 Weeks though that could have been last week that could have been now just been one of those weeks. Okay, let's wait a little bit to see if anyone pops in from the audience. And then we will get started. I, we are recording. Thank you. Rob, it'll be a couple of minutes till we get to rental permitting but it won't take too long. I don't think just if Rob's listening. We just have a couple of things to do. Hey John. Hey John. Yeah, and for John the same thing it'll be a few minutes probably 10, no more than 15 or so before we get to rental permitting. So, with that, we're probably fairly stable with number of participants. So, I will start. I'm meeting a presence of a quorum I'm calling this June 8 2023 regular meeting of the community resources committee of the town council to order at 432 p.m. Pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 extended by chapters 22 and 107 of the acts of 22 and extended by chapters two of the chapter two of the acts of 2023. This meeting is also being recorded. With that, I'm going to take a roll call for attendance purposes to make sure everyone can hear and be heard. We'll start with Shalini who I believe will not be in attendance today. Pat. Present. Mandy is present Pam. Here. And Jennifer. Here. That is four of our five members present. With that, we'll start with our agenda. There are no public hearings today. There will be at the next meeting. On June 22nd. Our action items. We're going to start with the planning board and ZBA appointment recommendations that we've been working really hard on. I put an update on planning board just. Because we're going to interviews in three days. We have. All I basically want to say about that is we have three applicants for three positions. Three openings. So when we declared the pool sufficient, there were five applicants at that time. Only three submitted statements of interest. One of those five specifically wrote me withdrawing too. So, so I knew one had withdrawn the other one. I have not received. Any. Communications with. In the last couple of weeks. So. I thought I'd update. I don't know if we have any discussion or anything about that at this time. The packet has posted the interviews will go forward on. June 12th. I'm losing my dates. That meeting I have. I have thought about just so you all know, because there was the potential for some applicants to apply to both the planning board and ZBA. I have thought about the meeting on the 12th only doing the interviews and not moving to recommendations. We do not have any overlapping. Applicants. And so I noticed both meetings to discuss their separate. Appointment recommendations. So the, the meeting on the 12th, if we desire to immediately move to recommendations after the interviews, the meeting is noticed to do so. So are there any questions about the planning board at this time? Jennifer. Yeah. So I just, this is logistical. We have two hours for that meeting. 436 30. Yes. You have time to deliberate. Yes. That was the other reason I added it in once I knew there were three applicants. So then we really should be in town hall. To have them. If we're going to deliberate. Because we'll go right into it. If you're going to attend the council meeting in person. Then yes. Athena has said that she will be in town hall. The town room and has reserved it for the meeting. And we'll be able to send anyone who's in town hall. If there's more than one. The audio through so that there is no feedback. So that is ready and prepared for those that might want to attend. The virtual. Planning board. The virtual CRC special meeting in person. Pam. Thank you. Does Athena want to know how many people who might be sitting in the town room? I'll be, I'll be there ready in case I'm imagining there's going to be at least one. Committee member who will be there in person. Right. Yep. So I'll be there at. Before 430 to have everything set up. So you can come and set up. We do have a different zoom link for the council meeting. Just so you know, you'll, you'll log off the CRC zoom and back into the council zoom at 630. So I, I, um, I made the decision to notice it only as a virtual meeting. With no in-person attendance of the public there. I thought it might get. Kind of confusing. Especially if noticed like that, if we have a virtual meeting, I think it's going to be, um, Especially if noticed like that, if we had some applicants choose to come in person instead of by zoom and that that might. Create. Some. Equity type issues. So, so that's why it's that way. So we'll, we'll see how that goes. But, um, we'll see how that goes. So we'll see how that goes. So we'll see how that goes. So we'll see how that goes. So we'll see how that goes. Any other questions regarding. Planning board appointment recommendations. Seeing none, we're going to move on to ZBA. Um, The update, the meeting for the 15th is posted as required by the. Um, policy. Um, interview questions are required to be sent out today. We have not adopted them yet. I will send them out. I will send them and put them in the packet and I'm waiting for one more update. So instead of having Athena enter the packet in twice, um, once for the interview questions and once for one more update, um, I'm just going to send both to Athena tomorrow. I'm waiting for the ZBA to meet tonight to see which hearings they are continuing. Um, to get, to put in the packet of potential motion sheet. So that we have the numbers it's looking like ZBA. Um, May not actually have any hearings continuing on past June 30. Um, but they have two tonight. Um, And those two may or may not close tonight. And so I want to have the most up to date motion sheet. Draft. For the packet, um, For ZBA, because when you're starting with continuing stuff, um, I'm going to put that in once I get an update from Rob Wachilla about what goes on at ZBA tonight. And there's one other hearing noticed for the 22nd that they haven't picked their panel yet. So I don't know who for that one, who's going to be on that panel and whether we might or might not have to, um, extend terms for whoever's on that panel. Rob has indicated that the hearing on the 22nd, he does not expect to continue past the 22nd, but we obviously, if we don't have that hearing panel by the 15th, we can't make a recommendation, but I'm going to be keeping on it to make sure once we know that panel, um, that it's covered by the council agenda on the 26th. Because the meeting will have to be, the council meeting has to be posted before we know whether it gets continued on the 22nd or not. So, so I'm on top of it, but, um, that's the other document I hope to add to the packet tomorrow is just sort of a draft motion so that people can see what that motions, those motions look like. Jennifer. So I, um, with the ZBA candidates, I believe one, um, is specified. I don't know if he did that he only, he would like to be an alternate, but are the others applying for either full or alternate. So I have not actually read any of the statements of interest yet in the emails I had that I received, I believe one indicated they wanted full and one indicated they wanted associate. When we pop up the question responses, you'll notice that one of the counselors, I'll say it was me added in a question that specifically says, we should ask people what they want. So that we know as we deliver right. And we've never, you know, so formalize that request. So, so that'll be there, but that's a great question. It actually kind of moves us into the interview question, talking about the interview questions. Um, so any other questions on ZBA before we move to looking at the interview questions and what counselors wanted. Feedback we got seeing none. I'm going to share. Um, the questions. These, what you see here were the questions that were. Right. Okay. Now you can see it. Um, what you see here are the questions that were used at the last, I will give me a second. I will expand it at the last, um, ZBA. Um, interview. Oops. Hold on. I'm trying to do one thing. And what I'm adding onto it. Is. The questions that were received from counselors. So. Um, and we can go through it. Um, as we get there, I think there were. Um, Requests to revise questions three, four, five. Nine at and at a question. So we'll start in order unless people have other requests for questions. We'll start with the revision to question three. Um, right now it reads, do you understand the role of the ZBA and how it differs from the role of the planning board? And a counselor said. A new wording could possibly be, please explain the difference between the two. So. Any preference on. Which wording. Here is the alternate wording for question three. And it says the same thing. It says the same thing. It's just instead of a, do you understand? Which could be answered with a yes. It asks someone to explain it. Jennifer. Yeah, I don't have a strong preference, but I can see also the, do you understand may. Um, I don't know. I think it could be a little, somebody might take a little offense to that. Yeah. Yeah. So maybe we could go with the, um, I'd be comfortable going with the suggestion for the revision. I don't have a strong feeling, but. So that's what it would be. The next one was, um, for number four. I have no idea why this renumbered. Maybe I can figure it out. I have no idea what's going on. Okay. I'll fix that later. Okay. Okay. I've got a number gone. The next one was question number four, um, which is now listed as three for some reason that said, when interpreting a provision of the zoning by law, should the ZBA consider original tent. Of that provision. It's common sense meeting and or something else. Um, and the question, the consideration was, if we're going to say something else, maybe say, please describe other factors than original and, you know, something else. Um, instead of maybe something else. Original intent of the provision common sense meeting and or other factors, or I didn't get a rewording. It was just a comment to it. Pat. I'm curious. Because how do we know what the original intent of the provision was many of our zoning laws were written. That just seems like, uh, a reply, you know, the kind of thing you do about the constitution. I'm interpreting where fathers did. So it just bothers me and I don't know if it bothers anybody else. I mean, one option would be when interpreting a provision of the zoning ball zoning by law, what factors. Would you. Or, you know, what factors would you consider or how, or how would you go about interpreting. Um, the provisions of the zoning by law or interpreting it. Although that's very vague because scenario. It seems that original intent means in fact, as worded. Which doesn't mean anything. Because it's open to interpretation. I don't know. It's, I don't care. I don't care. I don't care. It's ridiculous. So we could try when applying the zoning by law. What. Let me work on it while we talk about the other ones. If we could just stick with that for a second. I think interpreting a provision of the by law is, is still appropriate. You. Interpreter. That is their role. Oh, right. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. My vision is what I'm having the trouble with. Of course they're interpreting. And that's why the, when you see it. The words are there and each person interprets it. Through their experience. And so I don't have any trouble with the word interpret. Trying to. Get my sound down. I'm trying to think of an example. Yeah. Well, there are dimensional. Dimensional flexibility. There's, you know, some flexibility in some of the conditions. I think what the question is getting at is, is what is absolutely strict interpretation of. The words on the page. Or. Other. Here's an attempt. Please explain how you would go about applying a provision of the zoning bylaw that might have different interpretations. I think that's fine. I don't know whether it's better or worse than the original. What was the original intent? Thoughts. Was Pat said everything could have a different interpretation, but. It's kind of, but how somebody is interpreting it. I think it's important, you know. So original draft or the modified version. I mean, it sounded a little like the next question. Like people have different interpretations. I guess they're different questions, but then you start looking at, you know, how the decision will impact those, some of those different parties. Yeah. I guess impacts and interpretations of. Yeah. One is like, I think. Yeah. You know, Pam was talking about question now, number three of like. When you've got a waiver, what did it mean? Or, you know, when you're looking at number of parking spaces, a minimum of, I think we right now have minimums. Well, what's minimum versus how many should we require? Right. And that's different necessarily then. Yeah. I mean, I think there's a, there's a question that might be talking more about. Appropriateness of use in that area. But that's not the only way the next question could. Be in thought about, right? There's, there's the language and what's, what's like. Going to be required versus. Do you allow it? I don't know. There's also a rewording of question five. So. Coming back to our original number four. I think the. The common sense meaning, I mean, that, that's, that's sort of implying, implying that there is. A way to interpret the words on the page. And I think. All we're trying to look at is. Do people realize that there are different ways of, of. Being an interpreting. Someone, someone that's Pat said their lived experience may, may need them to, to have a common sense meaning of acts. Because they've seen that they've experienced it. And what do we try to contrast it with is what I'm saying. You know, so they understand that there's, there's a range. Do we want to come back to this one? Yeah. Sorry for causing trouble. No, it's not you. We're still working on figuring out these questions. So question number five. How to requested rewording potentially. It's right now. Who's interests. Do you think are most important? Yeah. Oh, and someone else said, get rid of the site plan review on question five, because ZBA only deals with special permit. So, and, and it was, who's, who's interest. Do you think are most important staff, landowner parties in interest or other residents and someone else, the one counselor said, you could reword it to, in considering those with an interest in a special permit, should the interest of one party be given greater significance to the site plan review? Yeah, I think so too. I think it's better than what we have. I'm getting rid of the site plan review on that. Okay. I think I just got it rid of another question number for some reason. Okay. We'll come back to what's number three and we're missing two numbers right now. So the next one. Okay. I'm going to go back to the next one. And then. So what the planning board, what we revised the planning board question to. That's what the current planning board question nine or eight or whatever number it is on the planning board list reads. Looks fun. Yeah. Okay. Yep. Yeah. Oh, wait. And I keep getting rid of question numbers. And the next one was. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The planning board doesn't have associate members. So. And that would take care of the question, Jennifer, that you were asking, which is how do we know? And so we'd be evening it out by asking everyone to state their preference or say any. Right. I'm fine with that. Which leaves us then with. Back to this question. Three A. No. I can't follow the numbers. I have no idea why they don't have numbers. I think three eight. Sorry. I do have numbers. Oh wait, no. There we go. I think now they have numbers. I think you're right. Question five seems like it could be two separate. Oh, it is separate questions. Okay. Oh yeah. So maybe they don't all have numbers. Hold on. Five. Okay. Which means we are looking now that we have everything numbered, we're looking at. Four. Sorry. They do have numbers. Oh wait, no. There we go. I think now they have numbers. I think you're right. Four. Question. When, so we have folks, we have folks with experience that apply to the plant, to the ZBA, we have folks with no experience, but an interest. And it's a little, I'm thinking in their shoes, it's a little awkward to say, well, tell us how you would think about how would you apply. Provisions, the bylaw, you know, and these folks have never done that. What they can relate to is that. Our original wording. When interpreting a provision should they consider, you know, X, Y, or Z. It makes it a little more obvious what. We're trying to get them to think about rather than explain how they would actually apply a provision of the bylaw. If that makes sense to you all. I sort of need it in a sentence. I'm not quite where you are, Pam. I'm not sure exactly what you're. So if I heard Pam properly, let me try Pam if you're willing. I'm not sure what you're talking about. But the original question. Is more answerable by people that don't have ZBA experience and people that do, because it's talking more about. It's clear that it's generalities. Like when you're looking so that they can relate that to. Some other bite, you know, like they've served on a board, you know, they're not going to be able to say what they're doing. They're not going to be able to say what they're doing or what they mean. You know, and they can relate it to something like that. Whereas the, the new wording. Isn't as clear that that's sort of what we're getting at. Right. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. I'm wondering if. Should the ZBA consider the intent of the provision. It's common sense, meaning and or something else. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't necessarily. Knows. The original intent. We, we all use an interpretation. I don't know. Side of people want to keep it. I was wondering if we could change original intent to something like. The, the actual language. You know, or the written words. It's like a term we should original intent. Sort of the wrong term, but yeah. Pat, I like what you said. Do you know what you said? Let me see. I think I just left out original. Yeah. Yes. So consider the intent of the provision. It's common sense, meaning which might seem different. And or something else. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And counselor one said. And or I think they would say instead of something else. Other factors maybe. Consider the intent of the provision. It's common sense, meaning or what was a little. Some other factor. Yeah. Or yeah, thank you, Jennifer. I think Mandy was writing that. Yeah. Something like that. I think is what counselor. Yeah. I think that's what counselor was going for. If suggesting something else in the question, ask them to please describe other factors other than original intent of the provision. So. And or some other factor. And it covers that. Great. Are we. So that's what it looks like. Oh, and there's a rewording for. No, I think this is the rewording. Where are you? I'm sorry. The blurb at the bottom. I think is the rewording Pam that you mentioned. Yes. And so we have to change question nine. Is it nine or is it 10? Well, it's nine, but 10 is. 10 isn't a yes or no, but it's also a simple answer. Yep. That work. Question. Or short answers. It's not quite. I think it's self-explanatory as Pam says. Does that look good? We ready for a motion and a vote? I move to accept these. Questions as discussed and amended. Just a quick answer on nine answer. I think it will be self-explanatory. I may hear the question. Our quick answer. Short answer. I think it's self-explanatory. As Pam says. Does that look good? We ready for a motion and a vote. It's self-explanatory as well. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we're gonna vote. We'll start with Pat. I. Mandy is an I Pam. I. And Jennifer. I. That is unanimous. I will send them out. After the meeting. residential rental bylaw. Thank you John. Oh sorry Kelly. Hi one quick question. Pam was it you who made the motion for that last one? Yes. That's what I thought. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you for asking Kelly. Pam. Mandy can we just clarify who is going to send this list of questions to the folks that have submitted their SOIs? I was planning on it simply because I have control of the document. I'm happy to send that for cleanup to you to do but I figured it's okay. I just want to be clear on who is supposed to do it. No I appreciate that Pam. I appreciate it and normally I would say that that goes to you but so again the policy says we have to get it out today and so I figured it was just simpler to do it. If I had been thinking ahead I would have had you have the control of the document. Okay so we're on to residential rental bylaw. I thank John and Rob for being patient while we got through that that needed adopted today so we are going to start with I had fee structure then bylaw then regulations. I think we're going to start with the bylaw though. We got the town attorney's opinion and we got three documents two of which looked the same to me one in word form one in PDF which just had comments on the draft bylaw and then there was a written PDF that had sort of a narrative set of comments with some answers to questions regarding some certain scenarios and what would the board of licensed commissioners role be and some of that and some of the specific questions that we had had. I guess we can talk about some of the narrative if you would like. I feel like it might be more efficient to go through the document though and bring in the narrative part as we get to some of those sections but talk about the document and the comments in that and any other changes that committee members or John or Rob would like to see in the bylaw not does not have to be solely based on the comments we just received from legal. Give me one second Pam from what I got back from Paul I believe I had sent them the regulations but it appears that they did not review the leg regulations or did not see them. I have not sent back to Paul that question yet because I wanted to see I wanted us to go through these to see if then we needed to resend the regulations or whether we wanted to based on their comments make changes to the regulations ourselves. So I didn't respond back to Paul with that yet. Pam. Yeah and looking at the at the KP law memo it seems like there are some in the on the first and second page that the general comments and those raise some really good questions and I wonder if maybe rather than going line by line we at least talk about those four or five comments from them because it really kind of applies generally to the way we're approaching it and I really want to hear from Rob and John you know in some of the answers to those if that if that would work under your consideration of those. So I think that's fine let me share that so that people watching give it a second it says screen shares loading now you should be able to see it. So people watching can see what all we're looking at this is all of these documents are in the packet and they've been sent to all counselors too is what it looked like that Paul forwarded the whole thing to everyone so oh and welcome Dave hadn't known you joined us now I see you on our screen. So you wanted to start maybe with these first five general comments. Yeah so the first one's in the document to in the bylaw and that was just apparently we hadn't gone back and done our consistency yet and they recommend the consistency this is the committee just in agreement with going through and making sure we always refer to the defined terms in their defined term. Yes that would be a good thing. Yeah sometimes we forget to go back and do that so it's always a good reminder. Number two is an interesting one that talks about inspections and emergency inspections and reasonable notice inspections. Thoughts on this one I can also pull up actually I think I can do it from here if I do this do you see the draft now. Okay so the inspection there was also a comment here about inspections. Right can I read item number 25 what Pam can I can I read this comment from KP law. Yeah so so people can actually hear or see and I think because because to me it it really begs the question does it does this undermine our town's ability to inspect and develop an inspection program. I can't believe if Barnstable has an inspection program that Amherst can't so but I just really want to read it says as it pertains to inspections please be cognizant that the town's authority to inspect private dwellings is limited by the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the mass constitution while the town may inspect private dwellings in accordance with permitting requirements and with local and state regulations provisions purporting to authorize the town to perform quote emergency inspections and or quote reasonable notice inspections may be ineffective and subject to legal challenge. In many cases the only way to legally enter a privately owned property is pursuant to an administrative search for it. I find that I find that unnerving. Yeah and and to go along with that comment there was a comment written in the draft bylaw that is this one here that says that relates to emergent emergency inspections that says as a general matter and in my opinion this was the JGM 25 if there's a circumstance where the town needs to inspect a unit on an urgent basis citing the state codes will have greater chance of success than citing this bylaw alone furthermore each of those codes already has provisions for inspections and emergency situations therefore while you may wish to keep this language for consistency as a practical matter emergency inspections may be may need to be conducted under other regulation schemes um and then there was a there was another one up here about oh wait no yeah no there wasn't okay so Jennifer I'm sorry Jen so um I guess 11 Allen Street I think that's what it was or 20 Allen Street if there's an emergency they had to go in and it was um unsafe and they had to condemn the property and no you know the residents that had to go stay in a hotel I think that's um so under what circumstances were they allowed to go in and do that I don't think they had a search warrant but they must have had I don't know if oh John would probably know John or Rob would know Rob yeah so in a case like that where the fire department's responding to a call and they have control of the the property when they're unseen they'll often call us in to look at something if they if they're concerned or see something that we might want to look at that's pretty standard practice on an emergency response so that's um you know that's one way that it would occur we actually don't um you know we don't seek search warrants often in fact you know just a couple of weeks ago the the clerk magistrate explained how rare it is for a search warrant to even be issued I think maybe one in the entire year for the districts that this magistrate covers so it's unusual and it has to be pretty extreme situations that you know that we would want to um you know take that path if if necessary um yeah responding to Jennifer about 20 Allen so the police had a search warrant that's that's why they were there and they also had an assisted district attorney on the scene the district attorney said that the police should go in and see if they saw some obvious code infractions in which case they should come out and invite me in so they had control of the scene that's that's how I was that's how I was asked in thank you John so the way I read this one and the comment within the bylaw itself um is we might want to that that a rental bylaw probably doesn't those sections about emergency inspections might not be appropriate for a rental bylaw because you'd be doing it under the state law which has stronger protections and stronger likelihood of success if you need to get in rather than a rental permitting bylaw but the way I read this sentence here that says while the town may inspect private dwellings in accordance with permitting requirements so that um indicates that we can um I'm not sure we have we can require that they let us in the way I read it is we say we're going to inspect for you to get a permit if you don't let us inspect you don't get a permit that um that that's sort of the the result is not you know okay you have to give us permission the result is well if you don't give us permission you don't get a permit and you can't rent the building and if you do rent it you're going to get fined in violation of this bylaw and so that's sort of how I saw the two comments working together of we can still require the inspections um to obtain the permit but what goes beyond that these these I think we had somewhere in there that says as long as we've given notice they can go in um and I think kplaw's saying no you can't um but what you can do is if you're not allowed in you can make failure to allow inspections sort of part of what might result in a revocation of a permit or denial of a permit that's sort of my interpretation of these sections any other thoughts on this it'll become I think a little more clear as we move to the language where it applies but other thoughts so so to come for me it it sounds like we within our permitting requirements we we allow and and inspect I'm I'm comfortable with that because if that comes back up again though when we talk about the board of health so let's keep going yep and I agree with the two of you it feels like it rests on this in accordance with permitting requirements we create the permitting requirements so therefore that gives us rights to act in essence yeah okay number three um proper in my opinion the proper procedure to ensure compliance with the state regulations is via those mechanisms provisions in this bylaw purporting to enforce other state laws and regulations may be enforced by means of an order to vacate may be unforce unenforceable so they were talking about a specific provision where we said one of the violations could be the issuance of an order to vacate um I think they wrote nearly the same thing here this order to vacate comment was the town does not have the authority to order occupants to vacate a structure under this general bylaw orders to vacate are more properly issued under the various codes uh the lawyer recommended striking the section or simply stating that the principal code official under the bylaw may require a meeting with the property owner within 10 days if the structure is subject to an order to vacate um I guess rob and john one of the questions would be would you ever issue an order to vacate under anything but those fire building or sanitary codes no no I you know I wouldn't have the ability to so deleting that section of the penalty part would be fine because you don't intend to use it anyway I've seen nods any other questions on number three so just just so I understand so an order to vacate can only occur in in violation with violation of health safety fire code building code or sanitary code yeah I think that's what Rob is saying and John is saying okay so basically I think what the attorney's saying is we can't say oh you don't have a permit everyone has to vacate the building simply because there's no rental permit our hudgel as a town is fines for that process not moving people out of the residence number four um the town attorney basically said that we cannot as a town tell landlords and tenants what mandate that they put certain provisions in their leases Pam I thought we already did I thought I thought there were certain clauses that that our permittees include Rob does our current by law require certain lease clauses the current by law doesn't require any particular lease language you know there's certain things that have to happen that ultimately have gotten into leases you know but it's really been the choice of the landlord or property manager to incorporate those either in the either in the base language or in attachments to the lease and then as probably many of you know it's not uncommon for the you know the zoning board to ask for particular language in a speed in in a lease so it has happened that way from time to time but it's always in agreement with the the the the firm or the individual that has control over writing that lease and and using it other thoughts were there were there any specific um i'm trying to remember if there are any specific phrases or clauses that we were asking to be included right here in blue um there's the ab and then the rest and so what number three uh l2 which um the town attorney basically says delete the whole section um but then the town attorney goes on to say so so we had required in this draft um a provision requiring attendance to provide reasonable access and terms indicating that if the owner does not have a current rental permit the lease contract may become void the town attorney has recommended deleting that section in the entirety and then sorry for all the white space there's a second paragraph that says if no lease is used there's documentation um the the owners must provide documentation to the town that tenants are made aware of the rental bylaw rental permit bylaw and inspection system and that all leases provide acknowledgement that tenants have been aware of that and the town attorney actually said with that one you could um as as it would be appropriate for the bylaw and the permits that are issued there under to require an owner to notify tenants of the rental bylaw you just can't force them to put it in the lease is what i read that as but we could require that notification some other way and then proof of that notification you just can't force them to put it in the lease thank you you're welcome and number five is basically consider the financial and person our impacts of this bylaw jennifer yeah what is it i made a note about this what does that mean the last sentence might there be other ways to enforce such as affirmations of complaint what is under the penalty of perjury oh so that means that when you sign the application you are signing that everything is truthful and if you lied in it you could be charged with perjury that's an applying permit okay or some other thing but yeah ham that's that's kind of getting close to um self-certification yes that work for inspections we've seen it does not work um but um for certain penalties maybe something like that would i think i think they're saying consider potential other ways the spot checks i'm curious john and rob how that might work spot checks and how could we write that into the bylaw i guess i'd like to know more about what he's thinking you know on what how that would even be applied you know i i'm not sure how we would just choose locations or what we would base those decisions on prior experience with a with a property or landlord it seems like to get it would get us into trouble um by just kind of picking and choosing randomly uh where we do spot checks so i guess i want more guidance on that from the attorney yeah exactly the there's other um laws that um we're governed by that say we can't target properties or landlords so this seems like it would be getting close to doing that thank you mandy for going through those oh you're welcome okay um the detailed questions so most of these came from the board of license commissioners so i'm not sure we need to talk specifically about them um in my meetings with the board of license commissioners they had asked how would the appeals work what would their role be what would they be deciding things like that and so i forwarded those questions on um and i have already forwarded all three of these documents to the chair of the board of license commissioners for their discussion and and also i suspect they will discuss particularly section two which mostly relates to questions they had um so and i think that takes care of most of these comments um if i if i could comment just on the responses or the scenarios and the and the responses for um board of health a board of license commissioners sure um it seems that obviously our inspection department manages this now they manage the appeals etc and i think it feels like many of these are are pretty straightforward um determining if if the inspections were or the requirements or um findings were valid um the one thing that jumped out on me in terms of eating ambiguity was was the kp laws um characterization of passing an inspection and i think i'd like to hear from john and rob to me when you pass inspection that's kind of standard language you have to pass inspection and it feels pretty awkward to me to have to um verbalize what that means because it's that's pretty involved and we'd be sure to miss you know miss something or mislead um how can we say other than pass an inspection to if we if we linked it to meeting all local state and federal regulations rob john uh so i actually didn't have a problem with his recommendation i mean i think everything we you know would be looking at does connect or relate to a local state or federal regulation one way or another so i i i was pretty comfortable with adding that little bit of language um if you know he felt it was important yeah it just seems i mean we we always talk about passing inspection then you know what that means and i know what that means why do we have to further describe it now i think i think the lawyer added the language to confirm that all local state and federal laws and regulations are met and rob that's the language you were referring to that you'd be comfortable with right yeah that is what we do that's what we do yeah that's right right okay i'll tell you though with that i'm gonna share the word version of this so that i can make changes on that and everyone can see them um as we go through we've discussed some of this already um i will go through and do that make consistent we discussed that one we'll go through and just make sure that we're always referencing the right definition um bandy in your notes would you would you um note that person in charge i think is possibly used in a couple different ways between our regulations and this by-law fine because it's implied in some cases that it's the that it's the tenant when i think it's implied here that person in charge is the manager the property manager the owner but there is no guarantee they're going to be 25 or more so well so that was one of the comments the attorney had um the rationale behind 25 year old requirement and um and i basically he said can the town rationalize why a 25 year old can serve as a person in charge but not a 24 year old you know i i i got from him reading this that he'd probably be much more comfortable if we said 18 or older um because that's the difference between adult and child you might even be able to get away with 21 and older um because we've made those distinctions with alcohol so i could probably make a rational argument that um a person in charge might need to be able to legally possess various um substances depending on what's going on um but thoughts on 25 and everything Jennifer um no i would just ask uh rob and john if they have any you know what their feelings are about this yeah can you say because their brain's not done cooking till they're 25 because did you put that in there i think there's probably some evidence for that given the state of uh who the nation is supporting it for political positions i don't think uh 50 year olds have cooked brains anymore um i really think i think you know a person at 18 can be incredibly responsible and a person at 25 can be uh moron um around regulating something so i think i would like to go with 18 or above um that person you know the landlord is entrusting that person and that they're you know there would be ramifications for them failing i think we're getting carried away well rob and john do you how do you feel about that i mean we've had this situation already where you know when out of town landlord puts one of the tenants in charge they say they're the they're the person in charge they're the local agent contact them if anything goes wrong yeah sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't when it doesn't you know we are there to um use the rules yeah so the problems that we've had generally has nothing to do with an individual's age so i'm you know i personally i i don't care for the establishing the 25 year limit but you know i wonder if if we can try pushing it a little different direction and uh say qualified responsible adult or something some way for us to be able to respond to the the person in charge and say you know what this just isn't this isn't meant to be it's not working and that's that's the issue we're trying to get at you know that that's that's the trouble we run into from time to time ham yeah i was gonna say the the cutoff of 25 is that is that by 25 if you're if you're in school you're probably not an undergraduate anymore and so that was part of the cutoff um i the if we put in the word um what was what was Rob's word qualified we probably then have to describe what qualified means but um if we if i mean i guess i could live with qualified adult 21 years of age because that is that means you could at least have liquor uh in your possession and it wouldn't be illegal and it gives you maybe some slight seniority over other occupants in the building or the or the the home where it's not you know the youngest in the in the crowd trying to manage the oldest in the crowd it's it's all pretty relative and it's pretty subjective yeah i i think i could go with either 18 or 21 um 18's easier to justify necessarily than 21 although 21 can i think be justified i just in reading this um not leaving the region for more than 45 continuous calendar days um look attorney didn't flag that as problematic and i think that's where we might have the um we might be able to change that to 30 or 20 or i wouldn't want to go less than 21 probably but um you know if you're thinking about people and and and all and worried about a tenant that only resides here nine months of a year being named the person in charge they couldn't be because of that um language they'd be gone you know when you hit six weeks you can't be the person in charge um so i i don't know whether that makes 18 fine versus 21 but john where's that who's going to keep track of that yeah yeah that's the question right but if we could eliminate that section if people are like it adds complication that no one's ever going to track we were trying to get at having a local rep obviously yeah and if if if we have a time frame that the person has to be available that makes sense however a single family home with everybody leaving for the summer means there's really nobody there and nobody to watch out um i think we were this is this particular phrase is really targeted at the property managers to make them available so are we off target by including it i think i agree with you that we're off target here and it is the property managers that we're speaking to um so i'd like to see it removed and only focused on them so we i think we could remove this whole sentence because up here we say and lives in hampton hampshire or franklin county so i'm not sure we need this sentence at all if we're trying to target it also seems like if a person goes away for a period of time it doesn't mean that they're a student they and if they're a property manager the property manager their boss knows they're leaving and somebody else would be in charge i think we're we're yeah nothing no i i think you're right pat um we have plenty of people who go away for the winter down south um that probably for more than 45 days that might still be think of themselves as a um owner occupied even potentially um rental where they rent one unit and they live in the other except during the winter um back to the age 21 or 18 how about we just say qualified responsible adult and that kind of implies that you have to be at least 18 does that work for everyone sure yeah i think we resolved that one wait a minute so so it says though the person charged shall be a qualified adult and not be a current tenant of the owner except is provided so what does that mean yeah so that's the sentence here resident managers um shall be eligible to serve so a resident manager might be considered a tenant if they're paying reduced rent but still rent right because they don't own you know if puffton has a resident manager who lives in one of the units they don't own the unit they're technically renting it from someone even if it's at a reduced rate or zero but they are the person in charge so i think that's covered and that's covered by here in yeah okay everyone good and rob and john are good i'm just going to go through these and then anyone who's got any other thoughts or requests to change stuff we'll touch them later um attorney murray recommended we delete the word halfway house and just go with group homes yeah um so if everyone's okay with that i will do that group homes actually include halfway house houses for certain individuals um with substance abuse and all and dorms we've had this one a couple of times we've talked about this a couple of times um the p threes um rob you've determined that fieldstone is not owned by the educational institution but if it were but it was operated by the fieldstone people would you want it to inspect it so um i i guess i thought maybe maybe jonathan was suggesting that we say owner owned and operated yeah and and you know maybe we just take that recommendation because we don't really know exactly how these these dormitories could be structured in these public private partnerships in the future um not just you know trying to figure out the one that we had uh currently um so i i think it makes sense to say that you know for the for the purposes of establishing the exception owned owned and operated jennifer yeah i just had a general question so i'm assuming i was always assuming that the town would not be inspecting fieldstone but what if there was a noise complaint how would that be handled rob uh so a noise you know i think that's a good question you you know would you mass police respond and and what would happen if somebody called apd would apd apd respond i don't know the answer to that we'd have to talk that over with apd on how they're going to interpret the uh the news noise and nuisance uh regulations i think for us if we were called for a complaint we would respond you know if there was a housing complaint a tenant was asking for our assistance we would we would want to help okay that's good to know thank you everyone okay with this up pam yeah so a dormitory owned and operated first of all we have we have a definition in the bylaw for dormitory but this so this is i'm just making sure we don't we aren't redundant or or um change the definition here but dormitories owned and operated by the institution means that fieldstone is not owned by the university so are the p3s in this case including north village would fall under our jurisdiction yes so so they would not be exempt which means fieldstone would need to get a rental permit good and only like yeah dormitory is defined in the zoning bylaw and includes its definition is broad enough that it includes olympia place i think it's olympia place not olympia oaks right olympia place um which is not even a p3 but it's considered a dorm under the definition in the zoning bylaw and we've adopted that definition educational institution in this bylaws defined as amherst college hamster college and umass so we would have to third if a fourth one happened to locate themselves in town i mean have to go and change the bylaw um and it has to be in the ed district so the dorms operated by amherst college on amherst college's property would be exempt and they don't have to obtain a permit but fieldstone would have to obtain a permit and go through the inspection process right jennifer yeah i may just be semantics but the university is very clear that fieldstone is not a dormitory it's an apartment i don't know if that makes a difference and do they know they're going to need to be inspected rob uh no they don't know that because uh we we actually are not issue didn't issue the building permits the state inspector issued the building permits because the university owns the building so would the state do the inspections or with the town well i guess that's what we're trying to establish here is whether or not we would do any inspection or be responsible for any of the sanitary code violations after there's occupants so when there's a tent after a tenant um you know is established in the building it seems to me the attorney suggesting that we can do this so i'm happy to do that if he's suggesting we can do that i thought all along we would be permitting it and that wasn't the case and and we'd be happy to you know make sure that we're responsible for responding to any complaints that happen there um there you know there are state building inspectors but they cover a large territory you know they're not they're not here all the time and amers to respond in a reasonable time right any other questions with the dorm one if not so again it doesn't matter if it's a dorm or apartment it's still right if it's classified as an apartment it wouldn't even fall under the exemption at all right right okay so the comment on this one is the use of the word short short term because up above we've just determined short short term is 31 or fewer consecutive days um i recommend we just delete the term that we just delete short term so that its residential rental property rented less than 14 days cumulative in a calendar year are exempt from the bylaw um short term was defined as that to try and make sure we have a couple of additional provisions for short term rentals that only rent um no more than 31 days at a time um so air b and b type rentals um this applies to them but only if they rent for more than 14 cumulative days in a year so the person renting just uh air b and b in their house for one weekend a year doesn't have to get a rental permit but if they've basically invested in it um and do this for more than 14 days on an air b and b basis they need to get a rental permit and one of the requirements that they have to prove if they're going to do those short short term rentals is that they've registered with the state to pay taxes because we've adopted the local option tax for short term rentals and so we don't want to give them a permit if they're not paying those taxes so i think eliminating the reference to short term here eliminates that conflict any other questions or thoughts on that everyone okay with that next one was he recommended referencing section m um in this review of permit issuance we're on page four pam yeah i'm looking for m oh m is just the violation section so m2c he got very specific it's it's the violation section yep don't need to scroll it's fine okay i found it yep he just wanted it referenced yep everyone good with that i'm gonna throw the highlight in just in case given some of the things we're deleting these might change so um throw the highlight in and i think he fixed a reference here um we had put town in general and the attorney wanted us to specify an individual that the applications get submitted to so the question rob is is the principal code official the proper person it is yeah i mean it's what we've been using in the current by-law so i think that could be i know you got to go through and make it consistent we have code official we have uh code enforcement officer principal code official we use it all in this file in the document so um any one of them is fine but principal code official is what we use now okay and and that goes to another question we actually define code enforcement officer and principal code official differently in this bylaw um code enforcement officer references police officers and fire uh fire staff the health inspector all of that and the principal code official is essentially you administering the program yeah right i wonder if they can be the same well we would have to go through and i can do once we get through these comments we can do a search for where we reference code enforcement officer and see if if you can swap out um principal code official or not that might be something to do new if you're looking to simplify but you're okay with principal code official here i am late fee uh jonathan recommended we reference renewals so unless there are other late fees can john or rob think of any other late fees we might have beyond the renewal one where they don't renew their permit in time we don't charge any late fees now yeah i mean it'd be like a reinfection fee that wasn't paid or something like that you know there'd be other i'm sure other cases but i don't i don't think we need to have that included uh the renewal is really the it's going to be the big one so i think if we just put renewal late fee that might clarify our permit renewal late fee might clarify um jonathan's concern does that work for people but we don't do that now i mean if we don't do a late fee do we have to include that but the question is do we want to do a late fee so is that administratively problematic i don't know for opposite one that would yeah impact no i i mean we don't have a late fee now i would like there to be a late fee uh you know it is something that that takes a lot of time to to chase after applicants that do not renew on time so i think this i think this is a step in the right direction and it's easy for us to to manage with our permitting program okay good i know there i know there are a lot of very diligent property owners who do everything by the book and do it on time and i would like to acknowledge that they that they don't get they don't get fine it's the folks that that are black about it that that need to be prompted so the other question is looking at this i'm going to add it to this one um so that we reference it the same but the permit renewal late fee we actually specify what it looks like amount equal to the amount in the amount of the required permit fee and that happens every 30 days that potentially could get extremely steep if we change our permit fee system to be per unit and so i guess one of my questions is item number one under fees all fees including but not limited to residential rental permit initial inspection renewal inspection re-inspection complaint i made up as many complaints the fee names as i could think of no show appeal transfer and permit renewal late fee initially determined do we even need number two then or should we leave the late fee determination because two almost means one shouldn't even be included because we've already indicated what two the late fee would be in number two i worry that that could potentially be steeper than we're thinking although maybe rob's happy if if the permit fee for an apartment's $400-500 because we've done the steps would you want the late fee that much it seems kind of steep we this this is a small number of cases that you know would be really concerned about this anyway but for those 20 or 30 and john might know the number more precisely that we're dealing with right now we've chased all year and now they're we're looking at renewing the permit for the next year and they got a free year central you know so i i'm not concerned about how high it gets you know nine months into the program uh on a property that had had permit previously and didn't have one this past year i just don't think there's any excuse for that myself um and hope that this will help discourage we want that to end we don't want you know we want we don't want to collect the fine we want it and we want people to renew on time so i guess the question is do we leave what this fee is in the bylaw or do we move this definition into our fee schedule i think the bylaw maybe uh can state that there will be a late fee and then the schedule can be can establish what it is so we can eliminate the we don't have to describe here that it's double the fee or every 30 days just that there will be a late fee i'm i'm adding it to the document that i'm tracking the the late the fee schedule for okay so that means we would delete it here is everyone okay with that it's referenced up here as part of as one of the fees so we haven't lost it we're just yeah i can see where we haven't lost it but um that every 30 day thing if if we're giving that up in this in the other section and then we want to impose that is that problematic in terms somebody could fight it because we don't we didn't do it for someone else it is there a question of consistency that we need to think about so i have basically copied this entire sentence into the working fee schedule that if we have time today to get to i'll show you and it will be in the next draft of the fee schedule so that would be the document we would be planning on sending over to um to finance to work out mainly the permit and inspection fees but we can put some of the other ones in there as recommendations um so we won't have lost it it's part of the regulations and fee setting provisions shall be initially determined by the council and amended by the board of licensed commissioners i'm okay with that if if in fact it shows up on the other schedule because otherwise in in a way we would have to describe each and every one of those fees in this in this document here and that doesn't make sense either yeah okay next is the passing comment but excuse me excuse me while while we're on it though we have we have now the new number two transfer of complaint inspection fees is that still valid so i think so that one is is basically saying when someone calls to complain about compliance with the say the sanitary code actually say the fire code and or the building code building code because the building inspectors here the building code um and the john goes out to inspect it because he received a complaint that we are authorizing a fee be charged for that under this bylaw so i i guess you'd only be able to charge it if there was a rental permit associated with that property because it's under this bylaw rental permitting um that fee that is charged what number two says is for that complaint inspection the inspection that happened as a result of a complaint that was called in by a tenant say the landlord can't say oh tenant you have to pay that fee they can't transfer that fee to the tenant i think that's you know we haven't said that for the rental permit fee or the initial inspection fee or the renewal inspection fee um the reinspection is when one of the inspections gets fails um we haven't said for the no show fee um you know and so i guess the question is do we need it in there i think it's nice to put in there for the complaint one because the tenants might worry that if they call in a complaint and the fee is 150 to come out that they might be charged that $150 and we don't want them to worry about complaining about a violation now the question though remains i we've gotten some questions um i think all of us have seen them from a resident about a new state law regarding the board of health having to go out and inspect something when receiving a complaint or the health inspector um rob maybe you know about this i don't know too much about the law um and not charge for that inspection at all it sounds like and so how does this relate to that can we even charge a complaint inspection fee at all i guess the question would be john yeah so i read that email um this is not something new when someone calls in a complaint to the board of health we we go we have to go we're mandated to that didn't change what happened was a new you know the housing code got updated and that's what um got sent out so we start we started using a new code which is basically just a renumbering of the old code but it's there's nothing new about you know they're going to come to your house and do an inspection we already have to do that can you charge for that inspection though so the the issue is that the tenant cannot be charged and and i think that this language that we have in our bylaws consistent with the language that's now updated in the new sanitary code um it's not that there can't be a fee for through the service the tenant cannot be charged okay so you think the attorney didn't flag it rob you think it's fine based on the laws you've seen and all i i think it serves exactly what you said it helps it helps a tenant understand that they will not be charged which is exactly what would happen they wouldn't be charged because of one of our other laws that wouldn't allow it anyway are we ready to move on the next one was the the attorney's questions about passing what passing an inspection means he added language um that seems to cover that issue and so i think he covered his question himself i'm not sure we have to add any other language and then he asked about does the town intend to inspect every dwelling unit annually that's covered in our regulations which was one of the comments that i made me think he didn't get the regulations but i'm the fact that we didn't get comments back on the regulations um so i think we've taken care of through the regulations does anyone have any other comments on that one he added the word he changed shall to may in the search warrant and added the word competent in there um that was we had that the principal code official shall seek a search warrant whenever an owner fails to allow inspections and he changed it to may i think that's logical it sounds like rob's not going to go out every time um i think our what what we as a town can do is not issue the permit does that work for you rob and john the discretion it works for me any concerns about that from committee members moving on to regulations jonathan murray notes that if the town council doesn't pass the regulations then the board of license commissioners can't do anything with them um that was just a notation we've got them drafted we hope to pass them as a council the same time this gets passed so we're going to bring them together so i'm not too worried about that comment right now um and the next one is our disclosure notice jonathan thought that if we wanted it to go to just those that currently had permits and were selling that it might be doable but if we wanted it to go to all residential rental property sales that it would be difficult to enforce thoughts can we break this down into two pieces so if we have providing written notice other requirements to prospective purchasers that would be that would be the effort to notify all realtors who work in the area does does that work is that part of it is that part of it manageable right could you say that again i'm not quite sure i follow you pan yeah so the the first quick paragraph is property owners or the agents shall shall provide written notice of requirements prospective purchasers so that to me says we reach out and actively push notification of this bylaw to every single realtor who works or has a license to work in this area is that doable from an administrative standpoint just that just that part of it but rom i guess i'm just not sure if that gets to it i mean um at the time of the transfer of title it would be the attorney that would be providing the document to the by purchaser you know i would just i just in just practice the the realtor may be long gone from any involvement in in the process you know by that point is it doable to to notify all attorneys working in land real estate law the same of the same requirement it would have to be every attorney that has a massachusetts license right oh we've got a list of those don't we it'd be easier for us just to send it to the new owner you know i mean our monthly transfer list is between 15 and 20 property owners so couldn't we just do that that seems like we could they're not they're obviously not all rental properties so it'd be more of just a notice that this exists and it serves a purpose for both the the rented property and the the neighbor to the renting property rented property so i think we can probably generate a notice that would make sense if we do it that way i i actually like that solution um if we do it that way do we need to say anything in the bylaw or can we delete this whole section i think you can then delete that section everyone in agreement with that uh pat did okay i mean we had any requests that that happened or what i mean would we um if that's not being done i mean we have to kind of the council request that that happened you know that the notice would be sent to the whenever property changes i don't think it needs to be in the bylaw but how do we get that part of the system i think we just did we just did okay yeah why don't yeah no i think it's a good idea and we never really thought that through that way but we we do a lot of work with the list of transfers already uh and we try to we basically try to pick out the ones that are not that we feel maybe or definitely our rental properties but i think now we can change we can do something different and send it off to every owner that's great okay we'll work on we'll work on that now i think that's a good idea thank you rob the next one is the in each dwelling unit um excuse me i'm sorry sorry to rehash that the wording of that though was was to prospective purchasers and and that was the that was the red flag was going up you're thinking about you know investment property and amers you need to be aware of this i i think it's great if we follow up post purchase um but does that does that not kind of meet the intent of that paragraph where we wanted to get ahead of the game is there another mechanism that we get ahead of the game yeah you you make an interesting point pan because when you read the rest of it bylaw to prospective purchasers oh and at the time of transfer i was going to say the and is in there but like prospective purposes purchasers at the time of transfer are no longer prospective right they're they're buying so so it's not the and then the disclosure language we came up with was to inform buyers of the requirement so we were almost inconsistent within the whole paragraph as to who were aiming this ad so who are we aiming with that yeah i i mean i wonder if we can go with i love rob's idea i think that's great but pam you'd suggested something about the realtors i wonder if we can encourage the realtors that generally operate in town to let prospective purchasers or something no no i don't know how that would work again we probably can't require it thinking about the contract language right that we can't say hey realtors you must put in your listing xyz right um thinking about the comments later on in this bylaw but maybe the town can work with the realtors and say hey please let prospective buyers if you think they're going to rent it out know about the bylaw john maybe he has a better idea i mean yeah we can we can go and talk to them when i first started doing this work we had a lot of problem with realtors the representing properties off the red on the property cards you know so the assessors say it's a three family well you know maybe it's not a three family and so i went around to all the local realtors and did trainings with them um you know at their monthly meetings about how to conduct research about a property and how not to say it's something that it isn't um so this is this would be easy enough look at when you when you're selling a property that's a rental property um think about making the new buyer aware that there are some town responsibilities so handle this as a as a training yeah i think that works we'll do about five more minutes and then we're gonna move on because i'm determined to end this meeting totally on time i think this is all we're going to handle today um as we get through some of this but jonathan talked about permits and where they could be displayed um he had some language i thought tenants should be able to find it too yeah are people okay with that language i i was a tenant once that had this displayed in my house um it's pretty ugly because it's like an eight and a half by eleven sheet of paper that you don't necessarily want to stare at every time you open your door i was pleased that our our landlord stuck it in a in a basement door that we saw every time we went down the basement but it was easily found easily it was not hidden it was you know in in a location that i thought was perfect in some sense they're knowable but also not ugly in some sense not where every visitor comes in and sees it type thing it's not art no i'm having a little trouble with the uh displayed in each dwelling unit at such prominent location or do you mean in a prominent location oh yeah that better pat i think so what are you yeah there we go consent we talked a little bit about this all already um jonathan added some words about sufficient grounds and reasonableness he's an attorney so he changed some words to more attorney like language he would strike this entire section um but as it relates to this part here he would put that or he jonathan suggested it would be okay if we made that a requirement of like the application or something um you know confirm that you have made your tenants aware or something like that um but the requirements are these requirements and so if we're striking the section i'm not sure we need to add notice to the tenants you know notify tenants of the rental bylaw we've already basically required them to do that i think by requiring you know we required them to do it um but not force them to include it in a leave yeah yeah i think they took a box on the application now that says they did it right i just paging back up here this one here written notification may provided including disclosure form or addendum to a purchase and sale agreement i think if we deleted the first part we delete this one too i have no idea why it was a separate number um yeah the display in use and then i think our app i'd have to go back to the regulations but i think we require them to in the application confirm that they've told the tenants so well the notice to tenants number three is is just for uh inspections yeah right and so i made a note here um that we need to i need to check the regulations to make sure that what jonathan's suggesting require an owner to notify tenants of the rental bylaw that we've included that in the regulations somewhere well we do require the distribution of the owner the tenant information sheet yeah that's true so that's right there in disclosures and notifications above the number four oh yeah this information sheet so we've covered that tenant authorization jonathan here thought um i mean i interpreted him as saying we could delete at least new items three and four actually he doesn't suggest deleting them he just says they might be i'd like to hear from rob and john yeah they really talk about additional inspections which i guess would be follow-ups i guess the reinspection oh the probable cause might have been what he had problems with it's more of the emergency inspection yeah this goes back to the earlier conversation about just showing up and doing a spot inspection which we can't do yeah i think we leave it in i've suggested deleting the probable cause thing because that goes back to that spot inspection thing um and the emergency inspections that i just talk about there he doesn't say that it's awful to have it in he said you may wish to keep the language for consistency as a practical matter emergency inspections will be conducted under other regulation so he was mainly referring to emergency inspections we're talking and so i think that was this probable cause type section other thing other than that it's covering sort of the reinspection and stuff like that is everyone comfortable leaving it in the way i've got it now with that i think how much do we have left um although just two more things we'll do it and then we'll move on um order to vacate jonathan said we should delete as we can't do that um the question i think for rob and john are do you want the jonathan suggested uh require a meeting with the property owner within 10 days of in order to vacate or would you rather this language just be deleted we don't i don't think we need to have that language that that jonathan suggests or the offer as a possibility i think we can leave that out so we're just going to delete this in other words in other words we don't have to put in the bylaw that that people can be vacated under durath or in case of an emergency we don't have to include that because it already this it's already a possibility right it's already a possibility under the sanitary building a fire page and jonathan recommended we give rob more discretion and flexibility for suspension rob what are your thoughts well i'm okay with that um the you know but i do understand where this was coming from is you know trying to prescribe things happening making sure things are going to happen uh so i'm i'm comfortable either way but i'm certainly always uh in favor of having more flexibility and dealing with the situations because they're also different many thoughts can we say maybe maybe for up to six months if they do clean it up over the summer they're eligible to refill it with people i think that works and those are the last of those comments um i will make a new draft doing all of this and then the next time we get to this which will probably be july we will um take any other final comments and then hopefully make a vote and i will um send the regulations should i take a pass at the regulations to see that they conform with whatever we changed here and then send them back off to paul asking for legal review of those that would be wonderful right if you don't mind doing that um i will do that um i will do that we will have um i don't think we'll get to it our next meeting the 22nd so we're looking at july um for it so and we need to talk about the july meetings but um that's we'll see what happens with the 22nd in terms of hearings and stuff um as we try to get this through and we'll deal with bylaw should take a lot less time next time we see it because we've been through everything we'll deal with regulations and firm permit structure again um i'd really love to have this one out to the council by the end of july we're we're six seven months past when we were hoping um july august that gives me well we need to send the fee off to finance right we were going to do that um but we wanted to send them a structure at least um but leave it to them to figure out the numbers pam can you recap so june 22 we're talking about fee structure and well june 22 we have the hearing on zoning bylaw oh right so i can put fee structure on my guess is the hearing will take most of the time but i will put fee structure on um but i don't think we'll have regulations back by then um let me talk about next agendas when we get there we are not doing let me just move on to the rest of our agenda this time and then we'll recap next agendas um we're skipping discussion items we're skipping the rest of the residential rental permitting we're moving on to general public comment public comments on matters within the jurisdiction of crc will be welcomed at this time um for up to three minutes um residents if if you want to make public comment at this time please raise your hand oh i just noticed we have no attendees so i open public comment and i am closing public comment due to the fact that there are no attendees we were that boring today um minutes um i will make the motion are there any work no there were so um we put that in ham do you have that up on your screen um i don't hold on i can get it oh because i hadn't i it's not in the packet so so let me let me let me do this there are some requested edits to the um minutes so let me pull that up on the screen um no i think it is in the packet did i yeah it says minutes and then edited minutes oh okay the edits are hold on we can't see half of them in yellow um i believe jennifer wanted some edits to how she expressed it and then in red i think we're ham come on yep jennifer yeah just so you don't think i'm i actually did go back and listen to it because when i first read it i said i don't like i say that so this is consistent with what i said i'm not just trying to sound more eloquent whatever okay oh and then there was just some small changes i think that's it right so it's basically these two things here any other changes beyond these two um and everyone okay with these two i guess when we vote we'll know um so i will make the motion to to adopt the what is this may 25th 2023 um meeting minutes as edited is there a second second rooney and seconds any further discussion um see none um i'm an i pam i jennifer i and pat by that is unanimous with one absent to adopt those minutes as edited pam thank you for taking care of that you have you sent me the document so i know you've got them um with that we are on to let me get my agenda up here announcements just we've got two meetings next week special meetings for interviews um and then we have the meeting on the 22nd um next agenda preview so this is where we were talking so on the 22nd is the hearing continued hearing and i will put fee structure on i think that'll cover the whole meeting um is my guess we may not get to fee structure but just in case the hearing actually ends quickly we'll be able to continue our work on fee structure um i can put the bylaw on just in case but um maybe i will i won't put regulations on because i know we won't have that back from the attorney by then um the meeting after um is a meeting i cannot attend so i guess i just wanted to make sure as we go into summer um the july 6th meeting i cannot attend we need to make sure we have quorums on meetings has council ever discussed taking a month off uh council cannot formally take a month off because the charter requires the council to meet at least monthly um so the council must have one meeting a month the committee could so i guess one of the questions is i don't know what people's vacation schedules are i cannot attend july 6th meeting um we have a meeting set for the 20th um what happens if we decide that none of us can make the sixth and we give ourselves a break part of the question is do we want to it is two days after the fourth so why i am bringing this up is do y'all want to have a meeting on july 6th um or would after the month of june where we've had four meetings do y'all want to break it will slow down us getting through stuff um but but the question is do we hold one on the sixth do we hold one potentially skip the sixth but do the 13th or the 27th to still do two in july we've got some things we really do need to get through before the end of the term and give enough time for the council to consider um i'm up i i'm not going anywhere in july so any if you want to move it from the sixth to the next week i can do i have no life i'm happy to let y'all try and finish it off without me and continue so what about if we move it to the 13th as jennifer suggested so then we got one on the 13th and one on the 20th we can try that i will know on sunday whether i can make the 13th okay um we can proceed if we want to talk about i am happy to let you all i'm going to be missing meetings in august two at least one i think so and i don't implant intend to cancel it but i i just wanted to make sure if there are quorums in july because i wouldn't want to notice a meeting that there isn't a quorum for um but if all of you can make the sixth i would leave it up to you whether you prefer the sixth or the 13th frankly um i might be able to make the 13th um well will you know by the 22nd yeah oh yeah okay so why don't we talk about on the 22nd okay yeah and it would be good if chalene we're here to contribute or you know yeah because if it's just the three of you on one of the days and the four and four people on another day four is probably better than three um right the six might not be good for chalene right yeah so i i don't know what her schedule is so okay we will bring that back up on the 22nd any other announcements agenda items or and so the six we'll see what happens on the 22nd on what goes on the sixth but i will ask for a legal review to be back by july 1 if possible pam i would like to make sure that we have our full discussions before mr tomson retires as much as possible if we can if we can cover as much ground as possible before hurry up tires what's the day you're retiring in 12 weeks but no one's counting damn what a lot of counting yeah i'm not at all a loss um so that's a deadline yep that gives us our own deadline well anything else if not i want to thank john and rob rob might already be gone but i want to thank john and rob um we will thank you even more tremendously when we get through it but you guys have been a tremendous help um a valuable resource for us in the last year and a half of this as we slowly work through all of this it's a big job thank you we probably could have done it quicker but but we'll get there but thank you i know john it's been a lot for you to come to these meetings so thank you for that with that i'm adjourning at 6 31 p.m thank you thank you 32 you're counting yeah take care everyone