it. Was that removed because somebody requested it. I don't remember. It was in an earlier version. So I don't know, I don't know how it. Yeah, tell them what I have, but How was that one worded to incentivize energy efficiency. In rental housing stock. In the actually what I have is in the portion of housing stock that is a rental property. Okay. So I don't know if that means if you have a ADU the part you rent should. Now, one of the people I spoke to actually asked if that be removed. But we can discuss that. Yeah, so we can discuss it. So that people can see what has what is proposed right and so let's start with essentially what I would say is Pam's request to combine one the original one two and three. And combine that into sort of number, the new number one, what was number two. Any concerns with that. Oh, and while we're doing this, John and Rob, if you have any concerns about any section to speak up as we get to those sections to any requested changes or anything in those sections. There's a committee plus John and Rob bring what you want to see changed or added to it. I am not hearing any concerns with that change so let's talk about the energy efficiency one. Jennifer you said someone requested it come out. Well this is I guess, maybe a bigger conversation and and it may be expressed at the listening session. I think there's some concern that the rental properties and there's a reason for doing that, but on the part of some proper landlords that they're being held that they're burdensome and maybe being held to a different standard that owner, you know, individual homeowners aren't that you know I was just wanted to communicate what had been expressed. So that's, that's, that's perfectly good. It was one of our original goals, right is to address climate action which is different than incentivize energy efficiency right in some sense. Those have different meanings. My concern with this language versus address climate action goals. Is the bylaw, at least at this point doesn't really incentivize energy efficiency right we haven't found a way to incentivize you know we had talked about earlier on things about decreased permit fees or decreased inspection fees or longer inspection time frames or permit time frames or something as it relates to the more energy efficiency efficient get we haven't really done any of that so it seems weird to put to me to put a purpose in of incentivizing energy efficiency when we haven't actually done any of that within the bylaw or regs versus collecting the energy efficiency data, which is different. So, I don't know what to do with it but that's one of my thoughts initially shall any. Is it still sounding funky, or is it. No, you're good. I was thinking like having that as a long term goal is a good idea and then the fact that we haven't figured out a way to do it in a way that it's not burdensome to some landlords or to, you know, some tenants and things like that we're not yet proposing anything but to include it as a goal. I think is a good thing. Thank you, Shawnee Rob. So, I agree about incentivizing has to come with the rest of the pieces but it could be encouraged if we wanted to keep something in for energy efficiency because, you know, as the code enforcement officers out looking at repairs and upgrades. It's certainly appropriate to apply the latest energy code for that work and encourage, you know, the best as far as energy efficiency is concerned. I'm certainly comfortable with that. Yeah, thank you. Thank you for that suggestion. I think that satisfies many of our concerns. So, and, and a great way to do it is through those inspections. Any other thoughts on purpose before we move on. From the survey data, there was quite a bit of mention of incentivizing, you know, landlords that were really taking care of their tenants taking care of the homes. And it may not be the overall purpose. It's like, I think that purpose serves the purpose of having good quality neighborhoods, homes, you know, good quality so I don't know that in itself needs to be highlighted as a purpose, but I think having it in purpose sends out a message to maybe the landlord community that, you know, hey, we're really supporting encouraging home rental landlords who are taking care of the tenants taking care of their properties. How would you recommend we get that in there if you were recommending something. Maybe something like to incentivize landlords that maintain good quality rental homes and relationships with tenants and neighbors. Could we use Rob's word encourage again. Yeah, encourage. And maybe the two separate things because I guess they're interrelated because relationships with neighbors means you're listening to what are the concerns of the neighbors and, you know, responding to it and with tenants of course it's maintaining the safety and all okay Rob. Yes. Thank you, Rob. Yeah, I was just going to suggest maybe recognize those better performing properties for those reasons. As a thought just, you know, at the very least, we, you know, would be able to publicly display the results of inspections and see that properties are in good standing and maybe in time it would be more than that, leading, you know, towards some kind of program that incentivizes. And so recognize properties that that are well maintained. Drive really have that a for restaurant ratings. Right, like how do we word that though right. I was going to say regularly comply with this bylaw or something that sounds so weird though. But maintain the quality of quality and safety of homes. Rent alarms now. That should be a given. Okay. Recognize compliant properties or something. How about the part about maintaining relationships or I mean don't write it down. I'm just saying that as a thought that like what responsive to neighbors and tenants needs something like that. Do we want to say anything about that or no, I mean I think that's a good purpose, you know, it is. Yeah, because it's not a purpose of it's a, yeah, I think that's true. It was sort of things mentioned a lot in terms of they were some tenants who said like we really appreciate our landlords who take care of us and so maybe encouraging more of that and then residents who were like some of them were like hey we can ever reach the landlords we don't know where they are they never respond and then there are some landlords who are very responsive. So I think that's the distinguishing factor where the landlords feel like they're responsive to the tenants and neighbors needs. So I've marked that we just have to work on the language. But I've marked that we have to add the language in so that we can move on as we work on. And I think it should be a separate item. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Noted and we'll come back to it. Well, I'll, we'll work on language for the next draft. Okay, moving on to definitions, any requests for relooking at or considering consideration of definitions. Pam. Yeah. We somehow have lost the definition of a student home. I think that might be because we don't use it anywhere. Then we need to use it somewhere. So the only place at one point it was used was somewhere about the application and identifying students or units that have students in them and that is in the regulations now. We still should then we still should define it unless we, unless we define it in the regulations, which I don't. It was defined in the regulations through that application section. When we get there, I can see it. So. I can't seem. Yeah. So it's not used anywhere in this bylaw, which I think is why it got deleted. So we put it as a placeholder here and then we come back to it to make sure that it. Then maintain somewhere. What would it, if it's not referenced in the bylaw, it doesn't belong in definitions. Because definitions should be used somewhere in the bylaw. And so, are you proposing to add that use somewhere in the bylaw? Yes. Okay. And we had, we had a definition from. Okay. Thank you. I, at this point, I'm not for it until we figure out whether it gets used in the bylaw. So I'm putting it in temporarily, but I. It won't go in unless we've used it somewhere in the bylaw. At least my opinion is it shouldn't be there unless we actually use it somewhere in the bylaw. Got it. And I think that might have been why Shalini was raising her hand. I don't want to look at occupant. Any person living or sleeping in or having actual possession of a dwelling dwelling unit or a rooming unit. I think it's kind of vague. I know when KP law was here. Pam, you talked about, I don't know whether you were talking about anyone on the lease, but not, you know, occupants were only those on the lease or not. I don't know where you fell, but I was looking at this definition and I said, living sleeping in. I mean, guests as we're talking about what occupant is used for in this bylaw and I think we need. I don't know what the answer is, but occupants for the purpose of this bylaw. You know this is not talking about sort of, you know, the nuisance issues right or something where a visitor that's an overnight stay or for two nights. Count as an occupant because they're doing other things. I think we use occupant more. As sort of those who have made it their residents for the year. So I don't know. I just wanted to revisit it. I was concerned about the sleeping in portion because that's very vague. Shalini. I think it's defining the number of days they live there is that is the time period and maybe like if they've lived consecutively over the last 30 days or something like that that makes a person an occupant. I'd be curious to see what the staff thing I mean with John and Rob think also be curious to know is an occupant different than a tenant. I'm sorry to interrupt it. So, let's go to John. Is that okay Pam. Yeah, Shalini's right there's there's language and mass general law about how long you're there before you're considered an occupant. I don't, I don't know it offhand but we could look it up. So maybe the answer is look up the general laws on this one and match the definition there. Yeah. Just in response to that if, if I just signed the lease and I'm one week in, I'm still an occupant and then that I'm a tenant. So I, and maybe I have my name on the lease hopefully I have my name on the lease. So let's see what the real wording is, but I'm not uncomfortable with it implies that you spend sleeping time there. It might just need some sort of intention language or intending to reside there or something like I just, I think we can clean it up and make it a little more clear. So, any other definitional requests, then moving on to section C anything with section C. Oh, I had one question and again this was asked it was number 10 of owner occupants. So, I guess this gets back to put an owner. If an owner lives across the street or next door, did we. Discuss that early on. So right now the definition matches the zoning bylaw because we've tried to not recreate definitions or can have conflicting definitions right that zoning bylaw as far as I know, you have to be on the property but I'm not sure Robert john could, could clarify that that across the street is not an owner occupant. Rob. Yes, that's right it has to the, the owner has to occupy the dwelling unit and establish principal residents they're both defined in the zoning bylaw. And if we wanted to, I'm not saying we do, but this came up in this context. And if you wanted to have a different permitting fee. If you live next door, I don't know that we would discuss under fee and not here, correct. I think so yeah. Pam. Well that's a that's actually a really good conversation because we've talked about owner adjacent. And as opposed to owner owner occupant but but owner adjacent implies that it's next door it's it's on the same block. It's, you know, a 10 minute walk away. It is the presence of that, of that owner and eyes on the property. And that's it's a little hard to define isn't it because it's because you could have a really good owner adjacent. So that's a really good way to describe it. So if there's a way to describe it in some way I would be all for that because it's, it's roughly the equivalent of being an owner occupant with primary residents on that property. I would say yes and no. Because one of the things this is why I was searching for it. The only way we exempt from inspections is the unit occupied by the owner. And if you're an owner adjacent in potentially your property isn't even subject to the bylaw itself, especially if as an owner you're, you know, and so I for fees maybe but I'm not, I'd have to go through all of these. I don't know if it's an occupant references to see whether owner adjacent makes sense in them because I know for some of them it wouldn't make sense. Because the permitting bylaw doesn't apply to the parcel the owner lives in if they're owner adjacent and it's a their single family home. If they're, if they're, if they're not renting to themselves it would not be part of this conversation. Right. Yeah. And so I just don't know. I don't know if it really works. Jennifer. Yeah, I think it's, you know, owner adjacent. I think we'd have to be really, I think it came up if somebody said, you know, I am an owner occupant in the house I live in and then I own the house next door. So maybe we could look at it for fee I know it came up way back 13 years ago and would did not fly somebody tried to make the case that in terms of having no limit to how many people you had there you could say you were an owner to 12 properties and that or 10 properties that doesn't. Yeah, somebody could really try and take advantage of that situation so I think we should we should probably stick to it in the fees. Any other requests for changes to definitions. Jennifer your hand is still raised. No, sorry. Section C. I'll include section D on this one section D. Anything section D. Then section E. So I have one thing with section E and it goes to this comment that still remains here of the revisit which is from a prior set of conversations we had as a CRC and that we've never revisited which is to the public private partnership dorms fall under this and I think Rob you said at one point, the dorm is not owned by the educational institution but the land is owned by the educational institution. So, would under the current use here of exemptions dorms owned by educational institutions and located in the ed district. Would that mean that the storm going up on UMass land at Lincoln and Mass Ave. Not be exempted from this bylaw. So we might want to clarify that right so. And the question is do we want a dorm like that exempted from the bylaw. I think we might be a we might see both situations going for you know dormitories that are privately owned on educational owned land and you know, some cases where the dormitories also owned by the university. So I think we just need to make it work for both situations whichever way we want it to be. Jennifer and Pam. I just wanted to ask so Rob you'll inspect those buildings. So I actually won't inspect those buildings that are being built there right now because the agreement has the university owning the building as well as the property. So that took us out of it, but in a case where the building is owned by some entity other than the university like the. The Newman Center. It's on university land but not owned by the university that becomes a building that we permit and we inspect regularly. So I do think and you know just the discussions with possibly development at Hampshire College. It could be the same way privately owned on on college land and the ed district all kinds of things could happen so I think we'll see both in the future. Yeah. I had remembered, I think it must have been Rob saying that that in this case mess, UMass had was owning the land and I, because I remember saying that's because that's because they don't want to pay taxes on it. So, I'm agreeing but it would be it would be good to cover this somehow. So the question I have for Rob is a building like the Newman Center that is owned privately do you want it to what do you in terms of dorms and buildings owned that are on ed land. Whether it be UMass Hampshire College or Amherst College, do you want them to apply to this bylaw? Do you want, you know, do you want this bylaw to apply to them? I think so. I think so too only because I, you know, there could be, there could be residential units that are not maybe what we're thinking of right now as a traditional dormitory that we'd want to have in the program. So I think we'd want to be able to permit those. All dorms or just those that are owned privately. Those that are owned privately. Okay. So that means the current language is what you would want to see. I think so, but willing to listen. Does anyone want to change it? See none any other requests regarding Section E. See none we're moving on to F. And since we can only see what's on F on this page, we'll do F12 and three. And then we'll scroll down to the next page. So I have something in F, but I'll start with Shalini and then John. It's on with John. John. Just an editing thing, a separate residential rental permit. Maybe it's that's two words, right? Oh, where are we? Oh, here. Yep. You don't want to like the question, maybe those those leap off the page. Shalini. I don't know if this is here, but we've been getting those suggestions where. The rental registration requires the landlord to put the names of the tenants. Would that be something that we consider here or later? So that's under the application regulations right now in terms of, I think where the names of the tenants would. Would we ask for them on the application or not? And that's at regulations. Okay. But just, just for my curiosity, do we currently have the. Tennis. Names on the. No, we don't. Okay. I get the tenants names when I request the lease. Okay. Pam. Under number three, three C, I just want to make sure that we. We've spent a fair amount of time, but we haven't really discussed the nuisance bylaw yet. And so this says that it. A permit wouldn't be issued if. If the current, if the property is currently subject to a suspension or a vacation order, or has been suspended under the provisions of the bylaw during the prior X years. And I think that. I'd like to hold this open until we kind of clarify what the nuisance. Tally is what constitutes the problem. Property and then the nuisance property. I think that has more to do with. Violations than it does. Length of time. So I don't, I don't feel like I can answer this. Fill in the green box yet. Okay. That section was the section I had two requests for. You mentioned both sort of, but I have different requests. I would actually request that we delete the phrase has been suspended under the provisions of this bylaw during the prior X years. That almost seems like an extra. Penalty for violating the bylaw. If you're suspended. If you're actively suspended, right? Current suspension. You can't get a permit, right? Cause it's suspended, right? But once that suspension is over. If we then say, well, you were suspended three years ago, you're suspended for six months. You're suspended for six months. You're suspended for six months. You no longer can get it for three years. That actually. Dings to me as. Well, the suspension is not six months. The suspension is now three years or whatever number we'd put in here. And that doesn't sit right with me. So I would say if we're actively under suspension. You can't get a permit, but. You shouldn't be able to say, well, you had a suspension three years ago. So we're still not going to give you a permit. But it actually means. A full year and a half. It just doesn't sit right with me. So I would delete that phrase. I'm looking to delete that phrase because of that reason. And then the designated nuisance property. I think we need to put a timeframe in that one. So I would add within the last 12 months or something, because right now it reads. Okay. And in any point in time in your entire history, you've been designated and this is property. You can no longer get a rental permit. Again. That goes to that due process issues that. KP law when we had them here were really concerned about both of those ones. So I'm, I'm asking for a deletion of the second phrase, the suspension. During the prior X years, because that's really to me. I think we need to do that. Automatically lengthens the suspension beyond what was issued under the next section. And then under this one, I think. For due process reasons, we need to designate a certain number of years. Okay. So can we, can we talk through what that means? So if, if the property's been designated nuisance property. It was fresh off the block. It, it got it. It got the penalties. Maybe it was or wasn't suspended completely. Maybe they fixed the issue. Or we could say within the previous lease period, because that would give. That would give a starting point for the new, new lease year to begin. I'll just say accruing. I would go with the prior 12 months. You know, as or six months or something, if we kept it in, I'm for the nuisance property one. I wouldn't take it to lease periods because our permit system goes. July to June, no matter when you apply. So a lease can go any other time. You don't know when a lease is going. So I would rather sort of keep it on a month or calendar year or some other basis. If we're going to keep this. Being designated a nuisance property. Requires this one means it requires suspension. It requires denial. It requires that it is currently designated a nuisance property. Okay. Pam Jennifer, then John. I think, I think I can follow that. I think. If it's been designated property within, within 12 months. Because the other part of it was is. If the property is currently subject to a suspension or revocation. So I think that's, that's fine. There's, there's current activity and then there's. Recent past activity and they're both covered. Jennifer, then John. Okay. So my question was. Okay. So we said, let's say you, you. Really maybe can't suspend or revoke a permit during the lease period. Because. It's really can't, you know, unless. If the house is condemned, if I'm understanding it correctly, you can't evict the tenants. You know, during the lease, or that's a very cumbersome process. If we would even want to go there. So we're talking about that if it's a real problem, property short of it having to be condemned like, you know, 11 Allen street that we would wait until it would be revoked. The permit would be revoked or suspended starting at the next lease period. So I don't know if that complicates the timeframe. Just a question. John, and then we'll see if Rob's got any thoughts on this section. John. I'm just thinking about a property that I'm working on now it's. It's been kind of a problem property and I've got an active order to correct on it, but it's just changed hands and. First of December and. You know, the tenants that are in it are the tenants that were inherited in the purchase. This seems like it kind of dings the new owner. They're not really. They're not to blame for what's gone on at this property and they, they might be able to change the culture. I know from speaking to them that the. Lease with this bunch is up at the end of May and they don't plan to change it. So I'm. You know, this. This could. This could hurt. People who buy properties like this in the, in the middle of a lease term. Rob, do you have any thoughts. On section C three C. Just wondering what we do with. What we do with the property. The property that was signed. Which it often is the case that, that they already have a fully executed lease for, for the upcoming. Season. I'm not sure what that would be. I mean, technically they'd be in violation of the bylaw and there'd be a 300, potentially a $300 a day fine going to the owner, right? And the owner still signs a lease anyway. You're in the same boat. That's, that's not, that's not the case here. This is. This is a permit denial, not a suspension. So the app, the applications made. They were designated a nuisance property. Two months ago or six months ago, it doesn't matter, but they already have their lease signed for. The next tenants that are coming in when they're filing the application on July 1st. They're not going to be in the same boat. They're not going to be in the same boat. Because they do these way in advance, right? They, they often do that way in advance. Yes. So denying it. We would. We would run into problems with an executed lease. But wouldn't that be the kind of landlords. Issue. You know, if they, if they were in violation of the terms of the lease, they wouldn't be responsible for what happens with that lease that signed for the next period. Right. But it's the same reason why we, when we look at suspension, we put it off until the end of the lease term. So we don't have to get into those. Legal challenges between tenant and landlord and eviction. But would we in this case, because you're not evicting someone. I mean, they can't. No, they wouldn't, they wouldn't be delivering the unit. Right. What would happen if it was condemned? If it was, if it was condemned, they couldn't move in and the, the owners responsible for. Whatever financial responsibility is to provide other housing or. Whatever. Might the owner have to do it in this case? I mean, they. They're. They have a problem or nuisance property. So they can not do that. They can't do that. They can't do that. They can't do that. They can't do that. They can't do that. They can't do that. They have a problem or nuisance property. So they cannot renew their permit. For the next lease period. So it seems that they're responsible for making good on what they. The contract they've entered into or the lease agreement with their tenants for the next year. Because they. Have not followed the bylaw. They have not followed the bylaw. They have not followed the bylaw. They have not followed the bylaw. They have not followed the bylaw. They have not followed the bylaw. They have not followed the bylaw. Then we could never. Suspend a revoke. Well, I guess my. What I'm concerned about, I guess is. You know, based on what we talked about last meeting. So three trash violations. 11 months ago. Will. Cause a permit to be denied. Because it received a designation. Designation of a nuisance property. So we have to wait a month before we can issue that permit. So. Signed lease that we're going to have to figure out what. Well, the owner's got to figure out your right. What to do. But, you know, we know how that goes. So I just, just wondering about the situations we would be creating with this. Pam. Is there any way to flat. Flag a, a violation or a pending. Like problem. Once it's a problem house, just. You really clear in that, in that process and somehow have a. A standing list that. The following properties are have been designated problem, problem properties. It's a, it's a prelude to a nuisance property. It's a prelude to having a permit denied. And, and. That notification to that owner at the problem property. You know, the owner. At that point. Does be where, you know, when you go to sign up people for your, for next year's lease. You need to have these problems. These issues solved so that you don't. Get yourself into a pickle. Could instead of the designated a nuisance property within the previous 12 months be similar to, could we rephrase that? Yeah. I mean, I mean, that potentially Rob solve some of your concerns similar to is currently subject to a suspension or evocation order is currently designated a nuisance property because presumably. I mean, we don't know what this bylaw, the nuisance property bylaw looks like right now, right? We're still in the middle of it, but presumably. Once things are fixed. You might be able to undesignated a nuisance property, right? And that's what I was thinking is I think that could work, but we have to make sure we're clear what it, what it means to be currently a nuisance property. And when does that end? And that'll probably happen in that bylaw. Yeah. So within, instead of within the past prior 12 months, I think, I think current does kind of work. We can put it in this. We can put it in. For now. Yeah. I think we're going to move on to the next slide. I think we're going to move on to the next slide. Shalini. Before we move on to F4 and below. I think we're going to discuss this more in the nuisance bylaw itself, but I'm just thinking like what we are hoping to create here is a system where. The landlords get enough notice and the town staff. Is. Helping them solve the cause and conditions for them failing. So we're going to start with the landlords. We're going to start with the landlords. And then we're going to start one, two, three, and they're out. Kind of a thing. It's more like. Working with the landlords to. Make sure that the landlords have created a system and it happens the first time. And they clean it. But then it happens again a second time. So the second time is where like, what is the system you have put in place. To make sure that this is not happening again. Have you hired a. You know, cleaning whatever. And we can't hire a new landlord. We can't hire a new landlord. We can't hire a new tenant, but we have contracted with companies. Of course it comes down to the smaller landlords who don't have contractual. And I was, you know, we were renting in Utah and we couldn't be, we didn't have a. Management company. So if anything happened and we were renting to students in a rental. In a neighborhood and was a big issue for the neighbors, but we were. You know, I don't know, whatever. So we're gonna go into more detail, but I'm hoping that the system doesn't just sound like we are penalizing and, you know, it's game over, but we're working with the landlords to have a system in place. Does that seem like it's doable? I mean, I think that's the goal of this one and that tiered system under the redraft of the nuisance property by law that we'll get to at future meetings. So it should, yeah. So then it shouldn't come to the point where they've leased out again when they already have this current nuisance thing they haven't figured out. So which is why the current makes sense, I guess. We're gonna move on to the rest of section F4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Anything? Seeing none. Anything with section G? Let's do G1 application requirements. And many, again, a reminder, many of the requirements have been moved to the regulations, which if we get through this in the next eight minutes, we'll be able to start first next time we bring these up. But yeah, so that question you had, Shalini, about tenant names and all would be dealt with in the regulations. Anything with application requirements? Seeing none. Application process or fees? And then we'll move on. So F2 or H? I had something with H2. This phrase unpaid unit. So I think my comment is right now it says a late fee charge equal an amount to the required permit fee per unpaid unit shall be imposed. I think it just should say required permit fee shall be imposed because we haven't been doing permit. I think that phrase, not knowing what the structure will look like, I think the phrase is what we want. We just want an equal amount to the permit fee, period. Yeah, yeah. I think it's that. And then it would just say a late fee and charge an equal an amount to the required permit fee shall be imposed after the date of the permit payment due. That's a weird phrasing. Maybe we'll fix that one. And every 30 days thereafter. Okay, anything else in fees or application process? Seeing none, I inspections. I can't put it all on the page, but anything in I one, I know there's a two, three or four. So we're just dealing with anything in I one. I almost had all of I one. So two, three, four, five, six. Section J. That one's fairly straightforward. Hold on, hold on. Can we go back please? Sure. The energy efficiency standard. So that was, that was I two. We just had that conversation proof of clients with residential rental property energy efficiency standards adopted by regulation under this by-law should be permitted. Should be submitted with the application. If you don't know if we're going to do that. If there's zero requirement in our by-laws, then we shouldn't be mentioning it here. And if we're just place holding, that's, I guess, okay. So the regulations have some standards in there or energy, it's not standards. Maybe the word is energy efficiency requirements or something because the regulations right now have some requirements in there that they would have to submit proof for. They're not really standards at this point, but they're requirements. We haven't talked about them yet. Right, but right now they do. So we can change this to requirements. And if we delete that in the regulations, we would come back and delete that here, right? So maybe we just make a note to that effect. Yep, Jennifer. Yeah, I have, I'm sorry to take us back to under application G. It's a little long D1. So it has to do with additional information concerning each residential rental property as set forth in regulations adopted under this by-law, including but not limited to. So again, this was something that was brought to me, but is that when you get into envelope efficiency presence, I mean, this is just something that the inspector is going to note, or is that something that will be on the application requirement? Right now it would have to be on the application as questions that the applicant would have to fill out. If we're concerned with the specificity of this, one thing we could do is just have D say, stop it, stop it, the word under this by-law period. And then in the regulations, if we still wanted to do energy efficiency, we could do it there because, you know, we definitely need D up to under this by-law because that's how we add everything else in the regulations. So I mean, I know that we want to, you know, be able to have the information on, you know, how energy efficient and what is being done to help, you know, become more efficient in all, you know, our dwellings in town. So I'm kind of torn here, but I feel like if there's a way, if there are things that are feeling really overly burdensome, if, you know, where we can help ease that, it would be nice to do that. So the thing to do might be to delete it from the by-law, but potentially keep it in the regulations that would give us more flexibility. If we're looking for flexibility, once a by-law is adopted to tailor the regulations to what's necessary, because if it's in the by-law, they have to ask, right? And so with this number one, you have to ask about all of this. So John and Rob, I mean, what do you think of this? I'm not sure I have comments or want to make them. I mean, I'm trying to think of any places I've been in that, you know, in my previous incarnation as a builder, I built high efficiency homes and I can't think of any rental units I've been in that I would call high efficiency. This is fine to keep in there if you want to use it as a way to collect information and I think that's probably valuable. Okay, then maybe we should. I mean, I'm not, I do, and I think that is probably the intent of why it was there was to gather information. Pam? Yeah, I think I would actually like to see it go to the regulations because I think we haven't determined yet the extent of which we collect information about energy efficiency and who's actually collecting the data and who's using it, what would the information be used for? So rather than tie up a bylaw with any kind of future manipulations of it, that's pretty, pretty onerous. So I wouldn't mind seeing that section one, go to regulations. So I have temporarily thrown it into a comment in the latest regulation document. So that we don't forget to deal with it there. And it then adds more flexibility to change what we're asking for too. Okay, back to, we were on. I think we were on. Yeah, so I think we're moved on to K, but we were on I and the energy efficiency. We noted that we have to make short confirms to the regulations if there are no standards or requirements there. To start, maybe we don't wanna put it in or maybe we want a different wording. So I've noted that. Anything else before we go to K? Disclosure notification requirements. Shalini. So for the occupancy limits, do we like, what is the proof of compliance that is asked and how, I guess enforcement is later, but at this point, what is the proof? Robert, John, how would they prove that on an application? I mean, is this where we're asking for Lisa's, Rob? Well, I think they're just plugging in a number, right? In the application process. Shalini, go ahead, go ahead. Is your question, how do you actually prove the number of occupants or is it a valid thing to ask them on the form? Yeah, I mean, I'm just trying to understand what are we, I mean, I guess we're trying to get a confirmation from them that they're sticking to the occupancy limits, but what do we take as evidence that they are for that? Is it the lease or is it just the end of the number we're taking the word for it? So they have to somehow, right as it's written in order to get a permit, they have to prove compliance with the occupancy limits and they have to prove compliance with all laws and regulations. And how do they prove that? And how do they prove that is the question, right? I mean, I guess Rob and John, how would you have them prove compliance with items three and four? Five and six is because we're asking them to submit plans. So that's the proof, but three and four, what would you say proves compliance with three and four? Yeah, I wonder if truth is the right word for that because I don't know how they could prove compliance without providing something like a lease and laws and regulations compliance with laws of regulation that's more like the kind of the self-serve vacation process that we have now. They can check a box saying that they are in compliance with. So some sort of a statement, it might be a simple, it might be that maybe we make a statement that they're checking off and signing to that they're in compliance with both occupancy limits and applicable laws and regulations. Yeah, less a truth, a proof and more an acknowledgement. Here by acknowledging that I'm in compliance with occupancy limits. So I'm just going to conform this one to the last one. Sadly, we shouldn't have to say that because it's already in the zoning bylaws. Yeah, I mean, so does number three needs set at all if they're checking off compliance with local bylaws and regulations as well as state fired is three duplicative of four or a subset of four? It's still needed. I think so too. So just to check off on the application that they comply with and then because of all the other things about the truthfulness of those, that's where if they weren't truthful there and you went in and saw it wasn't that that's where you could cite them for putting in a non-truthful application or something. Hammer time. Okay. That work shall I? Okay, so we're going to stop here. I'm going to make a note that we start at K the next time we bring this up because I want to move on to the next agenda item. If we end that agenda item before 6.30 we'll come back to this agenda item again but I want to move on to that one. So we are going to stop this share. The next agenda item is review and possible vote on the report the engagement report that Shalini has been working on. Shalini, Elena is in the audience. Do you want Elena brought in? Yeah, that would be very nice. Thank you. Because Elena has worked on this too. So I have Elena should be able to join us now. Hello, welcome Elena. Okay, so Shalini and Elena do you want to talk about the changes you've made and then we'll do the similar thing that we just did when we're reviewing stuff. So we'll do the similar thing we just did with the rental bylaw draft with your draft and if we can get through it, hopefully we can vote. Okay, so first I just want to thank everyone. There were at least three or four councillors who provided feedback and there's still some pending questions which I'm hoping I will be able to clarify but I did try to address all of the concerns. And again, I think this is a new thing we're trying to do which is really have a very involved process or an intentional process around community engagement. And so it's still a work in progress and we've learned a lot I think in this process. The one learning I want to state upfront is that two learnings, one, which I will share is the benefits of collecting quantitative data through survey questions which we did and the quantitative data was around rating. So you give a number of items to the different stakeholders and we asked them to rate their satisfaction from highly satisfied to highly dissatisfied and there is benefit in that because you get quantitative numbers which is on page 15, we can see what people rated their satisfaction dissatisfaction on. But then we also asked open-ended questions and there is value in that which we asked in terms of trying to understand people's lived experiences in Amherst which was just left open. What do you love about living here? What are your challenges? What would you like to see changed? And I just want to give one example of the value of asking an open-ended question is that on page 15 where we have asked the quantitative data and energy efficiency was rated as one of the top five issues of concern for tenants. And so that's on page 15 I believe. And so about 35% of the tenants rated that energy efficiency as being dissatisfied or yeah, I think it's the next page over. Yeah, that one. Yeah, it's really going in. But anyways, the 35% of the people, tenants reported energy efficiency being dissatisfied with that or highly dissatisfied. But in the open-ended questions when we asked people about their challenges what would they like to see? There were very few mentions about energy efficiency. So that you can kind of see the value of and on the flip side, we did not ask about occupancy limits, we did not ask about noise or certain other things like we didn't ask about housing shortage or occupancy limits, issues of noise, complaint process for tenants. But those are issues that came up from the data, from the people without any kind of prompting and them saying that there were these issues. So I just want you all to have a sense that there is this, there's a benefit of having some quantifiable data and some open-ended data. Now the open-ended data, how do we draw inference from it or how do we draw value from it? So which is where that process of tagging comes in and it's inductive process which means we're not coming in with a priori ideas only looking for what was on a survey item. We were tagging each word. So there were thousand pieces of responses. And so we look at each response and say, okay, if they talked about cost that's tagged as cost. If they said occupancy limit, we called it a foretenant. If it was noise, we tagged it as noise trash. So we kind of do that. Now there is human error which I know there were two and I've corrected them. So here is where the second learning comes in that it's really good even though I had Elena working with me on this. It's generally you want a radar into radar reliability. So it's generally good for two people. So I would say in the future maybe two counselors need to look into it along with Elena to kind of get that lance that are we coding it in the true spirit of what is being said. So we code the different things and that's how we came up with the different main qualitatively the issues that came from the qualitative data were related to cost about the quality of housing which we knew the noise related issues were really large for residents. And within each of them there are some we tried to look at each issue from the perspective of the tenant, the neighbors and the landlords. And the hope for that is that we create more sensitivity and at home for each other's perspectives. So within each of them I'm hoping that all of us can take away including staff will take away some things but the landlords can look at some of the things like for example related to noise. It was very clear that often tenants or even neighbors don't know about the noise by law. Like they don't, either they don't know that it exists or even if they did know, they didn't know what the timing was so they were asking for the police to come in at nine o'clock for instance because there was someone playing music in the house and it was too loud. So those are kind of things that are it seems like education letting people know what are the bylaws in that town seems to be like a very important issue that's coming up. And other than that I think I could go into maybe look at if it's helpful we could start from just quickly go over the quantitative data and then we can go into the executive summary because I think the important thing is to first agree that this is what we are hearing and learning from our constituents which is the last part of the report and then we can see like if you're agreeing that these are the issues coming up then how do we use that information? How do different people like mainly I try to look at it from the rental that's the executive report is what we've heard from tenants landlords and neighbors how can that inform or at least keep that in mind as we're looking at the rental registration which I think we're looking at a lot of the things but it's nice to have that as a record. So I didn't know many of everyone if that's helpful to start with some of the issues that came up in the qualitative data. So that would be under. So you wanna start at page 13 how we analyzed the data? Let me see. What's the background? Let's go forward a little bit. We would go to how we analyze the data. Okay, so we're gonna start at background and we'll do background down and then we'll come back to the first 10 pages but we'll do the last 20 or so and then come back to the first 10. So background I'm gonna make it a little smaller so I can potentially get most of the page on. Everyone has a copy of this it's in the packet. So background is just one page. Are there any requested changes to the background section? So I think should we go to the next page? Yep, okay. So because here there were a couple of things that did come up and I think we can decide what to do with that. So one is when we look at the, especially for overarching, the image, the picture there, overarching themes for year round residents and the four tenant rule as mentioned over there and for the neighbors, it was the lack of enforcement of the four tenant rule. So I'm wondering if that would make more sense rather than just saying four tenant rule. Jennifer. Yes, thank you. Yeah, okay. Yeah, but I need you with either. I would push back on that. Parking is in both. Yeah. If you look at some of these, I think what you tried to do, Shalini, is match the language in each. Right. And so if you put a, if you change the wording in the four tenant rule up in the sort of the neighbors to rental property section and you don't change it down here, you're implying different things potentially. And so I've always pictured trying to keep the language as consistent as possible. So, and I'm trying to breeze through some of this to see if there's other places that have similar things but the language is not the same. And I think the other thing, can I add to that, Mandi Jo? Yeah. Is that, you know, when you think of parking, they want parking, but it's the lack of parking or lack of enforcement around parking. So most of these issues in the year round residents were around the lack of enforcement of these issues around noise bylaw or parking or trash. I mean, all of these bylaws already exist. And I think most of the issues, including the four tenant, all of these rules and bylaws exist, but a lot of the complaints were coming because of the lack of enforcement of all of them. So unless we change the language around all of them, it's a lack of enforcement of the noise bylaw and lack of enforcement of parking. So, yeah. Jennifer, then Pam. Okay, two things. It could say four tenant rule enforcement. I think it has to be there because parking really struck me as being different. And parking was one of those items that that seemed to be one of the greatest concerns among all constituencies. So the residents, the tenants were saying they didn't have enough parking. The neighbors were saying, there's too many cars parked everywhere. And what I thought was interesting, but valid, is that the landlords of sort of the houses or duplexes or triplexes that weren't downtown, were saying, why do we have to provide parking when one East Pleasant didn't have to provide parking? So parking seemed to be much more, not just enforcement, but just the whole concept of parking and how it impacts the different stakeholders. And I, unless it says four tenant rule enforcement, I actually wouldn't be able to, it would be very problematic for me to approve the report because I think anything that's saying that that rule is problematic, that was not the takeaway for me from reading all those surveys. So I do see it as being different than parking. Pam. Yeah, I would say exactly the same thing. So then I would say we need to change the tenant responses because then you'd have to say the four tenant rule is not an accurate description of what the tenants were saying. They want a different rule. They don't want it enforced, right? That any additional enforcement and just the presence of that rule is a problem for them and they just define that. I wouldn't mind if you took it out altogether. The tenant, I wouldn't take it out of the tenant responses. I'm just saying it needs rephrased. No, no, but you could take it out of the qualitative analysis, quantitative analysis. Oh, wait, can we hear from Elena? Yes. Elena? If we're speaking exclusively about the image on the right, just the graphs, I think it's just mainly touching on the presence of those themes in all of the data rather than the implication of those words. Cause I agree if we change, if we add enforcement, which I think would be helpful for the context of the year round residence, we would probably also have to change parking as well. Cause it depends on how you view, but it is the theme is talking about or what it is that the theme will be. I think it's mainly just talk, the presence of the words on those visuals are just about the presence of the theme in the data that we found. Jennifer? Yes, see, I find that, I guess it's problematic that just, you know, when I read the tenant surveys, I believe there were like eight out of the eight. 10 out of 77. Right, and there were like 39 on the 10. I mean, it gets very. Yes, it is an issue. I just, I find that's why I am uncomfortable with this report and you know that. I think it's, things are, you know, if somebody said something once while it's valid, I mean, of course the students want to be able to live as many people as they can. I mean, that doesn't even, that would go without saying I would want that too if I was, you know, 19 and going to college. But I don't think that what came out of the report was that we need to, that this is problematic just because everybody doesn't. And I think it's presence there. Somebody two years from now, we're not in the room. They're going to look at this and say, oh, this is for tenant, you know, rule or is problematic. And I just, maybe we should, it's, it's there to raise a question about something that I don't think was born out in enough of the survey responses that it rise, that it's, you know, I think if something said a hundred times and something says once, and I'm not saying that I'm just throwing that as an example, that's not, that's problematic if it appears equally in the report. Okay, can I respond to that? Because I think there, you know, this is raising a lot of issues. And I think there's, just to move forward with it, let's make the, let's see if we can make it parallel in that sense with respect. Because as Elena was saying, we were just pointing the team. But as Jennifer also said, if someone else said reads the report and they just see this, they're gonna draw their own conclusions about it. Oh, the four tenant rule is a bad idea. So that's not what the residents were saying because what they were saying is it's the unenforcement of it. That's a problem. And if that makes it clearer for everyone, let's just do that. That's what I would say. And I think in terms of again, what is important and not important? I think 12 and a half percent of the tenants raised it without being asked about it. And more than, and I think Pam sent me, she said there were like 30, that was 30% of the residents raised the unenforcement of it as an issue. And Pam added the question, which I've included is why is it not being enforced? So in the executive summary, the conclusion we're drawing from this is that a further discussion is needed as Pam also added, why is this not being enforced? So we need a further discussion around what is the enforcement? How are we enforcing it? Why is it not being enforced? And all I'm saying is that it needs, it's not saying we should change the rule, it's just saying further discussion is needed to address the concerns that came up or maybe not even address, but to at least talk about the concerns that came out of this. Does that sound? Pam? Pam, and then John. So I had a question about, actually what constituted a theme that you know, was it the seven people that said, we want to be able to live with our, with our girlfriend or friends, they are able now to live with their girlfriend or friends, there's nothing stopping them that has anything to do with the four person rule that is allowing them to live with their girlfriends or friends. They just have to find a place together where the four of them can live legally. So again, so I don't know really how many tick constitutes a theme. It didn't seem like a theme for the tenants. I think anything about, I mean, that's again for a committee to decide for us if it came up more than five or seven times included, but in specifically with the respected tenants, it was 12 and a half percent of the tenants raised it. So it's above 10% of the people talking about it. So it's not again saying that we again, I'm not saying because the tenants are asking that we should broaden it. That's what we should do, but because that's what the tenants are saying, but all it's saying is that these are questions in people's minds that why is it there? So maybe it requires education and the neighbors are like, why is this not being enforced? Why do I have 12 cars outside? So it is something we need to discuss. And I'm okay with adding the uninforced and John. Yes, John. Just a quick question about how many responses were there? So there were 77, I mean, this is when, okay, and that's another disclaimer that, okay. This data is analyzing 77 tenants who responded and I think 97 or 98 residents who responded. Oh, man, I was having a heart attack there. Okay, 100 people. So 250 total responses at the time this was. The final number of responses before we closed the survey was 278 responses. Cause it's not, it's not correct that it's not being enforced. It's being enforced. Maybe it's not, maybe, you know, like that it's not being enforced as often as you'd like, but it's being enforced. Okay, Jennifer, Jennifer and then we're gonna move on. We'll move on to the next page cause this seems to be the only comment on this page. I wish that too. Yeah, no, I was, yeah, there were, you know, I don't know if it's enforcement, I guess it is, you know, a lot of the neighbors, you know, or certain maybe 39 out of the 278, I don't know what the exact number of surveys, I think it was 39 said that they were, it was problematic for them that there were more than four students living next door or whatever. Yeah, because you can only enforce what's reported to you or go out and check on. Yeah, so that's how, so it's feeling, I think, to the neighbors that it's not being enforced, but it's a very hard one to enforce, but it's very important to the neighbors that it be enforced, yeah. Thank you. Just to, again, just wrap up this part, is it for rule on, like what was the language we agreed on for rule on enforce? We haven't Unenforced. We've read on full language for either of them. The request for under the neighbors was for tenant rule enforcement. There was a problem with figuring out what you could change in the tenant graphic to accurately reflect what the tenants were, what their themes were regarding that rule. And it was, it's harder to change that graphic and language to convey a similar phrasing and theme that the change in the neighbor responses would convey. For tenant limit. That's what they don't want. Yeah, limit, mm-hmm. For, yeah, let's just make that for tenant limit for, that's what they don't want for different reasons, for tenant limit, for tenants. And then for neighbors, Pam, you wanted to say something? Pam. I would agree with that, but then, and for year round, it's for tenant rule, unenforced. Unenforcement. Yeah. And, John, no offense, but that is all that we hear is that there appear to be too many people living next door to me because there are always six cars. Yeah. We know that they are not, they're not being held, it's not your fault, they're not being held to the rules. Moving on. Okay, one other thing which I actually noticed is which I think we should remove is the one under landlord themes and it says preferential treatment and there was actually only one person who said that they felt that they were not being, that they were being discriminated against. It was just, I've been through again, unfair, preferential discrimination and I didn't find anyone else other than that one, so maybe that's one we do need to remove. That's not a high enough percentage. Yeah, like they should be at least five people or at least 10%, I mean, in the future we can come up with these numbers moving forward, but I think for now it's safe to say that only one person said it and I don't think, we can add it as a comment but not remove it from the main theme. Okay, on to what we heard qualitative analysis, I'm gonna page through slowly, but all section one, section two, a lot of this is graphics without a lot of wording. So if there's anything on page 14, 15, 16, raise your hand. I think just the point of interest is that 88% of the tenants is more for the staff I think maybe, that 88% of the tenants view who to contact in case of maintenance, but the neighbors don't know if they have a problem. 45% of them said they knew who to contact in case of building or safety code violations. So I thought that was interesting. Pam and Jennifer, pages 14, 15 and 16. Yeah, this is on Q23. Please rate your dissatisfaction for the following items. I don't think the noise was not included, so there was no way to voice concern about noise. But we can't change that. That was an error in the question. Yeah, but it's not even an error, Manichu, because the way we drew the questions was based on the criteria that were related to the rental registration. And that's why we have open-ended questions is that in case as a surveyor, we did not anticipate this is a big thing, then it shows up later on. And that's one of the questions that the counselors has raised was why are there more items for the tenants versus if you look at there are more items, I think 13 and there only eight or whatever, something like that, items for neighbors. And that's because some of the issues that we asked about were pertaining to more, we tried to keep the survey questions identical for all the three constituents, stakeholders, but like energy efficiency of a home or internal, let's say, security in the building or access to maintenance of the building. These are more related to tenant questions. So that's why they didn't feature on the neighbor side. Pam and Jennifer. That was my question. Why not include it? Jennifer. I'm sorry. I don't know how I missed on page that we already went by the page seven. So I don't know. You didn't start there. We started at 11. Okay, so we'll go back. Come back to one to 10, yes. Okay, okay. Okay. We're trying to get through 11 down to 34 first. Yeah, and the reason for doing that, Jennifer, is because we just first come into an agreement that the data that we collected, the analysis we did, we're all on the same page. Okay, that's fine. Qualitative analysis. There are eight sections. I will, we can see all eight sections here, but in terms of what the sections are, it is the next 17 pages of documents. So are there any requested concerns or changes or revisions to section one stakeholder perspectives on costs? It's multiple pages and mostly quotes. So the only thing I would have is, I just had a couple of formatting things, which is, you know, a space here, a couple of things there on some of these additional quotes, and then they're missing quotes. So it wasn't clear whether they were actual quotes from the surveys. So just going through and fixing all of that and some font issues and stuff that showed up in a lot of the quotes that were added and all. I know word can be crazy. And it was like also because there's so many, the spacing and the font and size can all be cleaned up once we agree. So anything with, if nothing else with cost, housing and maintenance number two. While we're going through these, I think I had some thoughts about the manner, the final portrayal of the key insights and the questions. And there was some liberty taken in formulating the key insights, because sometimes they were simply not insights. They were simply a comment that somebody made, which is very different than a real insight. Do you have any requested changes to them for either cost or quality of housing and maintenance? I'm trying to figure out what page my notes are and it's probably, it's on the first section, one through 10 or something like that. Okay, so not on these pages. They don't appear to be. Okay, section three, noise related issues. Seeing no hands. And hopefully this will hopefully be used when we do the nuisance battle laws and stuff. I think a lot of these questions are, who's accountable, who's responsible and things like that. So this is, I'm just going to point out, this is one where the sizing doesn't match across the three ones. There's a bunch of them on the landlord one that got bigger for some weird reason. So just go through and check them. Parking, requested changes under parking. It's a hold on, hold on back to key insights page 21, key insights, questions pertaining to noise. You know, how the, I'm just going to say it again, it's just generally how the specific questions get formulated, one through five. Oh, the questions. I mean, this is like I started us off, but if anyone wants to read like what they saw and this isn't based on the, what people were saying, I tried to pull out questions. This is totally, we can remove them if anyone doesn't agree and we can add to them. Like the idea is not just that we collect the data, it's like, what do we do with that data? What does it make us think? And how do we use that information? You know, like so in terms of noise, the landlords were saying, just charge the tenants $300 and they will never make noise again. Whereas, you know, the tenants were saying something else, like, or, you know, they were like, well, we're doing it, but the neighbors don't know, and then the neighbors all like, you know, so everyone had their own perspective. So how do we use these different perspectives to inform the nuisance by law that we are going to be writing? So that's the, that was the intent behind the questions, but I'm totally okay with, like that was the other thing, ways to make quiet ours known to tenants and neighbors, because that seemed like many people did not know about the noise by law. Even the tenants, many of them don't know. Any requested changes? No. As you'll go through it, please feel free to send me questions because we can add them. I can definitely add more questions that are coming to your mind related to what we discovered. Parking, which was section four, I've paged through, because we were almost on that. Any requested changes? Say none, complaint process and fine. Any requested changes? And in terms of parking, and I just pointed out, because that keeps coming up, people have that perception that the downtown buildings are getting a preference over. So I think just letting everyone know there's parking requirements based on the different zoning is different. So it's not that they've been treated preferentially, it's just that it's in the downtown. Well, but there's, yeah, but it's still true. I mean, I'm not even happy. I'm just saying if somebody in... It's the law, yeah. Right. But I think they need to know that this is the, but it's not like there's... The law preferences, not the individual... They still feel right. It's not a board or committee or the staff referencing. It's the law we've written. Which is different. And which is why I had that question. Do we need to revisit the parking requirements? And the don't... I think so, yes. Or clarify them in the lease? No, probably revisit. Complaint process and fines. Any requested changes? You can see the team over here, like when I'm seeing these issues, it's like just saying, like, do we need to have a discussion around this? Do we need to look at it? That's what's happening here. The term is this. This is complaint process and fines. Yeah, this one is... I've basically just been paging down to the key insight and questions and holding there as I look to see if anyone has any changes. And if not, I'll move on to the next set. Yeah, this was a big one for tenants, right? Elena, I don't know if you want to add anything to the complaint. Do the tenants generally, or at least student tenants, do they know what the complaint process is? Who to complain to? And anything? From the data, we were just finding that a lot of, or from responses I was reading that a lot of people when they wanted to complain weren't sure where to go or were upset that they didn't know like the landlord's names and I didn't have enough communication between either law enforcement, the landlords and the neighbors or residents nearby. Any requested changes? Relationship between tenants, neighbors and landlords. Yes, Shalini. One last thing is, that's for this, for maybe, John, are landlords informed when police is called to their properties or if the landlord, because one of them said that if the landlord hears noise or sees some violation, I think it was for noise, they're not allowed to notify because they're not a party that's impacted. You have to be a neighbor to make a noise violation call and then they feel that they're gonna be affected because it's their property. But on the other hand, they cannot complain about the noise. John? Do, so is the question, do the landlords know if there's a noise complaint? No, so two things. One is, can a landlord complain about a noise violation in their property even though they're not a neighbor to that property? No, they can't. Right, so that was kind of what neighbors complain. And then our landlords informed when police is called to their properties. Yes, so every Monday, officer Laramie rounds up the noise complaints for the weekend and sends it to all the landlords. There's a mass email that goes out. Okay, great. Any requested changes to the relationship between tenants, neighbors and landlords? Pam? No, I just, but I do at some point not right now come back to John about why someone who is, and maybe physically, fiscally and physically responsible for some of these violations not be able to file a complaint themselves. And I just want to come back to it another time. Great, that's why that question is there. All right, next one was the... Any requested changes to relationship between tenants, neighbors and landlords? Interestingly in the survey, the quantity of data, both resident neighbors and tenants rated their relationship with the neighbors and tenants as an important one and that it was dissatisfactory. So I don't know what we can do what the staff can do but just putting it out into the universe that if there are some cases where residents really make the tenants feel welcome. There's a brownie week and whatnot. And in some cases, the tenants are really respectful. They help the elders in the neighborhood and everything is great. And in other cases, it's just the opposite. So how can we replicate what is working well into other neighborhoods? Any requested changes on the perspectives regarding the occupancy limit and zoning, other zoning issues? I think... Is it where there's like font issues and size issues and stuff like that too? And Jennifer, you had a question about transparency. Like how to promote more transparency from brokers and real estate agents related to neighborhoods that residents are moving. Should I remove that? Does that make sense, that question? Yeah, I think, I know that came from one. I told you my concern. Yes, I think that realtors have a responsibility to be clear with a client, what some of the concerns in the neighborhoods are. But I was just afraid that with that, it could be interpreted as a form of redlining where it's like beware of buying in a neighborhood where there's a lot of... Where there's a lot of student rentals. I think that that could be problematic. So we can remove that. Yeah. And I think it was only in one survey that that was expressed. What? Okay. Remove that, delete. Occupancy limits, any requested changes to that? This one had a lot of changes from the last question. Let me just... Pete. No, wait a minute, excuse me, let's go back. I think you highlighted the wrong one, Mandy. It should be number two. Sorry. Thanks for that. Yeah. That's good you're doing it there. Okay, good. Stakeholder and then wait, wait. Okay. So one counselor sent me that they don't like the word for tenant and wanted it to be occupancy. Is that, I just put both. Is that something? I mean, I don't see the two as different, but a counselor who's not in this committee was concerned and decided, no, no, no. It shouldn't be for tenant. It's about occupancy. But in this committee, do we see that as, yeah. I prefer four occupants because they could, and we know they do only put four people on the lease, but there are more occupants than tenants. So even occupants not quite correct because we don't have a strict four occupant limit. It's unrelated. It's a four unrelated individual limit. In the non-occupant. And can I just add? It's actually four non-related individuals in a non-owner occupied dwelling because if it's owner occupied, it doesn't. I think it doesn't matter whether it's owner occupied or not if there are four unrelated individuals. No, because you could have eight people, but then you're related. You're related. John, does it matter? I was just going to say, in the sanitary code, it's always occupants. It only talks about occupants. They never use the word tenants. So that's just from, you know, Mass General Law. But John, is it true that if it's owner occupied, you don't have the four non-related, like if I'm living in my house. If you're living in your house and you want to rent three bedrooms, you can do that. But could I rent the three bedrooms to six people? No. No, even if it's owner occupied, really? Yeah. Yes. Yeah. It's a four unrelated individual. It's in our definitions of the zoning by-law. Go read the definition of the by-law. I honestly thought it didn't apply to owner occupied, okay? It applies to all residential buildings. So maybe we changed that wording to four unrelated. It's going to be so long. Occupant. Okay, occupant. Can we just say occupant and then define what we mean by that? Yeah. No, because you have to talk about unrelated because it's not an occupant limit. It's an unrelated occupant limit. Right. Jennifer and Pam? You can have six kids. And yeah. Pam? Yeah. In this case, I think it's shorthand for what we're talking about. And I think at the very beginning, where it's introduced for the first time, we talk about four unrelated occupant. But I think here it's just a title. And so I don't think we need to be as quite as concerned with this kind of just. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Any other requested changes? Yes. I have, I'm not comfortable because I don't think it's really necessarily accurate. It is also noted as discriminatory against students. I don't think that's phrased. Oh, okay. You can change that. It's a little too notice. Oh, that's because I think- I know you're saying that sometimes they don't want to complain if they have more people living there. But I don't, that would apply to any occupancy. And I don't think we're gonna get, you know, any occupancy limit. Could it? Yeah, I would have to go back and see where that language came from. But I think the history of the reason there is a four unrelated occupant definition in the bylaw is directly directed towards the fact that we are a college town, that most towns don't even consider occupancy limits. I could be wrong on that. And so if it really is a product of our demographics of being a college town, then it could be noted as discriminatory against students. But I think we need to figure out where that language came from before we decide whether to- Yeah, so I would push back against saying it's discriminatory against students to have an occupancy limit. Most towns- That's a very loaded statement. Oh, thank you, John. Most towns do? Yes. Okay. Of unrelated? Yeah, and when I started working at this job, I, you know, did a little bit of research on that. And it goes, it's three, it's four, it's five, but it's in that range. So we could maybe eliminate this phrase and say it is also noted, it is also used by landlords. But is it okay? I mean, is it- Or it was noted that it is used by landlords. That's true though. I mean, it may be happening, but are landlords literally intending that? So landlords are- Okay. They are telling the tenants that. Go ahead and complain, you'll get kicked out. But there, so the landlords are letting them have more than four. So- So when- The problem is- With health and safety, they're then saying, well, fine, complain, but you might get kicked out of your house. Okay. So that's where we need to enforce the occupancy limit. So it's like the onus isn't, this is suggesting that the onus is on the town to get rid of the limits because it's creating, you know, this is happening. No, this is why we have to really enforce it so that this doesn't happen. Okay. So can I just say from where it's coming, it says two different reasons. One was where we just talked about where tenants can't complain and the landlords are using it. The second one is the direct code down there, the lack of ability to have more. If I want to live with more, I should be able to do this discriminatory of college students preventing- It's basically where they were saying that if they're not, they can't live with people that they want to live. But they can, they just can't live with an indefinite number. Nobody's saying you can't live with a friend or you can't live with your partner. They're just saying you can, you can live with three friends and partners in addition to yourself. But it's the part, like in the sense if there are four paying people and they're not, they don't want, like they need, like they're already a partnership, then that's one group and they need more rent from three other people. So then you're saying we can count one of the partners as one of the tenants. I mean, you can live with your- It's a significant other and two other roommates. Well, so I think what they're saying, but we don't want to get into the challenge, but I think what they're saying is it's a four bedroom house and there is a couple that want to occupy one of those bedrooms. This limit does not allow them to actually fill the other three bedrooms. That's correct. Yeah. And I think that's what that comment was relating to of it doesn't allow them to do that because they can't actually rent. All bedrooms, two people are going to occupy one of the bedrooms. Because we're saying you can only have four people, but you have four people flooding the rent, even if there's a couple. But then you've got a room empty. You do. Any other changes to this section? So how will that, so I would ask this baby jumping ahead that we come back. I know we want to finish it today with a final clean copy so we know what we would be voting on. We're going to try and get through the next three pages and then we will come back. We'll get Shalini to adjust those pages and then we'll still have to do one to 10. Okay. But we won't retouch on these because we'll have been through these. But we'll get to see the final what it looks like. Yes. In the future agenda and a future packet the fixed 11 to 34 we'll have to still do one to 10. Since we've seen these I would say just accept the changes in one to 10 because people know where their concerns are. We don't need to see the track change version in that just to make it easier to read. Right. And this is to clean up that way too. But we'll clean it up that way but we'll still have to review pages one to 10. Yes, yes, yes. I don't want to touch this, I'll accept it. These, I'm trying to get through the next three pages. Any other requested changes to the perspectives that arose? Section eight. Oh, and I was just gonna make that note in the climate change and environment that in the survey data, 35% was in the top five concerns the energy efficiency, but in the survey just highlight that, but in the survey not very few concerns were raised, including these. Okay. And that was the other counselor who's not in the committee said like, why do you have this because there were not many people who mentioned it but I think because we are trying to get that lens it was important to raise, put it there. And then even the social and racial equity there weren't many, there were not many responses but which also is telling us something that maybe we need to do a better job next time to ensure that we're getting more diversity in our response. And potentially, and asking questions related to these issues too. Thank you. We didn't ask the questions. So Pam, any other questions? Well, that was the other request. We didn't ask the right questions. Right, right. 34 is empty. I think that's for a reason. I would request that the next draft that come up give the appendix that I think you refer to in the first part, attach the appendix or if it's a separate document, that's okay but we should be able to see it. I think it's referred to somewhere in here. That's why I'm asking. Oh, the appendix. Yeah, I think I'll put it down at the bottom but actually all of those things are a hyperlink that is the appendix. I'll put it down again. Okay, just make sure the hyperlinks are there and somewhere in the document if that's the appendix. Okay, so we're gonna stop this. We still have pages one to 10 to do. We'll come back with that on a separate agenda at some other point and then hopefully be able to get to a vote. In the meantime, we've finished our review of everything past the table of contents. So it's the first sections before you hit table of contents that we're gonna have to review at a future meeting. I will ship the notes I took off to you Shalini so that you can see those notes from that. Yeah, and with that, we're gonna move on to, I believe we are on general public comment, public comments on matters within the jurisdiction of CRC up to three minutes. If you're interested, please raise your hand. We have one hand raised. Dorothy Pamm, please unmute yourself, state your name, where you live and make your comment. Okay, can you hear me now? We can. Yeah, I just wanted to comment that I thought that owner adjacent is not the same as owner occupied. Owner occupied means that if there's a smell in the house of bad cooking odors or mold or mildew, if there's a tenant who is behaving strangely and bizarrely, if there's noise things, only the people who live in the house are really aware of that. Somebody who lives next door doesn't, unless the houses are wall-to-wall and poorly constructed. So I do think that there's, I understand that an owner living nearby is some kind of protection, but it's not the same thing as owner occupied. That's it. Thank you for your comments, Dorothy. With that, there are no other hands. We are going to close the public comment period. Minutes. Are there any requested changes to the January 26th meeting minutes? Sorry, Mandy Jo. We have Elena here. Oh, yeah, sorry. Elena, thank you. You're going to ask for minutes. Yeah, so Elena, thank you for your time. Shalini, we'll keep you updated when we next have it on the agenda. It could be a little bit. I want to thank John and Rob for their time today too. We have a listening session on Monday. I don't expect John and Rob to come unless you want to. Our next meeting is next Thursday. And right now, the plan is a introduction to Pat and I's zoning proposal. And the other half of it would be returning to the public nuisance by-law for another look. When we get to future agenda items, we can talk about that plan and see if there's anything we'd like to change with that plan based on what we got to today. It's why that agenda is not posted yet. So thank you all for coming. We're going to do minutes and then we're going to talk about the next agenda and all. So minutes, are there any requested changes to the January 26th meeting minutes? Seeing none, I'm going to make the motion to approve the January 26th meeting minutes as presented. Is there a second? Second. We'll give that to Jennifer. Next week, Pam can have it. Any comments before we vote? Seeing none, we're going to vote. Shalini? Yes. Mandy is an aye. Pam? Yep. And Jennifer? Yes. They are adopted unanimously with one absent. And thanks to Kelly Miller for formulating them. Yes, and doing an excellent job. I don't have any announcements that aren't attached to agendas. So they kind of blend for me. So Jennifer? No, I'm just wondering if there's anything particularly due to prepare for Monday or just we'll be listening and asking questions. So let me go through what Pam and I have. Our next meeting is a special meeting that's on Monday. It's the listening session. Pam and I have sort of garnered a four-part process I would say. We're not sure we'll get to the fourth part. We'll see. Pam's looking to be like four. I'm counting nuisance by-law as part four. She's like, where's part four? So we have invited a variety of landlords that own a variety of numbers of dwelling units to participate in sort of a conversation with us. And so we've split that into sort of the number of dwelling units that might be owned or managed. And what we've done is ask them to contact us if they would like to be participants as panelists for portions of this listening session. And so we will start the listening session with those that want to participate in such a conversation that own or manage 15 or more dwelling units. And then after approximately a half an hour or so, we're gonna wait to see how many people are interested in this before we fully set these time limits. Then we will move on to those landlords that have expressed interest in property owners that manage or own less than 15 dwelling units across the town and do the same thing with them, recognizing that those that own more may have different concerns with the by-law than those that own less. After that, we will move to what I'm calling the community listening session. Anyone else, that's when we'll do sort of the listening session as we've done in the past, hopefully focused on the wording of the by-law and regulations where people are concerned about the specific language that we've got. Because we're inviting people in to be panelists for that first session, we will preference anyone who was not a panelist for that first session came in to sort of have that conversation in that listening session, the people who were in the audience for that basically and preference them for their comments if there are time, we will allow those that participated in that two sets of conversations to make more comments. If there is time after that, we're going to go to the public nuisance by-law and we're going to treat that portion of it if there is time as sort of the first listening session that we did, similar to the first listening session we did for this residential rental. Hey, what are your concerns? What are this to get a general idea to hopefully inform our next conversations regarding the nuisance by-law? No specifics, we're not concentrating on what the language is or the redrafted language, but more of what would you want to see out of one? What problems do you see with it right now? That sort of thing. Think back to our first listening session on residential permitting. So that's the plan. I'm tentatively planning three hours. So if we, in terms of trying to get everyone in, we'll take our measure at like two, two and a half depending on where we are. I don't know how long it will be. We've thought about a half an hour for each of the first two parts of conversation and then an hour for the rest of it. We'll see how we're feeling. The one that will get dropped is the nuisance part. If we're running and everything is long, that's what we'll drop because we have plenty of time to deal with that one later. You may have another session at some future. We may end up with another one in March or something dealing with public nuisance. Yeah, but trying to use these in theory, the same people might be interested. Let's try and get as much out of these as we can. So that's the plan. Any questions with that, Pam? Just a comment to Dave while you're still here that the notice for the listing session went to Steve McCarthy and Rob and John Thompson, I think John Thompson. And just to let them know to send that out to the list of owners renters or owners managers so that they are aware of it. I targeted a few that I am aware of that I have addresses for, but it clearly is not the whole list. So thanks. Sure, happy to do that. Did I understand from Mandy's earlier comment though that you specifically invited? So there was a request. Was there outreach other than an email where their calls made or? No, there were the emails that Pam sent. This process and this plan evolved after a request from a committee member to have the committee have a conversations with Caiman's realty, Pat Caiman's and Tom Crossman and have it as a committee one. And I thought a listening session would be the appropriate one. Pam and I talked about how we could do this and make it more fair. And so that's sort of where it started, which is why I said specific outreach to some. Pam this morning sent some emails directly to a number of landlords that she's aware of. And then we're hoping that with a request to sort of the Rob, I think you were on that email Dave to maybe get that forwarded to the permit list would be great to see if we can get more. I happened to be at the chamber of commerce breakfast this morning on another issue. And so there were a number of property managers there. And so I mentioned it there too because I happened to be there. So we're trying, I will send out this. I think Pam, did you send it to the whole council or I think I will send it out to the council to see if we can get them to spread the word too on this. It is on the engage Amherst webpage too. So we're trying, it's a little last minute because we didn't settle on this until Tuesday night, I think is when we settled and we've been working on language and all. Jennifer. I was just gonna say, I sent it to my district mailing list last night. So. Excellent. Okay, and I'll send out the language we've been using to the whole council so that everyone can forward that to people. What we're asking is that either Pam or I or preferably both be notified if a person wants to be part of that first set of conversations because we will be transferring people from the attendees into that. And we need to know numbers in order to estimate the amount of time they will have to converse with us as committee members. That conversation will start with them saying their concerns and then we can ask some questions of specific related to those concerns and all. So that's the 13th. We have a meeting next Thursday, that's a regular meeting. The plan was duplex, triplex preview and then returning to public nuisance. But given what we got and didn't get done today I'm tempted to remove public nuisance from the plan and put back regulations and bylaws. What are people's thoughts on that? I'll talk to Pam. I'm trying to get through a sort of good review of the bylaw and regulations so we can get some language and some mailings out to others. So that's why I'm trying to do that. But we won't do the report next week, that's not on. No, the report, we're not gonna have time. And this will give Shalini some time instead of a week. We probably will not get to the report again until March 16th. So March 2nd is the public hearing on the D'Angelis and Hanakie, our proposal on zoning. That's the only thing that is on that agenda. And I don't expect us to close the hearing that day. The planning board hearing will be the first so we'll know Chris will be able to report out on the second where the planning board stands on their hearing and if they've continued which I'm guessing they will what date they've continued to. But the plan is to only put the public hearing on the March 2nd meeting. Shalini. At least you did say you're gonna send us a language to send out to our districts. I will get that out as soon as the meeting's over I just can't multitask that well. Okay, quick question. Also, can I just clarify again? I know we, did we decide the four occupancy limit? What did we finally decide we call? I mean, we're gonna describe it upfront what Pam was suggesting for on, I'm going back to that because when we make the changes but can we just keep it then for tenant? Otherwise I'll have to change everything but if everyone really feels strongly about it I can go ahead and change it. Otherwise I can just put four tenants slash occupants or- I think you could do four unrelated maybe and skip the word tenant. We'll skip four occupants, right? She's saying we'd have to go through the entire document and skip down the word for- Four tenant as long as maybe at the beginning when you first reference it put in parentheses here after or something referred to as the four tenant rule or something like that that says but do that somewhere in the beginning. The note is at the very end of the document obviously so you'll have to find but yeah, okay. Any other questions regarding agenda or requests for agendas? We've got some very busy ones. I'm trying to keep our meetings within two hours because I'm not doing too well today. So I'm trying but Pam- Just to confirm, are you sending Shalini the notification of the listening session or am I? I'm gonna send the whole council the notification. Okay. And I will do it in the next once we're off. I'll just pull what you- The email I got from you Pam I will basically pull and add a little preview to it to the whole council. Thank you. Anything else? Anything I didn't anticipate that you guys wanna bring up? Thank you for the extra 11 minutes, Kelly and the rest of the committee. You all have time to get your seven o'clock meeting. I have a seven o'clock and I have an eight o'clock. So- I just yelled. And Shalini has a seven o'clock. So this is why we try to keep the two hours. So thank you all. I'm adjourning the meeting at 641. Thank you. See you later. Goodbye. Bye. Okay.