 And I just pushed for court. Okay. We'll see if we'll wait a little bit to see if anyone gets in. I thought I'd made my coffee before and I didn't. So I'm pouring it. Okay. I'm. Surprised we don't have anyone coming in. So, okay. Seeing a presence of a quorum, I am calling this regular meeting of the community resources committee of the town council to order on May 11th, 2023 at 431 PM pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 extended by chapters 22 and 107 of the acts of 2022 and extended by chapter two of the acts of 2023. This meeting will be conducted by a remote means members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via zoom or telephone. No one person attendance of the members members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time. This meeting is also being recorded. With that, I'm going to take a roll call to make sure that everyone can hear and be heard. Shalini has not yet joined us. So we will catch her if she does. Pat. Present. Mandy is present. Pam. Here. Jennifer. Here. Thank you. Dave Zomek will not be joining us and Chris Brestrup. Thank you for coming. Chris has informed me that she has to leave at 530. So with that, I'm going to go over the schedule just so people understand what we're doing before we move into the public hearing that is scheduled. And I pass it off to Pam to move into the public hearing. We are removing from the agenda action item, which is to remove from the public hearing. So we have a couple of meetings, two and three, the bylaws and regulations on the rent, residential rental bylaw. We are awaiting. Town attorney opinion. And they are a little backed up due to all of the spring town meetings that are happening now. So it will be a couple more weeks till we see that. And we will also will not be dealing with the minutes, the special meeting minutes of April 20th. They are not prepared yet, but they will be in the meeting. So we're going to move into the public hearing. The items that will be dropped if we don't have time are the permitting fee structure and the nuisance house bylaw. We need to deal with planning board and ZBA appointments and all first. So we'll see how long our hearing goes. But hopefully not more than an hour and a half. So we can get to at least the planning board and ZBA appointments. So we can get to that. And with that, I'm going to pass the gavel. Virtual gavel off to Pam Rooney to open our public hearing. Or continue the public hearing, I guess is what it is. Continue. So it is 343. 434. Excuse me. It is 434. So I'll read what I've said before. We're going to talk about budget. We need to find out by the law. Article three youth regulations. Article four development methods, article nine nonconforming lots, uses and structures and article 12 definitions. Continued for March 2, April 6th and April 27. To see if the town will vote to amend article three use regulations to change the permitting requirements. create more streamlined permitting pathways for these uses to remove the use categories of dividable dwellings, to add a use category three family detached dwelling, AKA triplex, to add a permitting pathway and standards and conditions for triplexes, to modify standards and conditions for other housing use categories, to amend permitting requirements for housing use categories in the aquifer recharge protection overlay district, to amend article four development methods to add three family dwelling, where appropriate to amend article nine non-conforming lots, uses, and structures, to add a reference to three family dwellings, to amend article 12 definitions, to add three family detached dwelling unit triplex and to delete subdividable dwellings. So I see Chris Brestrup here and I would like to start by just asking if she could update us on the conversation at the planning board last Wednesday. Before we do that, can we just make sure Shalini can hear us? Oh, Shalini's here. Hi, Shalini. Sorry, I'm late. I'm here. Thank you. Thank you. Christine, can we get an update, please, on what the planning board talked about? Yes, Chris Brestrup, planning director. So the planning board met last Wednesday, May 3rd, and they determined that they would focus on duplexes and they had a lengthy discussion about duplexes and it was based primarily on or guided, I should say, by a proposed structure that Bruce Coldham had put together, which I think you all have in your packets. And I suggest that that might be a good way for you to guide your own discussion about the proposal because he breaks the discussion down into five parts. And I think they're clearly, you know, separated out from one another and it makes it easier to talk about it sort of step by step, rather than getting confused by trying to talk about it all at once. So the planning board had various ideas about this proposal. Some people were more enthusiastic and some people were less enthusiastic. They shared their thoughts. A person who has talked about it in the past, Janet McGowan wasn't there. There were only five members of the planning board there. And they didn't really come down on one side or another of the proposal and I think they just need more time to talk about it. So what they did was they continued their public hearing to May 17th and they'll continue to talk about it. And I think that they will use this format that Bruce has suggested for moving from, you know, one thing to another. And you might want to read the planning board. Oh, the planning board minutes aren't out yet, I guess for May 3rd, I'm sorry. But in any event, it was a good meeting. They talked about this for at least an hour, I think. Isn't that right, Mandy? Or you weren't there the whole time where Pat was there. But I think they talked about it for an hour and they had a lot to say. But as I said, they didn't come down on one side or another. So thank you. Thank you. And I have to admit that until you said the thing about the Colburn's proposed structure, I hadn't actually seen it. So I just looked in my folder. I don't remember when that came in, but I have not studied it. So what I'm understanding by it, though, is that these sort of grouping categories of principal uses together to talk about as a cluster looks like. So the first cluster, if I can put on my reading glasses, owner-occupied duplexes, affordable duplexes and non-owner-occupied duplexes was the topic for one session. The second cluster is triplex in its entirety. The third is converted dwellings. And the fourth is townhouses. The fifth looks like the subdividable dwelling unit. So he looks like he has structured the question of, I really wish I had seen this beforehand. This is unfortunate. I think it came in today. I was busy doing some other things before this meeting. Yeah, no, I did not have a final version of it. There were some corrections that needed made to it till last night and we were all busy last night for various reasons. And so it went out very late last night with an email. It's in the packet, but I sent an email late last night attaching it, hoping that that would help people see it, but I understand that it was very late. No, I haven't gotten through half of my emails yet. Okay, so if we're, so the planning department planning board, excuse me, spent a fair amount of time talking through the affordable and owner-occupied duplexes. And I would agree with Chris Brestrup's assessment that it was, I think at one point the chair said, so I'm looking for direction. Is this, are we looking for tepid endorsement or are we looking for basic rejection? And the conversation was sort of the pros and cons of each and every one of these items. I'm at this point though going to ask Mandy and Pat if they have any new updates from their perspective of what they have heard and learned and what are we going to do with that? So, the proposal remains the same. I think the draft that is in here might have one or two fixes of Scrivner issues, things like that, that were just the wrong word, but not changing any meanings. We're basically in hearings right now and trying to make it through the hearings. You know, I would say, yeah, the planning boards talked a little bit about duplexes but their hearing is not done. We can go through all of it in CRC. As a CRC member, I always like hearing the planning boards report and decision in a sort of recommendation before I fully finish a hearing. So that's more as a member, not as a sponsor. So in some sense, I'm not sure what we as a committee should be doing. The sponsor, at least from my point of view as a sponsor, the proposal remains the same at least between the staff and the sponsors. There's just that one remaining difference that we haven't actually received any guidance from the two boards that we're hoping to get guidance from on that one per se, but it's up for recommendation and discussion and questions sort of from my point of view as a sponsor. Chris has her hand up and so does Jennifer. Yep, thank you. Thank you very much. Chris, please, please. I just wanted to suggest that you might want to read through, at least start reading through and discussing this proposal from the point of view of Bruce Coultham's structure. I think my reservations about this owning amendment are, how can I say this? They are a little bit of the tail wagging the dog. I don't think we should focus on that right now. I think we should focus on the larger proposal and talk about each item by itself and come to grips with that and make a recommendation. I'm suggesting that you make a recommendation rather than getting lost in my particular issue. So that's what I would recommend. Go through these questions that Bruce has laid out and I think it will give you some clarity about how to talk about this. Great, thank you. Jennifer. Oh, mine was just a question when Mandy said, I was going to ask what, I wasn't sure what you were referring to when you said you were waiting for a decision on that. So as a CRC member, when I've done, when I've chaired the meetings and when I've had to make the recommendation from the point of view as a CRC committee, I've always wanted to see what the planning board's recommendation is first before making my own because I like taking that recommendation into consideration. Obviously CRC and planning board don't have to agree, but it's always nice to hear their thoughts, their recommendation, the reasons behind the recommendation as the committee I'm on gets into deliberations. I don't know what other members think. So in that sense, I end up as a committee member, not sure what we should be doing as the planning board continues to deliberate. I feel like from a committee point of view, as a committee member point of view, I kind of want to just continue the hearing like a month down the road to wait until we have the planning board information. I was also asking when you referred to Chris, you meant you were where you, as a sponsor you had gotten to, I mean, were you referring to the Chris's memo? I guess that's what I was asking. I wasn't sure what. I guess what I think last time, what we presented and what the planning staff presented was that one section in Teal where the two parties, the sponsors and the planning staff sort of disagreed. I'm not sure it's in Teal right now anymore, but where the sort of two, the sponsors and the planning staff had different opinions as to what would be best, but beyond that had sort of reached consensus. That's what I was talking about. Yeah. Thank you. Are you talking about the, you're talking about the planning department, not the planning board, right? Yeah. And yeah, I thought that unless Chris, unless you have something that hasn't, that we haven't seen, we really had reached that kind of agreement around duplexes. And I think... I'm sorry, what agreement have we reached on duplex? In a meeting with Chris that we, the sponsors had with Chris and the planning department. Okay. Got it. And one of the things that Chris had said was that she felt like, and Chris, if I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly, please speak up or speak up now and then I'll continue. Go ahead. I would say that I can support most of what is being proposed with the exception of the thing that I have made a recommendation on changing. And I really don't have too much more to say about that. So... Well, I believe the change was to have it be special permit for more than two duplexes or... That's correct. Yeah. I would feel like the thrust of your conversation should be focused on that point. I think that the thrust of your conversation should be focused on the things that are being proposed. Whether or not I agree with them or not agree with them, I think that you need to go through this step by step and be satisfied that you understand what's being proposed. Yep. Okay. So I wanted to find out if there were any general comments from any of you all on the committee before we perhaps jump into Bruce's structure of talking specifically about duplexes than about triplexes. I had some general comments of my own and I didn't limit them to each of those categories. So I think I'm going to just give my general overview and then I think it might be appropriate if we want to go through at a pace to talk about these questions as Bruce has structured them. I too would actually like to hear the full pledged discussion of the planning board because they talked about these in depth. So our conversation, I don't, I really don't know that I wanna repeat everything that the planning board said. Let me just give some thoughts. So this is a little bit of detail and a little bit of generality. And what I tried to think through is what is the current status and what are the components that we're dealing with when we think about housing and residential zoning. So in the current status, I am understanding that the ZBA is finding as quote unquote compatible use the mix and match of housing types. So the mix and match of article truth primary uses. So this allows multiple units beyond the one basic use type adding another basic use type to it. Interestingly across all of our zoning the number of allowable units takes in no consideration to the fact that the bedroom count in a unit varies widely. So a four bedroom dwelling unit houses at least twice as many people as a two bedroom and possibly twice as many as a one bedroom potentially. My general reaction to any development just from a construction and site planning and management standpoint leads me to think that more than four units on any lot, particularly the RGV just because they're typically smaller lots becomes a fairly complex site in a hurry when you're trying to add more units. There is a demand potentially for four times the four bedrooms times four units for instance to be accommodated. And so anything over that you start ending up with a fair amount of your site being parking lot, screening of parking lots, managing rain runoff where to put trash containers and all of that. So anything over total four units on a site to me requires a little more attention and oversight. I can talk about some more things as Christine has of the things that we support and then some changes to this proposal. But I think I wanna actually hear from any of you how you feel about going through step by step duplexes and first cold ones questions. And I'm gonna give you an example if you also haven't had a chance to read it like I hadn't. Number one was duplexes should owner occupied and affordable duplexes be allowed by right in all five residential zones given proposed conditions. Should owner occupied and affordable duplexes be allowed by site plan review and the after for recharge areas given current proposed conditions. So that's kind of the character of these questions. So it's really taking them one by one. Do you all want to talk about that in this detail today or do you want to after public comment do you want to continue this to another date following the planning board's conversation about the topic again? I'm looking for feedback. And I see no hand. No, I don't, I mean, if we have the time today I think, you know, we don't have probably as steeped in this as the planning board, but or do we want, I don't, I guess I'm looking for, you know, I know that there are some concerns about this being in the aquifer protection overlay district, you know, altogether that was expressed, you know, is, I mean, you, I guess you know where I mean where I stand in the bigger picture is, you know, I embrace Chris's recommendations that I think special permit, we should absolutely keep special permit wherever it is now and for the more than four. Most of the examples of where you're doing mixed use, you're doing apartments and duplexes and most of those examples were in my district and I, you know, they've just benefited immensely from there's, I just don't see why we wouldn't want the ZBA review, but I've said that before. Shalini, thank you. Yeah, I would prefer as much information from different perspectives, like we've heard from planning department, but also hearing from planning board, but I also wanted to check in with, is there like a timeline we're trying to adhere to over here? Other than, of course, let's keep moving forward, but is there some thing we have to report to council or something, something? A commanding question. Yeah. So kind of, I mean, not really. I mean, it's hard to answer, right? But the state law requires the council to vote within 90 days of CRC closing its hearing. Which is one of the reasons we tend not to close our hearing till we know the planning board has completed its role, because there's other requirements of that too with the planning board. But if we don't vote, if the council does not vote within 90 days of closing its own hearing, and that's why it's the CRC hearing, then before it votes, the council must hold another public hearing with all of the notice requirements. So we would have to re-notice the hearing, whereas if we keep continuing it, we don't have to publish it in the paper again. That's the benefit of continuing the hearing. And so from that point of view, as long as our hearing is open, there aren't time deadlines other than what we as counselors, I would say, put on those deadlines. As a sponsor, I'm patient. You look at some of the other things I've sponsored and we're going on like nine months on some of these things. I know things take time, but as a sponsor and frankly as a counselor, I would hope that we can close a hearing and get to a vote at the council by the end of our term. Right, like that's in some sense, the earlier the better, but in some sense, from both a counselor and a sponsor point of view, the end of the term is sort of what I would say as a vote on the council is the last sort of time I'd be aiming for. Early fall would be better for, I feel like would be better, so it's not hanging over as are we gonna get done or not as thinking of transition times, but as long as the hearing is continued and not closed, there aren't state law deadlines. Thank you. That's I think what we're looking for, right? And I would agree that we don't wanna pile everything into December. That was a messy December. Like last time, even though we weren't on a council. Okay, any other comments relative to our proceeding? Otherwise, I think I would open it up to some public comment and get some feedback from folks while you think about it a little more. So I have three people in the audience and would recognize them if they are interested in talking about zoning bylaw or actually, well, we're within this hearing. So I think it would be relegated to this topic. So if you wanna talk way in on the subject of zoning and the proposal in front of us, we are welcome to speak up. I think they're having a coffee break. So I, oh, I do see hands, good. Okay, I see Janet Keller. Can Janet Keller be brought in please? Oh, I wanted to say Janet Keller on 20 Pulpit Hill Road. All I wanted to say is it's such an overwhelming amount of detail and coming in piecemeal that it's really hard for me to comment, but I appreciate the opportunity to comment and we'll listen and keep notes of your conversations. I do want to express my appreciation of the care that you're taking with these discussions. And thanks. Thanks, Janet. Anyone else want to speak while we're open? Okay, so I'm not seeing other hands in the audience of three. And I'm not hearing a huge appetite to go line by line and talk about duplexes specifically or triplexes specifically or converted dwellings or townhouses specifically. Vandy. I was thinking of making a motion to continue, but Chris put her hand up. So... I think that at some point, you should talk about these things line by line, whether you have the energy for it or whatever today or not, I think it's a good way to deal with this because it is a large proposal and you won't understand it unless you go through it line by line, which I've done several times. So I feel like I have a good understanding of it now, but I think I really encourage you to do that, maybe before the time that Mandy suggests to continue this public hearing so that you really understand what's being proposed. Okay, thanks. Chris. I also... Thanks. Let me just follow up with Christine. Do you have a sense, I understand that the planning board will discuss the triplets on the 17th. Did they say anything beyond that of when they might tackle the other couple of items like converted dwellings and townhouses? I don't know what their plan is for scheduling. They didn't really say anything beyond that they were going to talk about duplexes the last time they met. And then they continued their public hearing with the intention to continue talking about this proposal. And they felt that Bruce's outline for tackling it seemed like a good way to do that. So I think they're going to talk about triplexes next time, but I'm not absolutely sure. What they said is that they would talk about triplexes. Is it triplex or triplex? I hate that word. And also converted dwellings and subdividable dwellings. So I think that they're doing it line by line. I wanted to check with Jennifer because you were saying you liked the zoning bylaws the way it is now and what one of the... No, no, I just said, I think where there's ZBA review. Okay. And then one of the things that I think it would be very valuable to do is for Chris, the memo that you wrote this last memo where you talked about each of the things that the department could support, et cetera. That was helpful to the planning board who seemed to need it to help clarify the zoning. And I think it would be helpful for all of us to make sure that we're looking at that as well. Yeah, that's what I wanted to say for now. It's been in a packet. Okay, great. So I'm gonna suggest, I know Mandy, you're ready to make a motion. I'm going to suggest then that with Bruce's structure in hand that at our next meeting that is appropriate, and you probably have a better sense of the agenda in terms of getting back to rental bylaw, et cetera. But at our next scheduled meeting that we in fact focus on this rather than having bylaws and rental agreements mix and match, let's focus on this topic at which time we go through and discuss it as Bruce structured very nicely and see if there's any consensus on the CRC or the way we're living. And that means that any and all of us should be putting in our thoughts, I think into our packets ahead of time. We can't put personal thoughts into a public packet. In time for our next meeting. You just, it would be, I think Athena would probably be better to speak on this, but it gets very close to an open meeting law violation because of the definition of deliberation, sharing your opinion on something in front of the committee, not in a public meeting. Athena could probably speak better to that. So if we have any write-ups that we wanna share, we would do it at what time, Andy? During the hearing and if you mention it, it can then go in a packet. So it would have to be something that I would bring up in the meeting itself and then supply the documentation afterwards. Yeah. Okay, any other ideas about putting this, putting this focused topic kind of the line by line, our version of line by line for our next primary meeting? Okay, Mandy, Joe, oh, Jennifer, you wanna say something? No, no, just I agree. And I really appreciate, Chris, I think you're right. We should understand this as well as the planning board line by line. And this way, since we have it, we can all read it, you know, go on up before the next meeting. Right, okay, Mandy, you ready for a motion? So I changed the date on mine, given what everyone said. So I'm gonna make a motion to continue the public hearing to May 25 at 4.35 p.m. Second. All those in favor, Pat? Aye. I mean, I didn't mean to say all those in favor, Pat, you're wrong. I can second it, I thought somebody had because you said what you said anyway. No, I didn't. Jennifer. Yes. colony. Yes. Mandy. Aye. And Ham is an aye also. So you're accepting my aye from before? Okay, so that we focus on it next round. So Chris, you can run away. No, I think it's to me now, right? Cause I, yep. So I think Chris might be done for the day, but I think Chris might be raising our hand to be able to introduce someone. Is that correct? Oh, well, I did want to say I won't be here on the 25th. I'm going to be on vacation, but do I want to introduce Rob Wachilla? Of course I do. Rob Wachilla is now the staff person for the zoning board of appeals. I think he was thinking that he wouldn't be taking a major role in today's meeting. And so he was listening in, but if you need him to be front and center, he can do that. And I think he was going to listen in about the zoning board appointments. Is that correct? Yep. So if Rob Wachilla had space. Rob Wachilla, if you're there, can you show your face? Hey, Rob. Nice to meet you. Hi. Nice to meet you all. I apologize. My dog is barking out the window, so I have to try to call him. Hi, Rob. Welcome. Yeah, welcome. Yeah. And Rob has a ZBA meeting that starts at six. So he's also on the same time. But if you say you're not a vlogger, so soon. You can, you can un-video yourself if you'd like, Rob, I thought it would be nice for us to all say hi to you and have you introduced as one of our newest planning, the newest planning staff member, I guess, at this point. So I'm sure we'll be seeing more of you over the course of time. So welcome, Rob. Thank you. I appreciate it. I will turn off my video. Thank you, Chris. And then while we're on things before we actually go to the planning board and ZBA appointment recommendations, I just want to let Rob more know we are not going to deal with the bylaw and regulations for rental permitting today, but we will probably, given the time, have time to get to the permitting fee structure, at least a little bit of it. So, but we'll, we have to do the recommendation process first. So it'll be a little bit, Rob. But okay. So we are going to move on to Action Item 3A, which is the Planning Board and ZBA appointment recommendations. The first things we need to discuss are sufficiency of the applicant pool for each of the boards. I apologize. I did not create the document I normally create. So, but I'm having problems with my own things here. So, but I will go over some of the information out loud and we can make those decisions. So we'll start with the Planning Board. Currently, there are five applicants for three positions. Those applicants age in range from the 40 to 49 age range all the way up to the 70 to 79 age range of those five two have identified as either female or woman and three have identified as male. And racial ethnic background, there is a variety of identifications of white, white Hispanic by racial black, white, black, African American amongst them languages spoken one is English and German and all the others identified English and the districts there is, I said there were five applicants, right? Pam just consolidated mine, hold on, I must done that now. And there is right now, I thought it was one from every district but we have applicants from districts one, two, four and five. So that is the status of the Planning Board applicant pool and we can decide to make a decision on whether the pool is sufficient or not today. If we decide that the pool is sufficient we will, the next job to do is to, behind the scenes is to schedule an interview date contact everyone who's in the applicant pool and aim for interviews, see if we can find a date that everyone can make for interviews. Given the public hearing on May 25th I think we'd be aiming for June 8th if we were trying to do it during a CRC time but I would obviously offer up a whole lot of times because that tends to be what we need to do in order to find a time everyone can make. We would also, if we declared the pool sufficient today we would try to at least adopt the selection criteria so that we can send that out to solicit statements of interest before the deadline for the interviews. We do not have to adopt the interview questions today. They just need adopted the meeting about a minimum of seven days before the interview meeting. So we would be potentially doing that today. So that is what would next steps be. If we don't declare the pool sufficient I think we will still aim to at least adopt the selection criteria to get that out of the way. We might skip the interview questions though because then we probably have a little more time but so that's thoughts. So thoughts on sufficiency of the applicant pool. Jennifer. I actually had another question. I was in comment on the applicant pool but somebody that I had, somebody asked me when the due date was and since we didn't really have one they asked if they could get it in when they got back from vacation early this week. So could an application still, if we declare it sufficient they could still, we would accept more applications. Okay, thank you. For those not seeing that nod was a yes we do until the pool is technically closed the day the meeting agenda for the interviews is posted which is a week before the interviews. Pam. Can you restate your number of applicants for the number of slots that got kind of lost in the rest of the detail? We currently have five applicants for three slots. I thought there were only two people that were. That were. Is this planning board? This is planning board. There are three terms that are ending. That it's frankly probably no given the note from the planning board chair on selection guidance. Two of the individuals whose terms are ending do not intend to reapply. One has. Do you have more Pam? It sounds like if we keep the plate open until we get right up to the deadline that seems like a decent number of people who are interested for three positions. And I'd forgotten that there were three people that's quite a large number at one time. So we're kind of having to do that each every couple of years given that same cluster. Yeah, every three years it's three. The other two, it's two. So any other thoughts on sufficiency or willingness or thoughts on declaring the pool sufficient if such a motion were to be on the table? Can you say again, five applicants for three spots? I wrote down the ZBA, but not the planning board. So the ZBA is where we had three, identifying as female to identifying female. No, these were all planning board. All planning board, I'm sorry. Everything I said was all planning board. We'll move to ZBA once we do the planning board sufficiency. I wrote down that. Pam? So Mandy, just to make sure we're all clear. These are folks who have responded that yes, they're interested. They have not yet sent in a statement of interest. And the statement of interest is really what locks us into the total number of people that are really and truly to be considered for the positions. And last time we had some folks that said, yes, they were interested, but then never did send in a statement of interest. So we ended up with a much smaller pool than we thought we had. Yeah, so at this point, we would be declaring a pool sufficient based on the number of people who have submitted community activity forms since the bulletin board posting was put up almost six weeks ago now, I think. To continue to remain applicants and in the pool, they would then have to submit a statement of interest and attend the interview. And it is sometimes at that stage where we end up with a pool we thought was highly sufficient in past, given past examples, we've had one or two openings and we've had eight or nine people. And then when statements of interest deadlines roll around, we have two submitted. So, but we can't move on to statements of interest under the town council policy until we've declared the pool sufficient. Pam. I move that the pool of applicants be considered sufficient to enable us to move to the next step. And this is for the planning board. Planning board. I would second. Thank you for the second, Jennifer. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll take a vote. Shalini. Yes. Pat. Hi. Mandy is on I, Jennifer. Yes. Sorry, I skipped you, Pam. Pam. Pam. Yes. That passes unanimously. We are, we're going to deal with the other sufficient pool so that we know what we're talking about in the next step. So now we're going to talk about the ZBA pool. Pam, would you like to do that summary or would you like me to? I would be happy to give a summary. We have three brand new cast that were submitted with the posting of the openings. And we have 11 people that have, that had previously submitted caps or are incumbents. And so there were 11 people that were contacted to determine their continued interest. I have heard back from three of them. So at this point, we, I would consider that roughly. I'm sure there are more given the number of incumbents or the number of people whose terms only started months ago. So I would say at this point, we have a minimum six people who have, have basically stated that they are and continue to be interested. We have two full member openings and four associate member openings to be filled. I have a question Pam. So I'm looking at this, the chart and there are four applicants who have submitted CAF since the ZBA appointment went up, but you talked about one of whom is, is a reapplication. But that's all that I can see. And our policy requires anyone who's interested to submit a new CAF after the bulletin board notice goes up. So I'm confused as to you indicated. There might be two other people who might be reapplying that have indicated their interest, but they have not submitted CAFs. Right. So I, they have, let's see. So three brand new people and a calf from a current member who is interested in being considered for renewal. And those are the only CAFs. So there are four CAFs. So that, that means I just want to make sure I'm clear for two full members and four associate members. We basically have four applications. Is that correct? Certainly doesn't seem as if the pool is sufficient. It is hard getting people to apply. Some people have, have said, um, Yes, but I haven't decided if I want to be a full member or associate member, depending on the amount of time it takes. And I think, I think in the case of being an associate member, it may be a little hard to predict because you're not exactly sure of which project you're assigned to. Um, yeah. And so Pam, I would encourage you for whoever has, has done that in encourage them to submit a CAF. When they submit a statement of interest, they can always indicate, and I think it's actually one of the questions we sometimes ask the CBA because there are these differences. Um, they can always indicate what they want to be considered for one or the other or both. Um, But Pam and I met with Rob Wachilla and Chris Brestrup about the ZBA last, last week, I think, um, to get an idea as to what hearings might continue over the line as it were and what to do about that. Um, they are, the planning staff is working really hard to try and not open any other hearings until after July one, so that there is not sort of that. Over the line hearing issue, um, but there are a lot of hearings coming up. And so, um, it is a body that needs five people to sit on a hearing basically. Um, and so we, we need to find a way to find, to keep those appointments. Um, in the past, at least for those hearings that have continued over that line, we have extended the term for those who are sitting on those hearings. Um, we always talk to them first. We have also in the past, sometimes said when we're faced with a situation like this, that, um, we'll declare the pool sufficient to at least interview for full members. Um, and after the interviews, make a determination as to whether, you know, continue to accept applicants and all and then decide whether to go back out for. Associate member and do it there, but, but at least be able to start the process knowing we're looking at a minimum for full members. At that time, whether or not we decide to do associate members at the same time, it can get dicey. Um, when you interview people and you know, you have associate openings. Um, but that has been something I think CRHC has done in the past. So I wanted to bring that up too. I was wondering if it would make sense for us as a committee to identify which schools in UMass and Amherst college might have relevant expertise and then we can write to people being like, we can actually write, send a write up about the time expectations and what's needed. To, you know, we'd like me to Steve is an architect and, you know, and so we can send it targeted to these departments. Pam. Great idea. Um, I was going to refresh my memory. At one point we talked about not having to resubmit a calf. If it had been done within two years. And I'm. Um, and I'm thinking specifically about the folks that we. Finally, you know, got on board very late in the process last year. And do they, I mean, if they expressed interest and they send in a statement of interest, do we need to go through that requirement of submitting a new calf? I thought, I thought we had gone back and forth on that last year. So. We did. But that was. After we sought. It was a different circumstance and it was. In response to the fact that we still had openings after our July one appointments and we're immediately reopening the search. And so the people who had submitted CAFs a week prior. Um, the council voted that we could go back two months and not require those individuals to resubmit a calf. Um, this is the policy. Um, on, um, making recommendations and as you see only those. Individuals who submit a CAF. After the notice is published shall be considered. Part of the applicant pool going forward. Um, And we look back two years to re ask. Um, That's the within two years. Um, And that's the reason why we do that. Um, That's the reason why we will be contacted to re ask and to indicate that they must resubmit. Um, And one of the reasons we do that. For a little history. Um, Is because since our terms are only two years. Um, Not every counselor will have seen every CAF for every applicant. Um, And so if you haven't been on the council, You will not have received in your email. All of the applicant CAFs. So it's one way to sort of reset and. Assure that every counselor. Has knowledge of. The pool. As it stands. Um, So that's the policy. We must follow the policy. We cannot waive the policy. We have to ask if we want it waived, We have to go to the council for waiver. Okay. Thank you. I need them. It, it sounds like I'm just going to try and summarize. It sounds like people are on. Not unwilling, but, um, Hesitant to declare this pool sufficient at, at this time. Um, given, given where it stands. And so if that is the case, Pam and I will, um, I think Shalini's suggestion was fantastic. Um, You know, I, when, when I'm, I tend to send the, About the ZBA or about the planning board when I'm doing my own recruiting and saying, Hey, are you interested? That's the document. I send them. Um, so that could be something along with the link to the CAF. Form. Um, that could be something Pam that we could send out to the departments, Relevant departments, potentially Jennifer. Yeah. No, I just thought of that because it's a local historic district. We used to do that to get an architect. And they actually just got one. From emailing Steve Schreiber. So that's a great suggestion. Yeah. Okay. So with that, we won't take a motion because it sounds like we're kind of in agreement at this point and no one's. Quite ready to make a motion on that. Um, I will put that back on the to do. Um, But yeah, Pam, I will, I will reach out to the folks that I sent notices or, you know, letters to, you know, two weeks ago. And so again, I've only heard back from three of those folks that I sent. Messages to, I will follow up and say, please. Please, you know. The, but the CAF, the link is there. It's very straightforward. I would, I would love for that. I would like to, I would like to, I would like to, I would like to, I would like to, I would like to, I would like to, I would like to, I would like to, I would like to, I would like to, I would like to, I would like to, I would like to, I would like to, I would like to, I would like to, I would like to, I would like to, I would, I would love to be able in that same. Trans little, however, to send the information. About the zoning board. So I'm hoping that we discussed that today. So we have. Sort of. Our, our description, our handout at least. Of the ZBA. So they understand. So the about the ZBA handout is on the website and it was updated. You, you in fact updated it and we accepted those updates. That was last year. And I think the date needs to change each year. No, that was to remove. I mean, we could update it again right now. It says Chris Brestrup is the contact. And we now know Rob. What chill is the contact. So, but we, we did update it about two months ago. So that one is up to date. Cause Chris, even I believe reviewed it. So, so that's ready to go. The selection guidance we can look at. But that's what we're going to move on to for planning board right now. And then we'll see what we can do with ZBA on that. We, we have to hear from chairs before we can formally adopt selection guidance, but the selection guidance from the, the. Suggestions from the chair of the planning board are in your packet. As well as. The, the last. I'm trying to find my document of it. The last. Time we adopted selection guidance. It is. Is, is also in the packet. So. What the last year selection guidance adopted shows is. Last year's chairs. Guidance. I think we copied it. So we're looking at section A. So we're looking at section A. Directly. And the section A is directly out of the policy. So that's where section A comes from. It's within the council policy. And section B. From the word document, you're looking at from last year was last year's. Input from the chair. We have new input. And so we just have to decide. If we can also adopt. We can provide selection guidance that does not just. State restate a and. Add the input. I think we could add our own if we wanted. But. But that. A should not change because that's out of the policy, but I think we can add our own and, and choose to. Do what we want with the chairs selection guidance. So that's what we're going to do. We're going to start with the planning board. So this is what came from Doug. I'm looking at the last line that talks about in particular, Jack. Departure will leave the board with that expertise in civil engineering. And I think that was a good year ago. That that's last year's, if you look at the screen share, it's the PDF this year is this year's guidance from. I think it's nearly identical to last year's other than the last paragraph where he talks about. The three members whose terms are expiring. And the only thing I would have us do is potentially. Reward. We don't have to adopt his. Guidance word for word. The policy just requires us to solicit it. And then we can do what we want with it. I've always thought. The chairs have provided good guidance. But the last paragraph talks about. The two members who. Depart are departing, but then it says a continuing board member. And our policy. Does not automatically reappoint continuing members. And this seems to imply. That they would automatically be reappointed. So. So I would change continuing board member to. Something like the. Reapplying. Board member or something. Some, some wording like that. Yeah. That was confusing. So I thought. Yeah. That was the only thing I would. Personally think about changing from the chairs. Guidance. Other thoughts. Go ahead, Pat. I. You're muted, Pat. Sorry. I was looking at this. Let me see. Expertise and civil engineering, including. So. Traffic and stormwater engineering. Just as we were talking about reaching out. To architects. That we know at the university. Or colleges to get interested people, students. Faculty. Shouldn't we be reaching out to civil engineering department, particularly at UMass? Then. I think that's a good point. And maybe some of the other ones, but. You know. Civil. I don't know whether they're all considered civil engineers, but the engineering departments in general. Pam. They're not. They're not also. Pam. I was going to, I was. I was going to make a motion that we, that we adapt these. With the, with the. Modification that was noted by Mandy. To not assume that the, that the. The third candidate. Or one of the candidates who has come up with. Reapplication. So, so this is a motion to adopt. The selection guidance. We can't really say as presented. It would be like sort of as. Compiled. As compiled. With. The change in reference to the content. Regarding the. Reapp. Reappointment applicant. Yeah. Is there a second. Second. Thank you, Jennifer. Any further discussion. Seeing none. Can you enlarge, can you enlarge it a little bit? This one. Yeah. That's better. Yeah. So I would work on. Those three words. Well, I would add. Continuing board members and. Reapplying board members or something like that. Because it actually lists all of them. So it would be adding the words. Something like and reapplying board members. Yes. And has that, has that third person said they are interested in. Reapplying. They, they have submitted a CAF. Okay. So yeah. Okay. Any further discussion. Seeing none. We'll start with Pat. Mandy is an eye. Pam. Hi. Jennifer. Hi. Yes. And Shalini. Yes. That is an unanimous vote. We will move on to. ZBA. Let me get that one up. Okay. So yeah. Okay. Any further discussion. Seeing none. We'll start with Pat. Hi. And I'm going to get that one up. As you're bringing that up, Mandy, Joe, can I just make a point? Sure. It's kind of what Pat said, but they've listed, you know, urban planning, zoning, landscape architecture, this, this, this. So maybe, and we could. If we have personal contact, sure. But I think maybe the, the community outreach, like Tony Merullez and Nancy before. Like sending them, I think once when I had spoken to Tony, it said they would be happy to share our emails with the department heads. So if you have personal contact, sure. But I think sending these names of departments and then that whole packet. And link just to Tony and Nancy. And ask them if they, they would be willing to do it. That would make it easier for whoever is doing this. Sounds like a plan, Pam. Sounds like a plan. That's one email for you with a list of departments. So this is the selection guidance that was adopted last year. As you'll see, it takes the same format as the planning board selection guidance with a being a copy from the. Policy and be basically being the insertion. Of responses from the chair. I forgot to ask Pam to send an email to the chair till about Monday. I was shocked. I was able to get Doug's response in time for this meeting. I don't know, Pam, have we heard from Steve judge? Okay. So this is what he wrote. Well, a couple of years. Two times. Yeah. Two, two years worth of Steve judges things. So he may end up writing very similar stuff. Who knows. So I don't know if we can adopt it. Until we receive his updated guidance. We'll do that as. Quick as we can, but I think. What I would suggest. Pam, you were looking to have something so you could send it out to. Current applicants or those that are thinking of applying. Well, there are only four current applicants. If you want to count the cast. So I don't think we can send the old. Selection guidance as what this year's is. If people are asking, well, what are you looking for? I think what would be fine is you could say, well, this is last year's guidance. We have not adopted this year's. As long as you make it clear that it could change. If, if, if people ask and you're comfortable with that. But. You know, we'll, we'll do our best and I'll put it on. So I don't think we can send the old selection guidance as what this year's is. If people are asking, well, what are you looking for when we get Steve judge's. Response. We'll put it on the last again. I mean, I'd love to have him say. What we said last year. Well, it. But he might have to update the where the ZBA stands currently from two years ago. Things have changed, right? So, um, you know, I think that. So, so the first set is 2022. But this set. He referenced in his 2022 email. And so it's from 2021. So we just put it back in. So it's, it's quite almost two years old now. So. Okay. Any other thoughts on the ZBA selection guidance. I don't think we can do that. I don't think we can do that at this time. Which brings us to, does this committee want to attempt to adopt, um, interview questions for the planning board. Today. Or do we want to hold off on that? Pam. I thought there's still pretty valid. And, um, I don't think conditions have changed too much in town. We could. So these are what we used last year. Did anyone feel last year's questions? I mean, what did people feel about it? Did they work? Did they not work? Were there some that didn't work as well as others? I can't remember. Pam indicated she thought they were sufficient. Yeah, they look really good. Yeah, I agree. Okay. So is there a motion to adopt? Um, Um, Last year's questions. I don't even know how to word it. Yeah. Carol's banging around in the kitchen. So if that's irritating, but, um, I'm wondering if. Is there going to be any possibility. To do up any follow up questions or anything like that, to anything that they reply. And that would be different for different people. Okay. So, um, Interviews. Um, I think. I think what we had to do last year was ask the council to allow us to ask follow up questions for the ZBA interviews because it's not part of the policy anymore. Um, so. If that's something the committee would like us to do, we can send that motion back to the council like we did last year. Um, I think that's a good idea. Um, are we soliciting questions from them in advance. And including them. That's. Section eight. Oh, we have not yet. So thank you for that. So we probably should not adopt today. Did we do that last year? We did. I don't think we received any. I don't think we received any. I don't think we received any. Of that's right. You did it in an email, not an immediate. Yeah. Yeah. No, I tend to do it in an email. Um, and I don't think I received any. So that is. I completely forgot about that one. Wait a minute. Remind me. So, so we sent out interview questions and said, if you have any questions, please get back to me. Is that how you phrased it? Um, what we do is I send out the questions we used the year before and say at the next meeting, the CRC will be discussing interview questions. If you have any questions. Um, if you have any questions, you would like us to consider as we. Um, I think, you know, consider adopting, you know, as we work towards adopting interview questions, please forward them to me by. Um, if you have any comments on the questions we used last year. There's probably some standard language somewhere that I tend to use, but that's basically what I say. Do you have comments on what we used last year and are there anything else. You would like us to ask. A lot of times what I get back are versions of the questions we're already asking. So I don't, I don't think, I don't think my messages last year went out to people with that. Intent. I don't remember doing that for ZBA. I might have done it for both. Last year. I don't remember. Okay. I mean, it's, it's nice to solicit input. Um, So. One more round of back and forth. So what we could do is adopt these questions pending. Um, You know, Additional discussion. If counselors provide other questions, right? We could sort of preliminarily adopt and see if anything else comes through. Pam. Regarding guarding pets, interest in perhaps having the ability to follow up. Can we not. Um, Put that in stone. Can't, can't we get permission? I thought I actually thought that permission from town council last year. Enabled us to continue doing that. I didn't realize it was a year by year. Policy. Um, I would love to say. In these interview processes, if there is an opportunity or clarification is needed. Um, We would, we would appreciate having the ability to ask follow up questions. It worked really well last year. Um, and that we would set that as the standard practice. In our interviews. That way we don't have to go back every single year and ask for that. Capability. So the way to do that is to add it to the policy. So that can be part of our motion. Um, is to request the council. To ask follow up questions during ZBA and planning board interviews and request that the council amend its policy. Whatever section. To allow a committee to decide. Um, whether to ask follow up questions or not. And how that would structure. I'd come up with some language, but that's basically what it would be. How do you feel about that? Pat. Or Jennifer. No, I'll let Pat go first. Can Pat hear us? My hand's not up. And I. Yeah. I didn't hear it. Did you ask. Pam master the question. I just said this sounds like it would be something for Pat. If that's GOL would need to. Craft. Um, A change in the policy. That's true. And I'm thinking about having to do that because we're going to be doing interviews for. Non-voting resident members of finance. So. Yeah, I mean, we could. Just ask them that they amend it and then the council can decide whether to do that or to send it to GOL for discussion. Right. We can do it either way. I would say we just ask the council to amend it and see what the council decides to do. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. Especially since you have a chair of GOL. Rastonator. It seems like a step. We don't have to. Okay. And we had really good wording last year. So are we asking in the next, you know, in the next council meeting. For CRC Mandy or. I'm working on a motion here. I don't have it in a second. One was not a full motion. Just bear with me here. I don't know which committee. What meeting we did it at the council. Oh, you mean which date meeting. Yeah, which, which meeting we voted that at the council. Oh wait, here we go. So the wording. Okay. Okay. So. Sections eight and nine. Okay. So here is the motion. The motion is to request the council allow the CRC to ask follow up questions. Oh wait to wave. So it's. I apologize, Kelly, for how long this is going to be. To wave. Motion to request the council wave sections eight and nine of the town council policy on making recommendations for town council appointments to multiple member bodies. To allow. To be able to ask individual. Follow up questions of applicants during the interviews. And. To request the council amend section eight. Of the town council policy. On making recommendations. But making recommendations for town council appointments. To multiple member bodies. In order to be able to ask follow individual follow up questions of applicants during interviews. So that's the motion is there a second. Is there any further discussion. Seeing none. I guess I start. I'm an eye. Pam. Jennifer. Yes. Okay. So. So. So. So. Shalini. Yes. And Pat. That is a unanimous vote again. So there we go. We will deal with interview questions. Next meeting. I will solicit the questions. Anything from the. The council. I think that takes us through our action items. Well, that action item. We will be looking at the permitting fee structure. Residential rental by law permitting fee structure. We will not be getting to nuisance house by law today. The last time we mentioned this, we were thinking about. The possibility of referring or wreck requesting that the council refer this to. The fees themselves. We were thinking that we could give some guidance to the finance committee on what we were thinking structure wise. In terms of. Things. There's so many different structures we've put out there. So it's back on. I can pull up. The setting of the fees to finance to make a recommendation. But there was a request to. Have us discuss the structure itself so that we could give some guidance to potentially the finance committee on what we were thinking about. So I can pull up a document. Take me a little bit. See which one is this one. So. This one's not very helpful. But this is sort of the document that. That we've been doing stuff, but. This is the document in a sense we would send over. I know this one's not helpful. But. I think it shows all of the fees we've talked about in the current draft of the bylaw. And I think what we need to be discussing is probably sections A and B. What do we want those structures to look like. In terms of what does the residential rental permit fee include. And what does it not include in terms of initial or renewal inspections. So. So. We have a discussion with that one. We can look at. The sample fees that I've had looking at what they might look like. Based, you know, we've talked about also owner occupancy and not and things like that. We've got some samples in an Excel spreadsheet that have some actual fees attached to them. But I think. More than that is just a discussion as to. Number one, does the rental registration fee, be included in the rental or renewal inspection or not. And then number two, should there be differences in. Rental permitting fees. And potentially even inspection fees based on how many units are on a parcel. And potentially the home or owner occupancy. Those are sort of the three questions I see. That we might want to make a recommendation to. So. The. Finance or the council on without actually setting recommending actual fees. So. Let's start with. Including the inspection. Renewal or. Initial inspection in the rental registration permitting fee. Is that something we want to recommend be done or not. That would be a different inspection fee. Needing to be paid yearly. And an inspection occurring every five years. Unless you're on a different schedule, but the standard would be five years. So thoughts on that question. And then you're charged if you're. If you have to have an inspection, because there's a complaint or violation. That would be a different inspection fee. That would we'd call it like the complaint inspection fee. That's why that, that would be a different inspection fee. So that would be a different inspection fee. So that would be a different inspection fee. So that would be two items on whether the inspection fee is. All inspections or everything, but initial and renewal and. Or maybe a follow up because that's another question. If you fail the inspection, do you have to pay for the follow up inspection too? So those are all questions that people said, we might want to. Send some guidance over to finance in the council for. But let's start with whether the permit fee should include. The. The application fee. And then we'll move on to the next item. So. Shall any. I was thinking like, what is this simplify? Simplest thing like four. And getting feedback from that's my favorite question. Put it back at the staff, but seriously. Oh yeah. Thank you. You're right there. Rob. So yeah, what would be the easiest for land lorries and in terms of simplifying streamlining the process? What do you recommend? So it might be tricky to try to come up with a. Fee that will be charged annually. That includes a five year inspection. You know, it might be hard. Even if we could figure that out, it might be hard for people to understand that. So I just wanted to mention that it is fairly easy for us to. Customize the fee per property year to year. So what we would do is establish which properties we would. We would. In tend to inspect that year. And essentially they get an invoice upon renewal. Sort of like if you get the notice that your car registration needs to be renewed, that's the way we're doing things now with these permits. So we can, we can have a different fee for the. The properties that have inspections and the properties that don't. So that might be my suggestion right now, thinking about it. Quickly. But I just wanted you to know that that is a possibility that we would be able to handle that way might make the. Clearest sense of the fee schedule to the applicants. Thank you. Thank you, Rob. So just to make sure I understood what you said. If, for instance, you had a. A renewal notice went out. And it was going to be that, that. Properties. Opportunity for an inspection that year. That would be that notice would be included in the. In the renewal notice. Right. That, that, that would indicate that they're scheduled for an inspection that year. And the fee would then be appropriate for that to occur. Yes. So I think if I'm understanding, right. Sorry, Pam, it would be. There'd be a registration fee without inspection. And a permit fee with inspection is sort of what you're saying. I think that's what it would look like on the fee schedule. Is that right, Rob? Well, I think it could just be an inspection fee. And then, you know, we take care of it from there for whatever purpose the inspection is. It could be charged throughout the year, but in that renewal notice. One property might have just the permit fee and the other, another one might have a permit fee plus an inspection fee because they're scheduled to be inspected that year. Pam. Yeah. So that, that strengthens my. Thinking that a permit, a permit fee should be separate from an inspection fee. I'm not trying to lump them into one fee. Applicable across five years. That somehow covers the inspection as well. You get, you get lost. Yeah. Jennifer. No, that was really answered my question. It does seem to make, it would be clear to the lamp to the property owner. And I would add, I think I'm in agreement with Pam, I would add that it actually satisfies one of our original goals of redoing this was to somehow provide a benefit to those properties who are well kept in terms of comply with all of the laws because they would be facing that inspection fee only every five years versus one that needs an inspection every year because they are not complying with the laws. They, they, the people that need the inspection every year, the properties that need that would have a higher yearly cost in a sense than those that are on that five year schedule because they'd only be paying that inspection fee once every five years instead of building it into everyone's every year. So I think it fits that goal too. Do people generally agree with that one? Okay. So to sum that up the inspection, the inspection fee would be, would be added to the invoice, if you will, on the year that inspection was going to occur for that property. And that it could show a breakdown of permit. Infections for this year. Something like that. So there's really clear that it's two items. Yeah. We can do that in the renewal notice and invoice listing it separately. Yes. So the next question is we'll stick with the permit fee. And this is. Should there be different fees for different. Numbers of units on a parcel. This is the permit fee to register or should there be different permit fees if you are owner occupied? Those are sort of the two things we've talked about on permit fees are. A different cost to obtain a permit for owner occupancy and a different cost to potentially obtain a permit based on how many units are being included in that permit. So thoughts on those two questions, Pam. Oh, sorry. I didn't, I haven't thought it. I haven't thought it up yet. Jennifer. I would say yes to both. I feel more strongly about. And then I don't know how we should structure it. I think that somebody that is getting a permit for one. Rental should not pay the same as someone that's getting it for. 25 or 50. How we want to. If we want to group it that every 10, there's a different. That I don't. I haven't, I don't know. I'd be open to. Lots of suggestions. I, I think I would like to see if we could. A lower fee for owner occupant just to encourage that. But I feel. Yeah. I feel more strongly about that. You know, right now it's this one permit, whether. And it's, it does. It does. People feel that that's very unfair if they own one unit that they're paying. They have paying the same for a permit of someone that has a hundred units. Thank you. Shalini. Yeah, I would agree that if you can lower, give some incentive to owner occupied. And to the other outside. It feels right. What you're saying, Jennifer. That, I mean, that's kind of what we're hearing. I think it's a little bit different. In terms of a staff time and effort with my understanding was, it's similar. Is it like how much. How different is it if you're. Doing permitting for single unit versus 500. You know, it's. Rob. It's not much different at all. You know, I think at the initial review for a new permit, I think it's a little bit different. I think it's a little bit different. I think it's a little bit different. I think it's a larger property and larger parking plan to review. But not significant. And I think, you know, I've always, I've been pretty consistent about this over the years that that's why I never suggested anything other than just a flat fee. Unfortunately with the, the breakdown. The way the units are mostly being one and two family units. It becomes really difficult to set a fee schedule. And it becomes really difficult to set a fee for the costs we were trying to cover. So I, as you get into that. And I know now with the inspection fee element, it'll make it different. But it becomes really different. Difficult to set a fee for the larger properties because there's so few of them. That really makes an impact enough to lower. That. Permit for the single family house. Because we've got, I think seven over 700 single family. So that's a big number to make work on that type of breakdown. But the steps in the time, the staff time on renewal. Would be the same no matter the size of the property. Pam, and then I'm going to go. I'm just thinking about the tracking. So. I'm also trying to relate it to what's happening in the nuisance property. By law. If you're tracking a particular. Unit in a complex. So. Building to be was a problem. And you had to, you had to assign, you know, Complaint, whatever the complaints you had to. Issue fees. In the, in the general permit for the property. And so we also had to assign. The, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the data base. A, a breakdown. Each and every unit that's in that property. So all 200 or 100 are accounted for separately. Maybe rolled up into the complex. And the permit. But is that not going to take some work to set up? We don't know. I don't know yet. You know, I started asking those questions. Our IT staff will have a very important role in this. If it's similar to the way our building permits work, it's fairly easy. So we can issue a building permit to a property and then indicate each unit separately for inspections. And if there are certificates or a mix of uses. But what you're saying makes complete sense. It should take more time to build that out. But I just don't know how involved it would be yet. We haven't begun those discussions. And there likely will be a cost to our provider to develop that part of the program that we're not using. So we don't use our permit program for complaint tracking and ticketing, but we really want to and hope that. The system was shown to us with that capability. And we saw parts of it being used in Brookline and Cambridge. So I expect that would get built out, but I don't have any more details about that at this time. Thank you. So one of my questions is with what Rob said earlier about the initial review might be more involved depending, just in general, and then potentially for those with more units on an initial review versus a renewal permit. Should we really be discussing different fees for the first time you get a permit under the new system versus renewing your permit under the new system since a renewal, presumably many of the things we're requiring about management plans and parking plans and all of that has already been reviewed. And so does not need the eyes on it that the first time you're asking for the permit, you would such that the first permit you get might need to cost more to cover those extra eyes that the second, third, 10th year, you just don't have to spend as much time on that. And then I guess the other question I would have, Rob, is with that first one, are there differences in time if they've never had a permit before between someone with one unit and someone with 20 units? Or is it still basically the same amount of time? It's just they've never had the permit before. So that's what takes more time than the number of units. I can answer some of that. The never having a permit to having a permit really doesn't make too much of a difference. The applicant is doing all the work, filling out the online registration. There's not a whole lot that we're doing after the fact that's different. So I would say that's not really a significant concern for staff time. I'd like to probably ask some questions of IT to better understand what they know about how it would, what it would look like to build out for additional units. I'm certain that it would only be in that first round, that first time of setting that up for the property and not year to year. But I think I probably should ask some questions from those who know a little bit more. Or if we have enough questions for IT, we certainly can invite them to a meeting and talk to them some more. Thank you, Shalini. I'm thinking now from the tenants point of view. So if we're charging 150 and there's a single unit, the tenant is absorbing $150, which can be a huge amount for them. And if they were like 100 units, then it's 150 divided by 150 units. And it gets distributed over 150 units. Do you see what I'm saying? So that's why it sort of makes sense to have a lower base. And then find how much do we need to recover to break even with our, because we can't make a profit on it, but how much do we need to break even and then have like a lower basic, let's say $50 per whatever, and then the rest has to be incremental so that it gets distributed over more tenants. Does that make sense? I think that was one of the concerns we were hearing from people earlier that you all increased it. And then if they have one tenant, it's gonna be absorbed, the whole 150 is gonna be absorbed by a single tenant. Yeah, it's certainly a concern we've heard, Pam. Yeah, I was gonna say that. I think that it does sound inequitable. And I think that was definitely one of the concerns that was raised. It feels like a, trying to figure out how to say this. I think Mandy Jo has taken some time to sort of create a table with some of these elements in it. And it feels like a little bit of a table would be very helpful in which we would have owner occupied as a category, number of units as an element, base fee, inspection fee, and be able to really understand the impact of having multiple units. It's really tough just thinking out loud if someone has two or three buildings that they manage, homes that they manage. Right, right. That the fee that they pay, in fact, as Shalini said, does impact them, it hits them right in the stomach because it is the same fee that a large complex potentially could pay. And the only difference then is that a complex will have an ongoing inspection cycle because we divide the total number of units up by how many get inspected each year, they're going to have a significantly different inspection fee than the smaller manager. And that's really the only difference. So, yeah, it comes back to the question of does the basic permit be varied depending on the size of the property? So what Pam was referring to was this chart, this is just the PDF of it, there's a Excel spreadsheet where you can play with numbers, but this one, this top section here is sort of one of the options we've been talking about, right? If we separate the permit fee from the inspection fee. And the thing, you know, don't necessarily take the numbers as anything given, right? You just pick something and see what happens, right? So in something like this, it doesn't matter how many units you have, this is the owner occupancy. And so there are 169 parcels of owner occupancy that have up to six units in town that are rented. And so an owner occupancy restriction or discount would affect 169 out of 5,000 rental units, rental. Well, it's 169 units, 127 permits out of about 1200 permits. There are 1,000 permits in the one to 30, 18 in the 30 to 99 rental units and 12 that have more than 100 or more dwelling units on the parcel. And so, you know, this is a flat fee for everyone else except the owner occupied. I don't think I had an owner occupied and a different fee for other things, but I'm going to go up to a structure we didn't have were not necessarily requiring because it shows something like this. This one is an owner occupied essentially with a discount even though it doesn't look like a discount because the owner occupied does not get an additional fee per rental unit. And so it basically is a discount no matter how many, whether you're renting whether you have two units and occupy one and so you're renting one or rather you're renting five because there's a total of six units you pay $175. If you are renting one to 29 units within a parcel and no owner occupancy, the person who's renting only one would pay 175 but once you get up to two you would pay an additional 50 for every unit you rent. That still applies to a thousand. So you collect obviously a lot more fees. The maximum someone owner would be paying per year on a basis like this is $1625 to get their permit. When you go up even if you decrease the additional fee per rental unit you start seeing those 12 parcels that have 100 plus units it gets expensive quickly to get your rental permit. We can show it with inspections too but that just gives you an idea of what a per playing with a per unit cost does and this is obviously a discounted per unit cost. So Pam wanted some potential numbers to look at so we know what this means when we're talking about it. This is one thing to show what it might mean. Yeah, thank you. That's very helpful. And again the numbers are you picked a number. Yeah. You can play with them but that's what those numbers are with those things in there. Jennifer. Yeah. So I'm just going to throw this out. I mean, so like the number seemed high if you have more than 100 units but it's a little bit of a sticker shock. And I know you're just a number. So it's going to seem, there's a little bit of sticker shock when you just look at that. But when you think of how much income is being generated from 100 units as a percentage. It's not. I mean, it's probably not a long percentage of what's being generated monthly. And that's a year. Yeah. I mean, it takes the, to go to Shawnee's point. It would mean that of. An owner occupied. You know, a one, one rental unit would be paying that that one set of tenants for one dwelling unit would be absorbing $175. But when you get to the very larger ones with a structure like that one, each unit is absorbing approximately 40 to $45. If you do it per unit, those numbers are even more shocking. Imagine 175 times a hundred is 17,000. You know, so I guess my concern and I'll take my, my opportunity is it always sounds great. Except we hear from Rob. You know, especially from the tenant point of view, right? I totally get with Shawnee. From the tenant point of view, it just seems totally unfair. That if you're living in a large apartment complex, your per share per unit cost of that 175 is just pennies on, you know, dollars, right? A dollar a year or something, but a one unit person, it's $175 a year, right? But when I hear from Rob, that the, um, the, the processing costs are nearly identical. And we have to under state law, I believe, associate the fees to what it costs. I have a hard time justifying for the permit fee. That's structured difference. That's for the inspection fee. I think that's, a lot easier to justify that structure difference, but for the permit fee, I struggle with that justification, even though it's sense, even from the tenants point of view, I will say it, it's just not fair, right? But I don't know from the town's point of view and the legal point of view, whether we can justify $6,000 for the permit fee. I don't know which one of the 12 units has the most that I had the max on. Um, and 175 when the processing. Experience on the back end is exactly the same and takes exactly the same amount of time. Pam. So I, I. I think I still am comfortable with a base fee. And then a, and we haven't talked about numbers actually, but a base fee and then, and then some additional fee per unit. Um, I think we can set those numbers to the point where they make sense. Um, but to me that probably it's still, it still is a chunk, but if we make the numbers reasonable, um, I think, I think people understand that there's a system that has to be administered and what does it take to administer permits and keep track of everything. Um, but I do, but I do appreciate the idea of having an additional fee for the additional unit. Um, and then we have to move to public comment and the rest. Yeah. I think that's what the finance committee can do is work out the exact numbers, but I think, um, we know that, um, Property owners are going to transfer it. It's a cost. And so they are going to be able to transfer it and it's going to be absorbed by tenants at a much lower rate. Um, when there's so many units. So even though it's a sticker shock, but it's, if they know that this can be divided over so many people, it's a smaller property owners that are trying to rent to families. And I think that's where the biggest, at least when I'm talking to a lot of, uh, my friends are trying to rent to families, even though they're not earning as much, but they want to do that. And they're complaining about these high, you know, like charging 150, 175 from them. It's just keep setting up like the utilities and this, everything is going up. And then it becomes really challenging for the tenants point of view. And that is one of our goals also is to make equitable, affordable, you know, So is that that much a problem Rob to justify per, even though like you're saying it's not that much different, especially after the second year. Is that going to be a legal problem to you? Like how is it that our town is structured different than Boston and other places that do have a base fee and pre-unit. Rob. I think the legal problem for us is if we're challenged on it. And we can't justify the cost and the expenses that I, you know, I speaking about what we did previously when we started the program and a hundred dollar fee at that time, I couldn't justify it. I wasn't able to, um, you know, bring down that price for the smaller properties. And carry enough to cover the total amount that the town manager wanted to cover. And then be able to justify it. So we have to, we have to watch out for that and just, you know, my, my department as a whole, um, pretty much takes in the revenue plus 10%, which is the recommended, you know, maximum above, uh, already, you know, with permit fees. So we just want to be careful that this is an, you know, a way of creating a lot, a lot of revenue that isn't justified by expenses, expenses through our department. Um, but, you know, that's, again, that's something for the finance committee to kind of weigh out too. Thank you. Jennifer. And then we're moving on. Yes. I was just thinking if you could. Make it very low. You know, so like it's very low. You know, but if you have under a certain number of units, so, you know, maybe it's $30, $50. And then you would have to, to support the program. Be charging more, you know, in sort of, um, graduated on a sliding scale for larger units. So let's say it was, you know, $30 a year, if you have two or under a three or under, and then you're maybe doing it as, you know, a certain like every 10, I don't know how you would do it. So, you know, and then so the cost would mostly be covered by the larger units. I'm not a mathematician. So I don't know if that's making sense. I'm just trying to think if it's, if you have a really low number per unit, you could make your money and you're, you know, just charging. So if the fee gets passed on to one tenant, it's $30 or $50. So if you have a really low number per unit, you could make your money and you're, you know, just charging. So if the fee gets passed on to one tenant, it's $30 or $50, but you're, you know, keeping, you're getting the revenue that you need to support the program through the other larger units. And then if we, but if, if that $475,000, that's what you want to raise. Was that I, Mandy Jo, you had that number down. So if we're going to add another inspector or two, wouldn't you need to raise more money? No, that was based on that, that number was based on an assumption Rob thought we would need to raise under the current draft of the bylaw. So right now the permit fees only raise about 160,000. I believe we might be about 200 now. I'm not sure. So, so the 475, 500,000 was an estimate of what the program will cost under the new revisions. So is there a way to keep the permit fees low and spread them out over a number of units? I think that's the, that's the finance committee, what we're going to recommend finance to the question is we want to get to a structure we want to offer them, but we do need to move on. I had my own comments. I want to say, but we need to move on. We're at the time right now we're, we're going, we'll come back to it. So we're not done. And we'll start with this question. We're going to move on to general public comment, public comments on matters within the jurisdiction of CRC. I think the president's can express their opinion for up to three minutes. And CRC does not engage in discussion or dialogue or comment on matters raised within public comment. Okay. At this time, we're not a shepherd, please unmute yourself and state your name where you live and make your comment. Hi, we're not a shepherd Amherst. My comment is basically, I feel like just beating up that horse, I feel like small landlords should not be the ones to subsidize the rental bylaws versus multi property landlords who charge the same or even higher rents. Permits by parcel makes sense in order to, you know, to make it easier, but these should be for rental unit. I still believe that the fee should be based on rent charged. Maybe there is some kind of appeal to. If you charge a low rent. And maybe have some kind of, you know, reduction or discount or something. But as I said before, anything above $100 would hurt me personally. If your permit fee has to cover personnel, that is a reason for having a fee, right? Then every unit would have to contribute. If you set a base of $50, $50, $75, I don't know, plus additional fee per unit. Even if it's a lower fee per unit, hopefully the finance committee can come up with a number that would satisfy whatever you need to satisfy. But it should be fair because even, you know, the bigger properties, if they have more cost, you know, they have on-site management. I understand that there is more, more cost involved, but they are incurring more rent also. So, you know, it should be at least somewhat fair, please. Thank you. Thank you for your comments, Renata. Seeing no other hands. We are closing the public comment period. The next thing is the adoption of the April 27th, 2023 meeting minutes. I will make the motion to adopt those minutes as presented. Is there a second? Second. Second is that. Thank you, Pat. Any discussion? Seeing none, we're going to vote. We start with Pam. Hi. Jennifer. Hi. Shalini. Yes. Pat. Hi. Mandy is an eye that is a unanimous adoption. I don't have any announcements. Next agenda is. Oh, Pat, do you have an announcement? I just have a quick question for Rob. I'm trying to figure out because there was a talk about the six units where it's owner occupied. How do you assure that a property that has six units, that's owner occupied is actually owner occupied. She lives there. During the application process, it's, it's not, it's not confirmed. So, you know, that, that would come up through a complaint or, you know, the only other time we're really looking at that on our own is watching the transfers that occur month to month. Thank you. Thank you. I have no announcements. The next agenda is going to be zoning. And we will put a few. We will put a few recommendations on that agenda. And then we will put a few recommendations on that agenda. Recommendation issues, the ZBA and planning board appointment issues on, onto the agenda, but the, I'm not going to put rental permitting on. And all of that we're, we're just going to push that off to June. But we will put what we need to for recommendations on that agenda, along with the zoning discussion for the continued hearing that we continued today. That is actually the next regular meeting. We're going to start with the housing trust. It is a special meeting. It starts at 7pm. We're aiming for two hours. It will be on zoom. Look tomorrow for the agenda and the packet. The packet is basically going to be. A list of links. To all sorts of housing policies. We're not putting all the documents into the packet. It would be hundreds of pages. So the, the request is that people sort of. Refresh their memories on housing. And the housing studies that we've done the comprehensive housing plan. So there's going to be a whole bunch in there. That's why we're getting it out tomorrow. So there's time. I encourage anyone, if they see the agenda and have questions about it to contact myself or Jennifer, Jennifer was in the planning meeting. So can probably also explain the goals of the agenda and what's set forth in the agenda. We're trying to be somewhat specific so that people can get an idea of what we're doing. But, but when I put that out tomorrow, feel free to ask me or Jennifer, if you've got questions about. The agenda. And I want to thank Jennifer for coming into that planning meeting. For the meeting next week. Yeah. And that housing trust is meeting right after this. And I have no items. Unanticipated. Does anyone else. Seeing none. Thank you all. We are adjourned at 6. 36 PM. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.