 Okay, we're reporting. I'm going to just wait to see if anyone populates the attendees section. Oh, and I noticed the minutes, the draft minutes weren't in the. Holder when you sent it to me, I added those to that. Sorry, I thought I'd put them in there. No worries. Maybe they made it late. Thank you for adding them. Maybe they made it late. How dare you. We often need it. Okay, so, um, here we go. I've seen a presence of a quorum. I am calling this December 1st, 2022 regular meeting of the community resources committee. Of the town council to order at 432 p.m. The meeting was extended by chapters 22 and 107 of the acts of 2022. This meeting is being conducted via remote means members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via zoom or telephone. No one person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time. With that, I'm going to call the roll to make sure that we can hear everyone and everyone can hear each other. And so I'm going to start with Pat. Present. The meeting is now over. Thank you, city. Present Pam. And Jennifer. Present and we will catch Shalini as she joins us, but she is not here right now. And with that, we're going to get started right away. We're going to start with the proposed amendments to zoning by law. Article three, five, 11, and 12 related to food and drink establishments. Um, I don't know whether everyone was able to check their email and see that they were there or not. So I'm going to have Nate quickly go through what they are. This is these modifications are in response to two things, the vote that we took at the last meeting to ask for changes to condition 10. And in response to legal opinions for some clarification matters. So, Nate, a quick summary would be helpful. Sure. Hi, everyone. I'm Nate. Should I share my screen is that. All right, the, um, yeah, so, you know, based on the last CRC discussion, there were some comments about changing the conditions for the BN district. Oh, I think Athena, you have to enable she screen sharing. As she does that Shalini, can you hear us? You're all set, Nate. Thanks. Shalini. Can you hear us? Yes. Sorry, we need to just check that you can hear us. I was somehow. Okay. Yes, I can hear you. Thank you. Excellent. Okay, Nate, take it away. Um, you know, we modified the use chart. One is just in this one that's highlighted the larger occupant capacity. We, we say now any establishment with a capacity of more than 200 occupants or more than 200 patrons. As opposed to, you know, we had this, the occupant was left over from when we said an occupant capacity. So we just clarified that language. And then what we're recommending the attorney for KP law, Jonathan Murray had asked questions about this condition one subject to review by the board of licensing commissioners and he, I think, you know, he didn't see is up here we say as applicable. All food and drink establishments are subject to the following and so he thought that any food and drink establishment would need to go in front of this board but since we say as applicable, you know, we think that his comment. You know, isn't necessary to address it's already addressed by having this here. He asked about condition seven, where we have onsite staff training and certifications, and he, you know, question about well, you know, what are they and so we insert the word current certifications and so, you know, typically when an establishment comes before staff and the boards, you know, they have the establishment has to show their, their, you know, all the everything is certified everything is current so it's, you know, I think it's helpful to have this word here but it addresses, you know, the attorney's concern. And then for the BN district what we're proposing is actually changing the number of seats here so in the BN district there should be no more than 50 seats both indoor and outdoor service of alcohol she'll cease at 9pm. And the remainder of this condition that talked about outdoor dining and other things has moved to article five so we're proposing striking this because in article five is where we talk about accessory uses, the outdoor dining piece and the music piece. So, those are the changes to section three so you know we clarified up top here with occupancy and we, you know, clarified a few of the conditions based on the legal comments and comments from the CRC. So let's do a new share for for the next few articles so for article five zoom in here we, if that's visible for everyone. Not yet. Sorry about that. Why is that it's fine when I'm. Yeah, okay, maybe I hit something that allowed it. Oh great yeah my screen I think went to sleep. Yeah, so what we're proposing in article five the changes are in bold green. So in 5.041 we talked about outdoor dining, and where we mentioned the zoning districts and we are proposing a statement at the end. Here that says in the BN district any outdoor dining shall be located no closer than 100 feet away from any residential dwelling in a residential district. And so that, you know, gets to the point of having, you know, previously it said that, you know, any building within 100 feet of a wall couldn't have couldn't house a food or drink establishment so we're what we're changing now is that it's really the outdoor dining has to be 100 feet away. And then in 5.042 where we have this paragraph about live or prerecorded music. We have an addition near the end here that says in the being district there should be no entertainment outside the building. You know, there's no accessory use allowed outside so someone could have music inside the building, but they couldn't have it outdoors in the BN district. And so those are the changes to to article five. Thank you. Pam, you have a question. Not a question just a real quick comment if you're going to present this for counsel. The type font should be the same I think you've got one italicized. The 5.042 italicized the one up above and right, whatever is not. Yeah, we change it and make it bold black as well just to match I just did it green for perfect. Yeah. See the change it. Thanks. And then in terms of there's one other change in article 11 the attorney had noticed and in this section where we say when site planner view is not required we have these bullets. There's four and they're reorganized they were existing language in the bylaw. When we read, we numbered them, we added this and right here in 11.211. So that essentially it reads that all these have to happen for site plan review not to be required but really each one of these is a condition where site plan review is not required so the attorney recommended deleting and so that you know it's these are standalone instances where if this is a case and site plan reviews not required and if 11.211 is not required not that all of them together. Add up so that's the change to section 11 and there's no changes to section 12 that's the definitions where we modified the definition of a bar and deleted one so there's no changes to that section. Thank you Nate any questions this was a review after our vote to recommend just to make sure the language worked. Does the committee want to revote its recommendation or did it would it be fine with me just putting in the report that the committee supports, you know, has reviewed the language, and it matches our prior or you know conforms with the prior vote. What's the committee's preference. Pam. The latter is fine as or as amended as amended in the presentation today. Yeah. And I'll second your motion. Okay, so the motion let's let me let me do the formal language pull up my report. And it's going to match last week's motion with some items changed and then it'll be easier for me to put in the motion so the motion is to recommend the council adopt. So there are definitions to food and drink establishments article three use regulations article five accessory uses article 11 administration enforcement and article 12 definitions, as presented on December 1, 2022. And I think Pam was going to second that. So, any discussion on that. Seeing none we're going to vote Shawnee. Yes. Pat. Andy is an eye Pam. Yep. Yes. Jennifer. Yes. That is unanimous. Thank you. And thank you Nate and Rob for your work on this. If we get this through the council and if it passes the council, the, it would be effective January second. So they'll be one day in there, but the town hall is an open till January third anyway, so things aren't getting filed between the 31st and the third. So we'll have gotten it done basically in time for the sunsetting so thank you all for your work just in time. Yeah, that flood of that flood of permits coming. So with that, we're going to move on to the associate member vacancies of the ZBA and then we'll be moving on to rental residential rental bylaw and that afterward. So we're going to take a little bit of time for the ZBA right now. Everyone saw my, my note to all of the candidates. There was no time of the Thursdays I proposed and I proposed every Thursday between now and January 5th, and any Monday that was not between the holidays that there wasn't a council meeting. I have not sent out another poll yet because I wanted to ask this committee what dates they wanted me to try. What days of the week they wanted me to try. Instead of just the Thursdays we, we tend to meet and Thursday by the way is the day the ZBA meets. And so I would like some guidance on what dates I should be pulling for for interview dates. And then I will send out that poll tomorrow. In terms of days of the week and times, I'll come up with the dates between now and about mid January at this point. I would like us to look at the questions. If we would like to look at the questions or if we want to hold off until we actually have a date figured out for interviews we can do that too. So thoughts on days for interviews that I should propose for polling. I mean, I guess maybe show I mean people who have. Who are flexible so let the people who have tighter schedules, say what they prefer. Shalini. So I'm going to be away from sounds really awful for a month and visiting my parents in India. However, I will attend from there. So that being said, I am actually more open because I'm not teaching till January. Did you say but it's between now and January 15th. I'll be looking for dates between now and mid January. Yeah. Okay, so I'm actually going to be available. More flex books I'm not teaching during this time period. So I will be okay with any time it would mean I will get up at two in the morning or three in the morning, but it's 10 and a half for a difference. I was just just going to ask that. So we did it in the morning is that better. Yeah. Yes. Thank you. Yeah. Okay, so I'm not available Wednesday evenings. Wait, wait. I thought I, I know I'm interrupting I apologize I'm a brute. I thought I heard Chalene say in response to Pam that mornings were better. So can we focus there because that for me is a little more complicated but not impossible. Yeah, so, so what mornings aren't good for people. GL is a Wednesday morning so I would avoid those mornings. And Thursday mornings are bad for me often. It's a I have an every other week therapy appointment on Thursday mornings that I'd be home around 1130. Okay. I mean for me personally Tuesdays tend to be open days. Yeah. I believe my Tuesday mornings are open as well. Sounds like I'll try for Monday, Tuesday, Friday mornings and Tuesday evenings. Friday morning would have to, would have to be before end it would have to be over by 11 o'clock so I have a shift at the survival center, starting at 1130. Okay, so I will pull for those dates. Well, lots of dates and times within there. I think that's a good point for us to see Pam. Did anybody mention Wednesday evenings. Not available. Okay, okay. I'll check, I'll check the rehearsal schedule Pam. I don't know if we're going back immediately in January. But you your Wednesdays courses Tuesdays. Okay. Jennifer. I I'm usually good for me, but I can't do December 9 on Friday. Well, it's not going to be that early. Okay. I'd have to post the SOIs tomorrow. Right, right. Okay. So it's why we're moving into mid January at this point. Okay, so with that, would people like to discuss the interview questions now or wait for another meeting. Okay, so the questions that are in the packet are the ones that we asked the last time we have permission from the council to ask follow up questions at this time. So these would be sort of the starting initial questions. And then we would be allowed to if we wanted to ask follow up questions from these questions. So thoughts on that Pat. I have a question, because our initial questions are the same for each person, our follow up questions therefore required to be the same, or will be able to respond to individual responses and statements. So we haven't discussed that as a committee. And would have been to allow this could really extend and I haven't fully thought this through, because it might extend the interviews a lot to allow individuals to ask follow up questions but I'm not, I haven't figured out whether I would, you know, so they wouldn't have to be the same for each person. They limit because of time how many follow up questions per person get can, I'm not articulating this well, but I get it though. It might be that that I allow each individual counselor to ask one follow up question per candidate, not per question per candidate. You know, but counselor gets to ask one follow up question to each candidate, and that I would switch who starts them so that, you know, if there are similar ones, each person doesn't get stuck asking the same one everyone has, you know that that can potentially float between members. So that would be my plan at this point. If the committee has different ideas for that. We can certainly discuss and even vote on how that would happen. But that would sort of be my thinking right now is, each committee member gets one follow up question per candidate. Shalini. I'm not, I'm not entirely sure I'm understanding so it's not that we have to ask a follow up question it's only if, and then I think maybe having sort of a shared understanding of what is the purpose of follow up is like for more clarity or, you know, what, what are the sort of follow up questions. We're asking the goal. Yeah, in my mind it is to get more clarity and so it would be more of a can you say more or, you know, what would be some examples and purpose, why are you asking. So that's up to everyone. You know, I think clarity is one of them. I think missing information could be another one. So to give an example, if I had had this opportunity with a prior candidate. One of the things I would have asked was for that candidate to discuss their experience on particularly the ZBA because I knew they were serving on the ZBA at that time. But that was not mentioned in any of their answers and so that's missing information not really clarity does that make sense but that that would be something that I would have probably asked. For example, Pam. I was actually, I mean, I agree that is the kind of follow up that that seems appropriate, given that we didn't have a whole lot of extra time when we were doing it before. And I would say, you know, unless unless there's some dire need to ask a follow up question, at least we have the opportunity to do so but it may not be. I mean, I'm not going to probably have a question for each and every candidate if all five of us do it's really going to extend the time for the whole thing. A lot. That's a good point. Pat, and I have experienced this in GL a lot of times there's only one or two from the five members. Yeah, if any. No, it does seem to work that way. But we'll have that option. So, interview questions. Is there any desire to change the ones from what Pam. Once you finish your sentence. Is there is there discussion on revising eliminating or adding to the questions that we asked the last set of candidates, so that we can get these questions sort of nailed down and all. Now Pam. I was pretty comfortable with the questions. I had a suggestion on how to describe a little bit better the process and I thought something like, I don't know if everybody has it up on their screen but it starts out at the bottom after the questions are listed it says, you'll have two to three minutes to answer each question one through eight. Please answer question nine with a yes or no. So I am wondering if we could say something like, we will conduct the interviews as a group. Asking each question to all candidates and rotating who begins each question. You will have two to three minutes to answer each of questions one through eight. I think the suggestion of question nine is the simple yes or no. So it just makes it a little softer a little nicer, a little less cut and dry. And then I just would suggest perhaps eliminating this whole thing saying questions will be asked by members of the CRC all, because obviously we are the ones asking the questions. All applicants will answer each question after it is asked in a random order to depend determined by the chair. All applicants will answer each question before moving on to the next question. It seems a little bit. Probably extra information and I think our intent here is to just make this seem a little, a little less onerous a little less. But I'm comfortable with the questions as they are. Thank you, Pat. You're muted. I'm comfortable with the questions the way they are the one thing that and I like Pam's idea of softening it. So that we feel you know, you know, it's a little bit more complicated or or programs. You know, aren't feeling so anxious about trying to volunteer for a position and down. So I'm not saying it so that we feel human to human. The one thing that I would add in that in her state in her information is, there may be follow up questions. Yeah, I'm making notes on a draft of this but I'll take. I'll send it to you. As we go. Okay, anything else on these. If not, I'm going to make a motion to adopt the interview questions for the, I'm going to, for the upcoming applicant interviews, as presented with amendments to the questions are as presented. The blurb afterward will be amended later, but the questions we only have to formally adopt the questions so the motion is to adopt the questions as presented. Is there a second. Pam seconds that Jennifer. Yeah, I just had a question. I thought last time, could this committee just decide we want to change them we don't have to have council approval. That's just to keep out of curiosity question the questions. Yes, the questions are decided by the committee. Oh, okay, I thought the council approved. Okay. No, no, they had to approve because the policy prohibits follow up questions so they had to waive that. Thank you. If we're ready to vote, I will start with Pat. Hi. I'm an eye Pam. Hi, Jennifer. Hi, Shalini. Yes. I'm going to say that is unanimous to adopt the questions we are, I'm not going to say it. Okay, moving on. Let me make a note that those are adopted. That moves us on to the review and vote on the CRC report on the survey responses so we're going to start with Shalini talking about what's in order to revise the report that is in the packet after our last conversation. And then I know Jennifer has some questions and comments so I will go to Jen I tend to if Jennifer would like to give Jennifer some time to talk about those concerns after Shalini presents. Jennifer if you want a little more time and don't want to be recognized immediately that's fine but I know you gave me a heads up so yeah. Okay, so Shalini, why don't you talk about the revisions you've made between the last time and this time. Okay, and also I noticed that Elena is in the audience should we invite her in. Yes, Athena, can you bring Elena in as as a co writer or drafter of this report. Thank you and welcome and I'm sorry I forgot to send you a link. No worries thank you for having me. Yeah, so yeah I wanted to start by thanking Pam Renee for a very elaborate looking at all the data or the draft report and so basically what I did do was take each and every comment from Pam and incorporate those, starting with changing in adding the word draft for example to everything. I'm going to just pull out Pam and these comments. So I think that let's see. Can I make a comment. Yes. I just, I do want to preface my comes I have some comments as well, just things that I've since looked at and read and so forth. But I did not touch the executive summary because as a group we had discussed that the executive summary wasn't wasn't really there wasn't solidified yet so none of my comments applied to the executive summary so I have a number of comments on that now. Thank you, Shalini. Yeah, and I did clarify with manager if she wanted me to include the executive summary and, and what I was told was that we do want an executive summary so we'll leave it for now. And I tried to just change things that I heard based on and again I just want to say that this is an initial, initial suggestion recommended report and as a committee we can use the data I think the main things are after the background and the data that was collected and analyzed and the executive summary was my way of seeing how we can use some of those findings to inform as we move forward in the rental registration by our decision so that was one way to apply the findings but I'm open to hearing what are some other ways we can use those findings. So that being said, I think the draft the draft report was changed to instead of recommendations we changed the word to considerations and I think I added a few more findings related to so do you want me to go through again the how we did the data analysis or anything. I don't think it's necessary I think just starting with what what the modifications were sort of as a general summary to respond to our conversations last time. I think one of the big things that felt uncomfortable to people was around the four tenant rule and so that was categorically changed and made more explicit in the executive summary and even later on that for tenants. So when they spoke about it and this is on page 10 I think of the data analysis where the tenants talk about the density and how they would want to allow for more housing or more units, more than four units. That was from the tenants but what I did for tenants. Yeah, more than four tenants, but for the rest of the neighbors and I clarified that by saying that what they did not. That it was the lack of implementation of the four tenant rule which was reflected as a problem for neighbors so that was one of the clarifications that was asked for is it's, it's like it's hitting tenants and neighbors in different ways for neighbors it's the lack of implementation. That's the problem. So that was clarified. Yeah, did you want to say something. I think you mean enforcement not implementation. Yeah, yeah, lack of enforcement. Great. So that point was clarified and then going back and looking at the data again. There was one other thing that came out which I had skipped earlier was around zoning because this time I went in looking for zoning I had not gone and then search for zoning but I went and looked at zoning and so there was one other recommendation that came through that several residents had talked about was in terms of density that and so that's another consideration that's been added to the report is in terms of should there be a density of ratio of number of rental units I'm not saying I agree with it but again that was one of the things that surface and I've added it to the report. Maybe it'll be easier if I just answer people's questions because I mean, basically I just went through families and sort of I sent questions to use was one I just got one question from you which is like you did not hear tenants. See, well no you did take something out because the statement from Rob Mora was and that's been removed yeah exactly so that's been removed and then your question Jennifer was, you did not hear tenants asking for you to say what I was going to say, because that's not, can I just make a comment, not on the report, but to Elena Elena you've been involved in this work to and if you have if you have something you want to say to flesh out what shall I say, saying or sharing, please do that, because you've been a real part of this. Thank you. Thank you Pat. Yeah so just yeah just raise your hand if you have things to add and we welcome your, your observations or anything that you want to add. Thank you. If that's it Shawnee. I'd like to give Jennifer some time to to talk about her concerns with the report and any suggestions she may have. Yeah, let's just go for what how I can answer people's questions. And again this is probably some of my more for the committee to discuss not just right you it's not directed just to you. But um, so I continue as I discussed last time and some of this is getting to the executive summary and some of it gets to concerns I had at page 28 and 21, but no, the four non related the four tenant unit which keeps group houses of a certain size. That has been a bulwark that neighborhoods that have many group houses and they're getting to be more and more all over town. That has kind of been a life sailor you know that's kind of kept things from getting, you know just destroying it you know just taking over neighborhoods. I mean it just and there's just so many people, the infrastructure of any given street or neighborhood can handle. So that is sacred to the neighbors who, you know, live around group houses and again getting to be more and more throughout town. The reason that the. The group of residents coalition of Amherst neighborhoods from all over Amherst that develop the rental initial rental bylaw and it was very much in response to the fact that there was even then a for tenant limit, but it wasn't being that it was really, it was really problematic for neighborhoods. So, when I've been all the neighbors surveys that I read when neighbors say they're concerned about overcrowding or it's not being enforced. The last thing they want is to have it gotten rid of and I feel like here, a lot of people is the largest respondents in anyone category were the neighbors that they completed these questionnaires in good faith. And then they're, you know, saying, you know, we're really concerned about this, that it that it's not being enforced, or that there's, you know, houses where, you know that we know, you know there's many more people living there, and to say, Oh, we're going to respond to your concerns by getting rid of the limit altogether, or maybe increasing it, because it does. I mean, it, it does say that in it. No, it says maybe it's not working for anybody maybe we shouldn't have it. And then on page. So, um, and the tech, I'll get to the tenants saying and then I guess like on page 28, and I guess I'm 27 page 21 like don't have it right in front of me. I think it said under you, there was a heading. Let me just, I actually had written this all, all down but there was a heading that said, it was like how to, how can we address problems. I have to look on page 21 and then it was like well we maybe will get rid of the four tenant limit or will look at each house and allow you know different houses to have, you know, based on size more tenants, and then on page 28, where, let me just bring that up. I'm sorry I'm being. So in 28 there were three questions, what might be a new way of deciding the number of tenants living in rental properties based on factors impacting tenants, and the number of bedrooms what would be the ramifications of defining the density of rental units around in each neighborhood. There's certain neighborhoods in areas of town where it might make sense like close to UMass that would allow more tenants. I mean this is the neighbors that filled out the survey that's like their worst nightmare it's it that and to say we're going to rezone certain neighborhoods to have activity that, you know, doesn't even exist in many I mean it it, it puts it's putting questions out there and I'm not sure where they're coming from I didn't read it in any of the neighbor surveys that anybody wanted this. And the 10 when I in the tenant responses when they talked about wanting to have more roommates which I totally get it was always framed in being able to have more people to share the rent. And I think it's misleading and disingenuous. If we were to say we're going to increase the number of people that can live in a house you have more people to share the rent. When we know that's not what happens if there's a five bedroom house now and that landlord can only rent to four students. And let's say they're renting at $4,000 $1,000, yes, you know per person on the lease. If we say okay now you have you can rent that fifth bedroom, then that's $5,000 they're not going to say oh sure have another person come in we'll just share the current $4,000 rent. I mean the landlords even said as much you know in the public forum. I feel like we're not really responding to what the tenants want which is more people to share the rent, and the way that happens is yeah now you're allowed four people legally on the lease. So they have a couple more live there, and they're not on the lease, and that's just what happens. So if we raise it to six, it will still be a couple of more people to split the rent because the landlords aren't in all bedrooms at not an additional cost just to lower the rent for the students. So I feel like, and I don't, you know discussions of like changing zoning that was not. So what also what are we doing in this report are we analyzing the data, or are we reflecting our own, you know, personal suggestions of what, you know, we would, you know that what we think would be helpful, and to so to put it out there that we might want to rezone different neighborhoods and again I think a lot of the neighbors that responded one reason they were motivated to respond. I don't think we probably got a lot of responses I'm just going to say it from Amherst Woods because it's just not an issue. So I think a lot of the respondents were responding because they live in neighborhoods where this is an issue. To say well what we're going to do now is we're going to look at whether you can have greater density of group houses and more people living in them. And then is the opposite of what I read that they, the neighbors expressed that they want it. And I. So again I feel like we asked them in good faith to complete this and then we're kind of using it as an excuse or sort of to say, Oh well the survey said, you want to get the four tenant limit. And that you know and when that that's not how I read them. And I also get, you know, concerned if you know like I didn't require that almost like to see how many, you know that one survey may have said this and another may have said that, and do we give them all equal weight. So, in terms of like people saying well we should be able to the inability to have duplexes is a problem. I mean I know like in the RG neighborhoods you can have duplexes and triplexes by right already. And we can have ADUs all over town so I was a little confused at where that came about, you know, in the surveys that that was problematic. So, you know, I probably not being as articulate as I could I've written several things about it but I just, I feel very strongly that some of the suggestions are, you know, not only were they not articulated by at least the neighbors, but I feel like they're the opposite of what they would want. And again, if we if increasing the number of tenants is not going to lower allow more people to share the rent I'm not sure we're even responding to the tenant concerns. Thank you Jennifer. Elena's had her hand up. I'm going to go to Elena next Elena. Yes. I, the one thing that I did want to make a comment on was less that I think people were looking to get rid of the four tenant limit but more observant and not observed in a different light but sort of how can we enforce that more or what standards can we hold rental companies in particular to to prevent them from over. I don't know over renting their properties, it happened has happened to several people that I know, including me where they will over admit misinform the people that they're over renting to and then not hold the living standards to the proper standards that they should be held to under the name of only four people are on the lease a lot of people are looking for housing. And it has been found to be pretty hard to find a situation that is ideal for everyone so I don't think a lot of people are looking to get rid of rid of the four person limit but it does seem to be unenforced and almost a limitation on the quality of life of several tenants that's one of the points that I wanted to point on haven't really written any notes but that's the one thing I've been noticed. Thank you. Thank you, Elena. I'm going to, Shalini, since you, you wrote and then I'll speak and then I'll go to Jennifer because, because we're going to try and go to people who haven't spoken yet but but Shalini wrote the report so I, if you'd like to respond. So, like Elena said I don't think we're saying we should get rid of the limit. What we're saying is that and this is not even part of the rental registration really like you said this is more of a zoning and we weren't we didn't go in there was no question about zoning. However, the fact that people brought it up. And then it was a repeated thing for residents and for tenants that and so it was recorded and again we're not saying that we should get rid of it. I think the suggestion is to look at it, because in some cases maybe it will even come down. If it's, but you're saying no that the landlords wouldn't let it come down but that's another story. That's a different story. But as far as the report is going we're saying that there is an issue with respect to this, the way it's being implemented for one, it's decreasing the quality of tenants living. And the other thing is that in certain homes where there are let's say six room and there's a lot of space around like if it was a Amherst Hills property or Yeah, I mean there, I mean maybe not yet but there are some in, you know, there are a lot of housing on southeast street and then South Amherst, where there's a lot of land around and space around, but they're being forced to have only four people there, which it doesn't make sense. So the only thing it's saying is it should be related in context and I don't know maybe if john or someone else could speak to what they find when they go and see some of the homes because you're allowed for and actually only three should be allowed because there is not enough space and it's like right next to a very dense residential area already and maybe four is too much and maybe it should be only three people allowed in that. So that's what this is saying is that this needs to be definitely needs needs to be enforced better. And secondly is where that where can it be implemented more effectively so that places that can allow for more housing. Can we allow more over there if it's safe if it has space and it's not. So that's just what the question was around there, but I don't know john you wanted to speak or if you have. I think we'll stay away from john for now because we're not necessarily getting into a, well that's sure it's about the solutions we're trying to do a resolution of can we get to adopting a report. You know that that's my goal, which is. Thanks for that clarification. Okay, the other thing is that I did remove the thing from close to your mass rather than and make it more like around village centers or so that again it's a question to look at it's not saying that it should and that has been struck out close to your mass. So that line has been struck out it says are there areas in town where it might make sense to allow more tenants contingent upon health safety and other neighborhood criteria. So again this is not even a rental registration issues more of a zoning issue for another. For another thing. The last thing I want to say is in terms of the rent itself. I know you are saying that the landlords always charge for bedroom, but what I have heard is that it's mixed some charge for bedroom and in other cases it is for house so it does bring down the cost in some cases, I was actually going to rent this house, which is currently rented out to for and I wanted to open a healing center over there, and that was based on a houses that one on purpose offers fun. And there are four students renting it right now and the total thing was 2400. And the per the landlord told me like it's 2400, you can get four people you can get one person but that's what it's going to cost. So it really depends is all I'm saying to emphasize to insist that no this is the way it is makes me then question. You know, where in what you are willing to listen to because what I'm hearing is this both in some cases it is per house and in some cases it is for bedroom. So I'm going to take my opportunity. My goal is to get to a place where we can vote a report. It would be lovely if that report could be supported by all five members of CRC. And at the same time my goal is to move us forward, so that we don't spend all our time talking about a report, because we have a lot more work to do than just a report, right the report is sort of an, I see the report is an acknowledgement of look at how many people fill this out and here's what we can take from it. And here's how we're going to use it, which is where the considerations and key insights come in. I don't think it would be doing justice if we said here's what people told us. Great. Now we know but not offering how we might as a committee use that information. So I think it's valuable to have the key insights and considerations I think it's valuable to have the questions that remain that have come up as we read everything that's been submitted. I understand that the four unrelated individual issue is the most contentious regarding this committee's opinions and this committee's desires in some sense. I would like to find a way to get past that. I want to appreciate what Elena said about what the question is because I think we're not necessarily at as much odds as we might think we are. I think we all have to open up our brains and our minds to different ways of viewing things, because I think one of the things I'm taking from this myself is, there are neighbors and others who don't want to see any more than four in any building no matter how big it is because they're afraid that anything beyond that and they've seen for some buildings and for some occupants that more than four is a detriment to a neighborhood. For other occupants more than four is not a detriment. We've seen that less than four can be a detriment and so, as Jennifer said they see for as a bulwark as somewhere to potentially protect a neighborhood. Yet, at the same time, we've heard residents say the tenants of those buildings say that presents a problem. And I believe Elena was trying to get to, if only for on the lease, the landlord, and I think what Elena was trying to say is the landlord does this isn't just speculation, say, Oh, sure file your complaint to the town but two of you are going to get kicked out because you're violating the bylaws and so that discourages exactly what we're trying to do with this rental bylaw which is create, you're going to have to wait Jennifer, which is create a safe and healthy environment for everyone who's living in that building. And so they, they, in some sense clash, but at the same time there may be a way forward. And so the questions do need asked, but maybe we can add into this section, other questions that can be asked, you know, not delete these questions about is how do we decide how many tenants, how many people should live in a building and what's the safe and healthy number for people to live in a building. What are the ramifications if higher density is allowed that's a perfectly valid question to ask no matter when we'd be considering this number if we ever get to that after we deal with financial registration, you have to ask that question, what are the ram what are the ramifications for going lower to that's a question I would ask. To take it to the other side, what are the ramifications for the people that need housing if we, if we stay at four or if we go down to three. That's a lot more people that need housing and need housing units. You know the next question on here was certain areas of town where it might make sense to allow more tenants contingent upon this. Well that isn't necessarily just based on single family homes that question is open to. Is there areas of town where we might want different types of buildings, but maybe we could also add some questions that go towards what Jennifer has been saying questions about what are the ramifications for large numbers of people, and I would stop this It's not by referring it to tenants, because a family of 10 living in a bed in a three bedroom house might be just as problematic as 10 unrelated individuals living in a three bedroom house it's not necessarily student center. What are the ramifications of high density in houses that aren't supposed to have that high density. And so maybe the way forward to get us to a point where we can adopt a report is to add some other questions to ask that relate to this and I don't know what they are necessarily but maybe that's something that Jennifer and Pam in I hope Shalini and Elena come up with for potentially an extra vision I don't think we're going to get to a vote today in six minutes or so we're moving on. So we're going to do the same thing we did last time which is send every question and request to Shalini and Elena, but you know Shalini in particular but maybe that's a way forward and so that's what I wanted to say. I'm going to go to Jennifer and then Pam, even though Pam hasn't quite spoken because Jennifer's been waiting a while. Jennifer. Just two things. So my concern is I understand what Elena is saying but if it was six. I still think there would be more. Because if they were allowed to have six in the house, probably a bigger house I still think there will always be more people. Living there, you know, the landlord allows to live there now we can say 12 and I think there would still be more so I'm, I'm just saying I think we have to look at how we make sure that whatever number works because I think there's always going to be more people living there. The other thing I will say that because it said close to the university and I know that was, you know I asked and that was crossed out. That the neighborhoods close to the university are general residents neighborhoods, they are already zoned, you can have there are many triplexes on my block, you are allowed to have a duplex a triplex by right. So, though the RG neighbors neighborhoods which I think we are often thought of as well they're near campus so we'll you know, densify them are already the most zone for the greatest density by far than any other residential district. We have, you know, again, and the, when we were asked to come in and meet with Cayman's realty, they said that they charge much more the houses that are closest to campus. So I told you I have a house around the corner from me. It's a tiny one story house it rents to four students they were able to put a little unit on the back with four more. It's running for $8800. And if you saw it from the front, you would never think that I mean I can give you a lot of examples so the rents are high and the closest to campus that can get higher rents, even as they add more tenants so I think it's a great idea for us to maybe get together and discuss the executive summary but as I remember Lynn saying last year, when I wasn't on the council I was tuned into a meeting and she said nothing gets people's hackles more than taxes and zoning. When we talk about changing zoning, that's going to be, you know, a lot of people are there. Again, their ears are going to perk and they're going to get concerned like, oh, now we're going to look at zoning to allow a greater density of group houses with more people in them in my neighborhood and we have to be sensitive that that has not been a positive. And by that, there's a tipping point where it is not a positive thing for neighborhoods in Amherst and is causing people to leave. So, I would like Pam to move to that. Thank you Jennifer before Pam goes I want to correct some statements from Jennifer in the RG neighborhood apartments which right now are three or more units are zoned special permit that is not a by right. But there's houses are not by right they're also special permit and non owner occupied duplexes are also special permit which means they are not by right so the only. The only yes is a single family home site plan review is generally considered by right and those in the RG are owner occupied duplexes affordable duplexes and converted. No, and that's it owner occupied duplexes and affordable duplexes are the only and one family detached dwellings are the only by right zoning in the RG area neighborhood. Okay, so I correct it by right but there are many, many duplexes. I mean on my block I mean we have one of the members of the ZBA lives in a triplex on my block so there's. But it's not by right so that's not by right but I'm just saying there's many there's a house at the corner with 17 occupants. I think I kind of forgot what I was going to say. I think in. I'd love to continue working on this I have a number of comments also. I want to keep a focus on the fact that. This is a this is a great collection of input and a really nice job engaging the community I think I'm really pleased that how many people participated in it so you all did a really good job getting the word out. I want to keep focused on how do we use this as a tool for improving a rental permit by law. And, and, and I, as you know, would strongly support Jennifer's statement that we understand that there are very many perspectives on the on the limits of work for occupants in a dwelling unit. I think if you live nearer to them, you would understand what that does to the ebb and flow of a stable neighborhood, and we've met with a number of people in different neighborhoods who are experiencing problems with this. We don't want to go into those details. It's really, it's really detrimental to the feeling of well being in the neighborhood. As we look at statements and, and conclusions and considerations. I think we just need to be very, very careful that we aren't leading, we aren't leading the witness to certain conclusions. So as we, as we go through again. I'd really like to keep the focus on that and keep it as really open ended. You know, we may want to consider talking about the following things and just really be careful because I, I don't want. I don't want my name on something that comes out with recommendations that I can't support. So I'm very happy to work with you on this one. Thanks. Shalini and then I'll summarize what our next steps are. Yeah, I think it would be really helpful, but since really the sincere intentions of creating this report, or to really be able to listen to all the different stakeholders that are involved. Do you feel that there are specific ways that we can speak to these issues because just because we're not speaking to them does not mean they don't exist. They exist. And even as you said, even right now, with the four tenant rule, there are still problems because they're not being enforced. So there are issues of enforcement that are involved that are very important. And I think if we can, and we know also about the cost going up and the limit and the housing shortage that exists and then we know certain areas have more rental. It's a very complex issue. And of course, some people are impacted more by it than others. And really the invitation here is as counselors, we're really looking at all I know we advocate for our own areas and neighborhoods, but we also look at that's the role of a counselor is to look at the bigger picture of the whole town and how it's impacting everyone outside of our own districts. Right. So what would be really helpful to us is if you can like, I mean, I thought it was really helpful Pam, would you send me so I could strike that out or change it. But if you can send me very specific things and additional questions or changes to the existing questions. You know, that would be really helpful and we're happy to incorporate it and then bring it back. But I think it's really important for us to go back to our residents and tenants and school and college students and say hey look, this is the work we've done we heard you. And this is what we learned and this is what we're doing with it. I think that's really builds the trust and transparent that's why all of this document is transparent. There's a link to the Excel sheet with all of that there's no I have no hidden agenda here or, you know, as is being implied sometimes no I'm just reading and reflecting back. And if you are seeing something that I haven't reflected please send it to me. Next steps are it might be another month or so till we get this back on the agenda because I like to give Elena and Shalini time to. I like to give us time to get comments to them and then I'm time to actually do it since it's a 30 page report right now. So the next steps are again, send any comments and requested revisions to Shalini and to Shalini only anyone more than Shalini is a breach of open meeting law. So send them to Shalini. If you include anyone else from this committee on it. We got problems. So send them to Shalini and Shalini and Elena will look at those comments and requested revisions and bring us back another report, a draft report in about a month. Two meetings from now is what I would say, but it might be six I guess thinking thinking ahead two meetings from now is right after the new year. It might be more like six weeks from now three meetings from now. So I'll be in touch with Shalini as to when it's logical to get another draft in I would like us to be able to hopefully have this next draft is sort of the one that we're looking at adopting or voting on whatever that vote should turn out to be so that we can send it to the council and get it out there and and post it and all. So that's the next steps on that. And with that, we are going to move on on our agenda to the review of bylaw language and working draft draft fee structure draft regulations we are focusing on fees and regulations today. We're going to spend about 20 minutes focusing on fees and then we're going to spend about a half an hour on regulations before we move to public comment and minutes. Shalini you have a question. I'm going to say we can thank Elena and if she. Oh yes. Thank you Elena for coming I will try to not forget next time to make sure to get it right. And, and you can stick around if you want, in the audience. For today. Thank you. We're still talking about it so you can see how it's reflecting on and I think even though we're not adopting the report. If you want to look I would encourage all of us to look at the summaries and so forth because as we doing the discussions like about fees or whatever we can see like what did we hear from the different people and see if it's, you know, if it's, it's informing a discussion in any way. Thank you. So we're going to start with fees we're going to spend 20 minutes on it and the goal today is, you know, I think what is in the packet right now is me see is for fees is fee schedules I call them samples. It's an Excel sheet and, and a PDF if it's converted that that you can put in different numbers and calculations happen in terms of what type of revenue would be received or generated from that. There are multiple tabs and everything. There is Pam's. I think your comments on a fee schedule should have been in here. Yeah, the fee schedule options table and then an original sort of proposed that that we initially started talking about the samples were to give an idea of what different things might look like if you were aiming for certain generations but as I was creating it, I realized we need a lot more information to be able to truly look at our options. And so what I want to focus on today is asking the questions that might get us that information so that we can generate some samples at the correct, say, revenue numbers because we're trying to hit certain revenue numbers I assume but we don't even know what the numbers are. And, and so what I would like to do is get everyone's questions. I don't expect John or Rob to necessarily answer them today. I will put them into a document that I can send to John and Rob so that they can come up with potential answers if they have them, and then we can use those answers to create additional samples. So, for example, in the samples I created. I just estimated how many complaint inspections were done a year that came out of thin air, don't use that as any gauge of anything because I just picked a number and went with it. We need to know how many are done we need to know things like you know some of the questions that came up with it, how many inspections can an inspector do a year. How many hours does it take to do an inspection because all of that has to go into any estimate we need to figure out how many inspectors we need. What are salaries and benefits for inspectors what are those costs because then we can start figuring that out to start figuring out how much revenue we're aiming to generate in order for this program to pay for itself because I believe that is our goal. I just like to ask get those questions out there so that we can send them on to the department and then we're going to spend 30 minutes or so talking about regulations. Jennifer, you're muted Jennifer. So I don't I mean I really appreciate there's a lot of work that chart. I don't even know how to begin I mean I looked I thought God is there a consultant or somebody. And just doing it by committee and then how you know like we said the as many towns we researched there was as many different ways of doing it so I, I just feel strongly it should be equitable, you know, that it not be a flat fee no matter how many units because we heard from so many landlords that was really problematic but I don't even know how I would go about weighing in on the different options. And that's why we need more information, because I didn't know how to weigh in and judge these options without knowing will 150,000 cover the costs will 300,000 cover the cost will 600,000 cover the costs. You know, and so that's why I was hoping for more information but shiny. And am I right in seeing that there are two fees one is the rental registration fee and one is an inspection fee. So, well yes there would be two fees the question is what we haven't decided is does the rental registration fee cover the required inspection to get your permit, whether that inspection be every year every three years depending on the property, or does it and then there's an inspection fee that will always be charged for inspections after complaints. And things like that and the other question is, is that fee going to be charged for the required inspection or the reinspection if a reinspection is required those are things that until we know how many things happen you. So the samples are what will hopefully be able to help us with that conversation but I think we need more information to be able to have those conversations. Side of follow up question then. In the chart, we have basic permit fee 150 let's say in the second column is additional fee for rental unit. So, and that's just for the rental registry you know was that for the inspection because my understanding is the rental registration itself does not. It's the same, whether it's many units or one, it's the inspection and so forth that's what, you know, is more involved and requires more time and resources. So the chart doesn't distinguish I'll just answer that question and then go to Jennifer and Pam the chart doesn't distinguish at that point so yes. The fee options, the fee options sections, the fee options tabs are only for, for the permit without consideration as to whether that permit fee would include an inspection or not. At this point. Right. And then the inspections tab is an attempt to show what would be raised on inspections a year which is where you need to know how many inspections can you do how many might happen and all of that. Where they would combine is it depends inspections, the inspections tab would depend on and change depending on how we choose whether to charge for the required inspection or not. Right, some of those numbers might zero out, but then they'd be included in the fee. And so if the goal is to say raise 300,000 a year. You could do that by an application fee that includes inspections and raise 300,000 a year or an application fee that doesn't and raises 150,000 a year and a inspection fee that raises another 150,000 a year. But until we know what we need to raise, we can't really pull some of those options in. And look at those differences together. Now, to answer your other question, the application and whether it requires the same processing depending on how many units there are really depends on what we ask for in the application. Right, because if you have to ask for all of these energy efficiency things, it might take more time for someone to review a 200 unit application than a one unit application if every unit is required to have a separate sort of application of energy efficiency or whatever, right, versus one piece of paper and so we'd have to look at that and and if that is the case if it might actually take more time to review and approve an application for multiple units, ignoring the inspection requirement then adding on a per unit fee on top of the base application fee would make sense. Again, questions to ask so they'll add that one to the list. Does it take more time to review that based on our current proposal Pam. I got lost. I was following along pretty well but that's a lot of information to to absorb as you're speaking. I was trying in my own head to sort of understand in your in your tables on your for page four of four. So, if you don't have it up in front of you the first page was the number of rental units by size across town. And I think it would actually be very helpful to get this data, this data dump to understand where these addresses are it'd be interesting to see where concentrations of energy do you want. I'm, I'm looking at C3 C schedule. It was in our packet. Yeah, called C schedule samples 2022-11-04. It's the rental permit breakdown tab. That's not what it's called that's not what it's labeled here but online it is. That's the one you're talking about one rental unit owner occupied 98 non owner occupied 680. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. rental permit breakdown. Yes, the top the first page is called rental permit breakdown. The second page is the options to raise 150 100 to 300 and then inspection fees. And the document title is fee schedule samples Jennifer. Okay. Go on. Okay. So, it's a really hard conversation to have in zoom without a big without a big blackboard and being able to kind of, you know, move things around and I almost would love to have a work session where we could sit in a, in a room and do this. Visually because I think that's the only way to get it in our head. And as a blanket statement. Yes, I would like to see a fee for registry. And yes, I would like to see a fee for complaint driven inspections. I'm not sure I understand the ramifications of having the, the initial inspection, the part of the rental fee. There's probably reasons to go either way. And that might be something that John would weigh in on. In terms of the options to wait to raise different amounts of money I appreciate the work that you did to create these, these tables. We could focus the conversation on what are the, what are the types of, of fees and, and what might be appropriate for each category so in on your page to afford fee options to raise $150,000. And that's just obviously an example. Forget the number of units forget the number of, you know, amount of fee collected. We're really talking about the types of, of units we're talking about single family dwelling, and, and or single family owner occupied small apartment. So I don't know permits for two to nine rental dwelling units that could be one owner with 1313 dwellings that they own or is that a complex with up to 29 units in it. Then there's a permit for a larger number from 30 to 99. And then you have 100 plus dwelling included on a permit. That's the conversation that I think we ought to start with, you know, how do we, how do we want to break out the types. Like, I got, I got stuck in, you know, the 20 to 29 units because came in realty may not be the owners but came in realty has 1600 dwelling units, I think they said. And, you know, so they would automatically go to the 100 plus I would, I would, you know, that's that how we're doing it or are we doing it parcel by parcel. It would be by permit. So that's parcel right now a permit is for a parcel under our bylaw so so it would be so the the line that says permits for two to 29 dwelling units on a permit, you know, permits for two to 29 dwelling units would be an apartment that has on its parcel 28 units, or a triplex that is owner occupied and so has two rental units on the permit, even though there are three units there. But one of them is not rental because it's owner occupied, or a duplex that's not owner occupied would all be on that line. So, but payments as the manager would not automatically fall for every permit in the line that's 100 plus rental dwelling units included on a permit because, first of all, they don't own them they manage them right. And second of all, they're filing multiple permits because each permit is for a different parcel. So these are per parcel. At this point, yes. And so on that page there are two sort of options that we had talked about prior in terms of what type of fee structure for that. You know one was single family and owner occupied duplexes and then moving up from there, the next set down starts with the sort of way we've done the current fee structure with our most recent modification where it was owner occupied. So six units with at least one owner occupied and then anything that's not owner occupied or anything that has more than six units, even if it is owner occupied falls into the next line. So those sort of were some of the two options one. And obviously there's tons of permutations of this but this was an attempt to sort of say, here's where some of these fees would look like if this is what, if this is the way we're going to be able to start that conversation. So there are options that we would want answers to in order to create sort of better samples to guide discussion. I mean this seems like a lot. I'm going to put my hand down and then put it back up. Okay, Shalini. You want to go for a spam. Why didn't you say with you, because I want to hear more before I am. I reached out of a neighbor of mine used to own a rental unit in Barnstable. And she said, we pay a flat fee. We get an annual inspection every rental gets an inspection. When I looked at the barnstable site. It appeared that the $90 fee. The inspection cost, because there was no, I didn't find anything about complaint. I just didn't find much more information than that. And so that to me implies that. Oh, and then but there was there was something about, then there's an additional additional fee for each additional unit. That was $90 for the first one. And then I think it was $25 per unit in addition to that. And that appeared to cover inspection. So that's an example. Thank you. I think what's coming up for me is that definitely the owner occupied. I like that it's a lower basic fee. And then for the larger units, I think making it per unit makes sense. Perhaps, once you get feedback from people. But if you look at like, you know, where they're multiple units in one, and if you're charging $5 per unit, if it was to be, we do know that landlords are most likely going to pass on the cost of it to the tenants. So if it's $5 per unit for a year, it doesn't seem like that is that's how I'm thinking about it. It doesn't seem like $5 per unit for the tenant in a year is going to be too much. So that's an additional addition for them. But for the town, it does add up and give additional fee, you know, income to do the inspection and the, well, I keep forgetting that word, not the enforcement of all of these bylaws and stuff. So for the unit seems to me, definitely more appealing than just a flat fee. I think that's separation between owner occupied and to incentivize and support the rental income for owner occupied. Jennifer. So just to agree, I think owner occupied should be as low as we can go. And yeah, if it was we're talking about with, you know, if there's over 100 units, the $5 or $10 would be nominal for the landlord and the tenant but it could make a big difference to the town. I, I recall that Salem had a pretty good permitting system. Maybe I'll go back and look at that I don't have it now. Which is also they have a state college university there. So I don't know. I'd be interested right now if john has anything that he wants to say about these fees and, and categories and things like that because you're the person on the ground and I'd love to get a reaction from you. If you want to share it. Yeah, so it takes about an hour to do an inspection. It's got to cost 100 bucks doesn't it. You're not going to do it for $5. But do you inspect every unit in those bigger. I guess I thought that's why it could be lower because you had said you don't really inspect that. We don't inspect every unit at all now it's only go when there's a complaint. So, if the permit, but beyond a certain number of units was a low fee for the permit it because you're not inspecting it does that work. We should not inspecting every unit. I think, I think initially, we want to get eyes in every single unit, because every unit that I go into. I'm surprised by something that I see. So, one of the questions I had, which, which will be part of what I send you guys to answer is when you're doing, you know, right now our bylaw says up to 25 units, all 25 get inspected beyond that. 25% get inspected a minimum of 25 so a 50 unit building would still have 25 inspected. Each unit when when you're doing multiple units in a location, does each unit take an hour so that if we had you inspecting 25 units would it take 25 hours or is there some sort of ramp up where the first unit is an hour the second unit adding on is like an extra half an hour the third unit might be an extra 15 minutes, something like that. Yeah, something like that. I mean, if I have to drive there and drive back, and it's up in North Amherst. For sure it's going to take an hour, it's maybe going to take a little more than an hour do I have to crawl around on in the basement and, you know, so there's that I'm, I'll share this with you. The boulders is redoing the electric panels and all of their units so the electrical inspector's been and she's going in you know, five at a time. And what we're seeing is that the living rooms in all of them, most of them have been converted to living spaces, and the way they've done it is by hanging curtains of unknown fabric. It's to create another room. It's a fire hazard, the fire department has a problem with it. I have a problem with it, but we'd never see that if we weren't in those units. It's come. I know that they're, it's being done but without getting eyes in there. You don't see that. Okay. John, can I may I ask John a question about the fact are in the boulders there are student rentals but they're also family who live there who have limited income. And I have a feeling that they're more likely to hang a curtain to have an extra room. Is it accurate or, and what do we do what are what are long term goals so that people don't have to live with fire hazards to have privacy. These were, these were primarily young people not not families. I've even seen them. You know I've seen ads posted space for rent, you look at the photo, that's somebody's living that's a living room, you know it's, it's not a bedroom. Well long term how do we control that. I guess we go in them. I don't think we have to go in every unit every year. You know I think you're gonna. It's going to be a ripple that goes out here. That's, that's how enforcement has happened in the past 10 years. It's gotten the town's gotten a lot better because there's somebody watching and taking notice. Okay, Pam you wanted one last thing and then we're going to move on to regulations. I was going to ask you another question but let's move. It might relate to the regulations so we have to based on the council's discussions that we've had. By now that was October, I think, times flying the council would like that to adopt the initial set of regulations which means when we come back to the council with a bylaw. We need to come back with regulations to that are in a form to be adopted and adaptable because it would like it would be nice if we had the whole package ready. Right. So, we've got some draft regulations in the packet I have removed them from I've made them a separate document now because there was some concern the last time when they were sort of all part of the bylaw and regulations in one document it's just clear this way. So let's just move them over basically, I would like to focus on. We haven't looked at these at all. And I know that, but I would like us to start with a focus on the section, I guess it's technically section. So F problem property designation, and then G permit suspension and H offenses accruing points for problem property designation. So actually just F and H for now, not G the fence list and all to start with him. Please tell me which document you are talking about. We see regulations for general bylaw 3.50 CRC working draft. 1118 22 document. 1028 20 version one. It's, it starts with regulations for general. Yeah, it's this third of the public file yeah regulations for general bylaw 3.50. Okay. So in sections I'd like to start with, yep, there's John's copy I will put it online I'd like to start with F, which is on page seven, which I will share. And I'm going to make it bigger so. So old people can see it. So the regulations have more than just what's on this. The problem property designation has more the green represents clearly days and times that we could pick numbers I don't necessarily want to focus on that right now. I have tried in this document to add the public comments and the attorney comments to various parts of the regulations I've tried to do that with the bylaw to so that they sort of were all in the same section. So this is the draft for how how a proper property would become and be designated a problem property. And so right now it's, if there are five or more points within any one year period, which is where the point system comes in and then once they're there. What happens once they're designated a problem property is sort of what this section is. We still have to decide the point total if that's how we want to go and then some other things, but I'd like to hear people's thoughts on problem properties, designating properties as problem properties, and whether this is the direction we want to go with how what happens through a point system or not or whether there's another direction we could go and get into designating properties as problem properties. So the points are we separating out the problems that arise due to landlords not doing their bit, you know, landscape or inspect you know quality of housing versus then noise violations which is more of a student related thing and like if there's litter outside and stuff so like I'll be separating out between student responsibility and landlord responsibility. That would be in section H right now in terms of what offenses what issues create points or issue points and how many points they get issued for those issues. Okay, that was a lot of issues in there. So the question I mean you've got a great question. What should a point what should be a point what should cause a point and what should a problem property be if that's where we want to focus if we're sort of okay with this part of corrective plans. There are ways to do corrective plans suspension. You know, at certain points which is number five down here. There's some options here with that I know I don't necessarily like all of these options. In terms of a problem property is a start somewhere you want a correction plan problem property is generally what leads to suspension. What also could cause suspension and how free how many points do you need in a year is it a one year look back period or are we looking back two or three years things like that. And more points if you don't issue your correct submit your corrective plan and then what what gets points Pam. Timing of all of that aside. I am supportive of having some kind of designation for a problem property as opposed to a well managed property. I think I think what we hear is that there are some property managers and or land landlords who consistently do not improve their properties to the detriment of the health and well being of their tenants. There are there are particular dwellings that are that are really problematic in neighborhoods. So, I'm comfortable with having a designation of this type. You know, the points you know how many points does that mean the next question I think would be though. How do we. What does it matter if it if something is designated a problem property, whether they're labeled that or not. It doesn't make a difference unless we have a the ability to help them correct their problems and get them back into safe and and know. Anyway, hold on. So I just wanted to perhaps hear from others. Is it is, is it appropriate to have this kind of designation. Jennifer. Yeah, I agree I think it's not so much whether there are problem property it's whether. You know there's repeat of the same violations. You know either the violation doesn't get corrected. You know, I would think, and John can answer this is something's not up to code, it has to be brought up to code, right. I mean that that the inspectors will keep coming back until it's up to code because that's right. Yep. But in terms of sort of noise and those, it becomes a problem if there's it continues to happen and then I think that then points would accrue. So I agree with him it's not so much. Oh no, whether it's a problem property, you know the designation it's trying to get my phone off. You know it's whether there's repeat violations, and then they would accumulate, I would think points. And then I don't know if it had come up before but if there's owners of more than one property. And they have regular complaints at different properties. Is there someplace where you would. There would be points against the owner and not just the property. So that's showing on the screen sort of under one of the orange ones. In terms of that. It's certainly things we need to talk about. And all. So is one of the things I'm hearing that. So I'm just gonna say I see the problem property designation as a way to address our town attorney's concern of that do process in working towards a suspension. You know, in terms of, well, how do you get, when do you decide to suspend a permit, especially if you're going to suspend it for six months or a year. And so I see using this problem property designation as that sort of do note, you know, do process notice for suspending and sort of saying, you know, you've been a problem for a while. We've had a corrective plan. You haven't done your corrective plan. We've worked with you. It's still not working. We're not going to issue you a permit again, we're going to deny your permit or we're going to suspend your permit and all. And that sort of shows that's where I see the usefulness of a proper problem property designation. The question is getting it right and figuring out what does it because what I'm hearing from, you know, from the committee and probably John is maybe we don't need problem property designations for code violations, because they're going to get inspected yearly or every three years and the code enforcement officers will keep coming back till those code violations are fixed. In the case, do we need to designate them a problem property for code violations. Maybe not. And maybe the problem property is for things outside of the code violations. Maybe it's for zoning violations on the parking plan or something like that. I don't know what the right answer is. Maybe that's that's where we can that the inspections will take care of the health and health and safety concerns that we have right now. And the problem property might be able to address some of the other concerns, particularly that the neighbors have including the parking plans not being followed and things like that. And so maybe that's that that's where the points and what gets points is really important. Right. Figuring that out. But maybe, you know, John, does that is, would the inspections department find the ability to designate a prop property a problem property helpful in terms of working towards and trying to decide when to suspend a permit. It might be a useful tool. I'm a little nervous about how you accumulate the points what your awarded points for I noticed in the orange down here that a rental permit can be suspended whenever two or more zoning violations occur within four years. Wow, that's pretty severe. There's quite a few properties going to lose their rental permits. If you're going to go with something that serious. I, I remember, when we talked about doing this initially, there was some talk about, you know, letter dot designations for rental properties and what I liked about that was, you know, if you've got a B or a C on your front of your house. The market's going to, going to help determine whether you take a step to improve that. Why, why would I rent a Seahouse when I could rent the one next door, you know, public humiliation goes a long way here. Has that been suggested. I haven't heard it this time. That's a good suggestion. I mean, when you're in the city and you, you're, you're picking out a restaurant and there's a, there's a B on this one and there's an A on that one which one are you going to go to. Yeah. Depends on how much money I have. Right, you get a better deal. Well, we don't want that but yeah. Charlie. And John, would it work where we have such a shortage though, like it sounds like people are they would try to get to the A and B but then when there's nothing left, they will just end up going to the seas. Yeah, I, you know, I don't know what the mechanics of it would be and or even how many, I think most things in town are in pretty good shape and and would get a pretty high designation. And I can think of some right away that, you know, wouldn't it be that a C, not I'm not saying we have to go with it but a C would still have to be up to code is you can't rent anything that's not up to code. Right. The code's going to supersede any of this. We're talking about the rental permits and whether you're going to remove rental permits, or you're trying to encourage people to make change and you know so how do you do that do you, you just, you take away their income for a year. You know, I'll just sell the property. I think what you're also saying is a lot of houses, a lot of dwellings would be in violation of this. Some of these things. Yeah, I mean, I mean, to two zoning violations over four years. That's, that's me driving by and seeing a car on the lawn twice in a four year period. And that's really, really, really, really important point and that is, that is we have these zoning bylaws on our books. And if we are, if we have any changes at all, we could, we could write until we're blue in the face, but if they can't be enforced, and, and, and places held to a standard that needs help get help. We always want to make sure that help is taken care of but, but the, but the parking for instance is one of the first things that that people mentioned when I was a student live next door. And, and so publicly acknowledging that we can't enforce that or it doesn't make sense to enforce really makes me uncomfortable because because I want this to work. I don't think I'm saying that it can't be enforced. I mean, I, I get a lot of mileage out of knocking on the door and explaining that the car that's parked on the lawn right now is, is good for $100 ticket every time I see it. And they get that, you know, at today you got a free spin. I don't want to see it again. Those, and you don't, I mean, you know, they, they understand that I did have a kid tried to bargain with me the other day what about if just two wheels are on the lawn. Maybe a business major I'm thinking. $50 ticket. $25 a wheel kid. Can you point me to where that is in the, in the regs please. Do you remember, do you remember the number in, in what we're looking at right now. No, the zoning bylaw that, that talks about parking. Can you, can you remind me where that is. Section seven. Thank you. So, I'm going to take my, that one, the, so the orange, I don't, I don't like most of the orange. You know, two or more zoning violations in four years. That's in some sense too harsh. I'm not even sure it's logical. The non zoning violation points accumulate over time, which means there's no end limit to it when I heard the, you know, but remembering our town attorneys can. If you have any advice, there needs to be a logical time frame and be five B on the screen doesn't have any time frame. And so that one really concerns me. 10 over any type of period in 10 years and 20 years from the time we start this like that doesn't seem reasonable at all to me. So the next one, the ownership one I worry about. I worry about just in not enforceability management of that it sounds good right and in some sense, that's trying to get at the point I think that either Pam or Jennifer was making about you know sometimes the owners have five properties and each one gets one violation. I worry about that right. And how do you manage that and track that I don't know how, how easy it is, or would be to track that. One thing I have a concern about with a point system. And this goes to and we'll move to that we don't have much time before I have to move on. And so maybe next time we'll talk about it is what gets points. And the last point is issued, because some stuff as Charlie was asking isn't under the control of the landlord as of the property owner. And so the property owners the one that faces the loss of income and the loss of the permit. Their tenant has a lot of problems or creates a lot of problems. And some of that's not even related to noise. If the tenant continually disables the fire alarm system. And john's in there every week telling them they can't do it. Yeah, that would potentially rack up points or something very quickly to get to a suspension, but replacing the tenant might be the easiest solution, right, not suspending the permit so they can't rent the property for a year. And so I, I'm, I'm really concerned about what we're going to assign points for, or if the points are really for parking on the lawn. And you've got, you happen to be in a house that has a neighbor who hates you. And so every time they see you parked on that lawn they call inspection services. The landlord gets a permit suspended. But if that person would be next to you didn't hate you and didn't care that person doesn't get their permit suspended because there's never a complaint. And then when we talk about things like that. The property owners just because they happen to rent have these inability to use their property for rental and business purposes, because tenants don't follow the rules, but a person who happens to live in the property they own doesn't have those same consequences if they don't follow the rules they're not being told they can't live there anymore. They might have to pay the fee well the tenants going to pay the fee for not following the parking laws, but they're not. They're also going to get kicked out but a person who owns their place will just have to keep paying the fee but isn't going to get kicked out of their place and I'm not necessarily comfortable with that but differentiating on whether someone can live there due to zoning violations simply because they either own or rent their place. And so I don't know what the solution is but those are some of the concerns I have as I read through some of these regulations and particularly what gets points. Shalini is next. Did John want to respond to any of that or. Yeah, I actually the parking thing I was just thinking about, you know if you take a drive down Long Meadow Drive in Orchard Valley, you're going to see a lot of cars parked on the lawn, those are all owner occupied properties. Nobody's nobody's complaining about it, you know. Yeah, I had a question. Okay, I'd heard that. Well, I think it was in the surveys that, you know, when the way to enforce instead of suspension of the landlords is like the enforcement of fees. And, and like if, if this tenants are made to pay, then they are generally more careful about it so if there's a way to enforce it better. I think we could get, you know, get better response through the right enforcement. Another thing that I did here was that they used to be a process where UMass used to provide the landlords with some sort of, I wouldn't say rating, but so that you know like when we talk about landlords screening or interviewing their tenants. And in terms of the screening process, it seems that there was a process where the dean of students or the students office was providing the landlords with information, not private, but just that, okay, these are students who have been known to create a problem. And so, but that is not in, you know, just the way we're talking about landlords being rated or something, it sounds really dehumanizing so it's not coming out right, I'm sorry. But that used to be in place where if there are students who were creating a lot of problems. So what the person was saying was it was actually good for campus also because the students knew that they are now going to find housing when they leave so it allowed more enforcement on campus and for students to be more aware and responsible while they were on campus. And then when they left they knew that that's going to affect their ability to get a house. So it was kind of like a preventative measure to not have problems on. I don't know what I'm saying. I guess what I'm trying to say is that landlords should not be made responsible for students if students are creating the problem then we have to find a way to talk with them maybe the crest department can be going but generally what I've heard is what really works is when people have to pay money and have to pay a fine. That's what generally so maybe there's a process where the first time they given, which you probably sounds like you are already doing that where the first time you go and tell them hey, your car better not be there but then if it's there then they are. The only thing I've heard is that we are not enforcing the fines as much and which is what allows for these problems to happen. Jennifer and then Pam, and then we have to move on. Yeah, so I just want to say that. I mean we certainly don't want, we're not looking to evict anybody. You know I think a landlord maybe wouldn't renew a lease at the end, and that that's where things get. So as I think that was the enforcement issue with more than four if you find there's more than four you can't actually be back to I mean you just, there are rightfully tenant protection laws. So we can't just. So, I guess, so isn't a is. So, I guess back to if the landlord responsible for the, it's behavior, not be so it seems to be like if your tenants aren't taking out the garbage. It's something where maybe the landlord or the management company has to come out every week and make sure the garbage is being taken out. I don't know that you want to. So I guess that's what I'm saying we wouldn't find that that that would have to be the landlord's responsibility, because the town is not going to interact with the residents about that. So I guess I'm asking what do you do in a case like that if it's something's not. Because I've heard some residents talk about that the garbage isn't being taken out or it's taken out and it sits there for a week because it's not being taken out on the right day. So, I mean you're not going to find the tenant but would you contact the property manager or the owner and then they, you know, they may have to, if they if the tenant doesn't do what they're supposed to do they may just have to go out and take the garbage out every day at the right time. Yes. So, so sometimes in single family homes I've seen this where, you know, the lease dictates that the occupants are responsible to get a trash contract with with a hauler and they don't because it costs money. But it has a two car garage so you know they just fill. They just fill that with trash, and it comes to it comes to our attention, either from a neighbor complaint or we're there for something else and you know, wow you have a you have a two car garage full of trash that's, you can't do it that way. I've had cases where you know they clean out the garage and then they drive around and find a dumpster and fill that dumpster and the police have actually come to me because once it was at the arbors they filled the arbors dumpster and sadly they left some of their junk mail in there I mean it was, it was just like the song you know we looked at the trash and there was an envelope with your name on it. I have a lot of stories. I don't know how you. You know I don't know how you enforce that the town, because the town doesn't provide trash pickup so because it's, it's, it's the occupant being, you know in putting the position of having to contract for that. They're, they're looking for any way they can to save a buck. Thank you, Pam. So on the follow up to earlier comment John that is that you're driving around seeing the parked cars. I mean, we don't have enough staff to do this across town, and it's totally it's totally arbitrary when you, you happen to happen across something like that. I had the splash that maybe we, we target parking services and have parking services take on that responsibility. It would boost their budget. And, and it might accomplish some of what we're trying to manage which is neighborhoods that aren't, you know, besieged by the chaos of parked cars on the thing. The other thing is more related to how we might structure some of the requirements and it refers to me that. I mean, even though it's across the board, if we did something across the board for the garbage hauling that we could require that every lease. That the owner or the manager provides provides garbage hauling, unless they get a waiver, and it could be the one off getting a waiver or that kind of thing. But the burden to me, it's like, you know, providing utilities, providing trash service has really got to be taken under by the responsibility of the owner. An adult needs to be responsible adult, an adult. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. And it might be, it might be owners, but, but with a waiver, you know, we have a lot of waivers in town. Maybe that they could come in on case by case situation and get a variance for that and prove that they have other means of getting trash done. But to me, that's a tool that maybe could be consistent. Shalini. Yeah, one of the things that came up in this surveys and this was tenants that expressed a lack of clarity about trash disposal, what is allowed and who's responsible for paying, paying for it. And so there is that element to that some of, you know, they just throw their mattresses out and one is mindlessness, but one is like not having the clear awareness. Okay, where do you dump the bulky waste and so forth. So there is that educational piece as well. Thank you. We need to move on. We will continue. We're going to be focusing mostly on regulations at the next few meetings because we need to get them in shape and have real conversations about them before we go back to focusing on the bylaw itself. So we need to move on to general public comment. And so at this time we're going to accept public comments on matters within jurisdiction of CRC, and you can comment for up to three minutes. And we CRC does not engage in a dialogue or comment on a matter raised during public comment if you would like to make a public comment right now please raise your hand and I will recognize you in turn. We're not a shepherd, please unmute yourself and state your name and where you live and make your comment. Hi, I'm just just driving Amherst and I really liked to hear that john. You know really make sense in terms of if you drive by and you see a car on the lawn you know if you see two of those you're going to lose your rental permit I mean that's just unreasonable. Mindy also liked your comments regarding you know treating owners and tenants on the same level so everybody has the same playing field. A lot of things landlords should not be penalized for. And when you guys say about oh Salem has a good, a good rental permit in whose view. Did landlords and tenants came up with it or was it just a town thing so they could collect fees. So, you know whose perspective, and, you know, if people that live near rental are not happy with that they should be able to complain and get done. But when you try to reinvent the wheel and create so many little detailed laws, you end up with a system that nobody can live with. And it's just too overwhelming and and overreaching. And also I hope the town gets a town trash service because then you know everybody would be serviced better because we only have us say now and they are hugely expensive. All right, thank you. Thank you, Renata for your comment. There are no other hands raised so we will close public comment right now and we're going to move on to the minutes. I think they were in the packet Athena put them in the packet. And so November 1720 22 minutes are there any requested changes before we make the motion. Pam. Yeah. And I'm looking for let me pull them up. I think there was a down on page two. I think the number should be 50. Okay. Any other changes. On page. Five. Under under the associate member vacancies. It was a comment that I was attributed to. And I think that's a good point. Okay. So on page. Under under the associate member vacancies. It was a comment that I was attributed to. And it said that there are five people who responded still being interested in CBA. And then the next was really suggested considering considering term limits and I know I didn't say that because I. That was that we should. Could we consider having them continue on the following year if they only had served the half a year to begin with. And so I think it's, we could just take off that. But it would be fine with me. Yeah. It was, I think it was supposed to probably read. Consider extending terms or something for this round or something like that, but I think deleting the sentence is fine. And then I would, I would make a motion to approve as amended. I'll second that motion. Any further discussion. Seeing none, we'll start with Pam. Hi. Jennifer. You're muted Jennifer. Sorry, I. I totally thought you were going for your unmute, which is why I was just waiting. No, I had no idea. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Shalini. Yes. Pat. Bye. And Mandy is an either adopted five to zero unanimously. I don't have any announcements next agenda right now. Is rental registration. I believe all the way. We'll see if that changes, but I think that's what it is. Other than some of the ZBA stuff will continue. Doing ZBA, but I don't think we have anything immediate to do with ZBA until we figure out an interview date. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I just, I don't know. I just, I don't want to be labor. I just, you were right, Mandy, about what's allowed in the general residence. It's not by right. I think what I meant by that is that the zoning already allows for duplexes, townhouses. Try flexes. You don't have to change the zoning. To have greater density in that, in that respect. Thank you. I had a question about an agenda item. special presenting to us strategies for implementing the comprehensive housing plan recommendations. When are we going to take that on? And why I ask is because like in TSO, we're doing, let's say the, you know, the holler by law, but we're also looking at the lighting and also looking at, so we're looking at things in parallel. And here we seem to be, I mean, we have been doing a couple of other things, but as we transition out of those other things, can we bring in these other items along with the rental registration? All right. I will talk to planning to see when we can potentially get something like that on. We have been doing other things. It sounds like just rental, but we've accomplished floodmaps and food and drink are some of the big ones. There were, I think, a couple of other smaller zoning things I think we did earlier on. And then appointments has been our other thing, one of the mandated things we've done. But I will talk to Chris about looking towards that since we're coming along with having completed some of the stuff they said they were working on. Anything else on agenda items? Seeing none, we're adjourned at 6.37 pm. Thank you, John. Yeah, thank you, John. Thank you, Athena. Thank you. Bye. Thank you, Athena.