All right, you're all set. Thank you, Athena. Okay. So seeing a presence of a quorum, I am calling this November 16th, 2023 regular meeting of the community resources committee of the town council to order at 431 PM pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 extended by chapters 22 and 107 of the acts of 2022 and extended by chapter two of the acts of 2023 this meeting will be conducted by remote means members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so by zoom or telephone. No in person attendance of members of the public will be permitted but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time. Oh, this meeting is being video and audio recorded at this time I'm going to take a roll call of attendance to make sure that everyone here can hear and be heard we'll start with Shalini. Present. Thank you pat de Angelis will be absent today Mandy Joe Hanneke is present Pam Rene. I'm here and Jennifer Tom. I'm here. Excellent. So with that we will move on to our agenda. There are no public hearings. The first item on the agenda is ZBA vacancy I listed four things on the agenda. Depending on what we do with item number one depends on whether we move on to items two, three and four as part of the ZBA vacancy. So the first thing we would need to because of the town council vote on Monday. It is possible for us to declare the pool sufficient if we desire, and if the pool is sufficient less than 14 days from the bulletin board posting so if we're going to look at that today to see if we believe the pool is sufficient or not and if so. Depending on how that discussion pans out will depend on whether we move on to the other items on the regarding the ZBA vacancy. So we will start with that item right now there are. As we know there is one full member vacancy and one associate member vacancy and as of today, there is one applicant thoughts. Did I understand that Mr Gilbert was interested in in taking the associate position, but he thought he had time for that. So he, he indicated that in his resignation letter of last Friday to update people on what I did after the bulletin board notice was posted. I emailed as required by the policy, all the people who had submitted CAFs in the last two years, and all of the current associate members, as well as Mr Gilbert. Indicating what they needed to do to be considered part of the applicant pool for those current associate members I indicated that whether or not they submitted a CAF. Well, I included in that email. I said that if they submitted a CAF and were were chosen as a full member then their associate membership would become vacant. But if they were not chosen as a full member they would remain an associate vacant associate member and if they chose not to submit a CAF they would remain an associate member. So I was clear on that when I emailed the associate members for John Gilbert I emailed him and said if he wishes to be considered as an associate member he must submit a CAF. So I have not heard from him and. Excuse me why would he need to do that if he's currently a. I thought no one had to do a CAF it was if it was within two years. No one has to do a CAF, because only those only those CAF submitted after the bulletin board notices posted are considered applicants. If you have not submitted a CAF after the bulletin board notices posted you are not considered an applicant under the town council policy that we have to follow. And last meeting this committee chose not to request a waiver of that. Yes, that was so I understand some of your questions, but this this committee discussed asking for a waiver of that requirement because it's only been four months, but the committee decided not to ask for one. Jennifer. And we know. Yeah, no, I can't recall. I guess we didn't know it at the last meeting, but now one of the associates is on the school committee so we don't know whether she will continue to be an associate. That member has reached out to me and said that she will. She intends to complete her associate member term. Okay. Thank you. The end of June. For the end of June. Yes. Okay. Any thoughts on sufficiency of the pool. Have they heard from ZBA chair what their inclination is like how urgent and what. So we heard what Rob what Chilla. Last meeting. About his belief regarding the urgency or non urgency of of items. I reached out to the ZBA chair. We talked about selection guidance request per the policy and received a response back that he does not have anything to add to the last time he we talked about selection guidance in advance of potentially discussing selection guidance today, but I did not specifically ask him regarding that. We heard from Rob last week on his thoughts. Jennifer. And if we declare the pool sufficient, we can continue to receive applications or CAFs. We can, until statements of interests are posted. So I'd feel comfortable then. I'd have to read the CAF. I don't know who. So I would argue it should not matter who submitted the CAF deter on determining whether the pool is sufficient. Are we going to say that we're willing to declare the pool sufficient with for two vacancies with one CAF. I think that's the question. Are we going to wait. I last last meeting I had indicated our next meeting was December 7. I was wrong. It's November 30. So it's in two weeks from today. That was completely my fault. So, so we could wait. So if we declare the pool sufficient on November 30, and do all of the other things, it is still possible to have a interview meeting on December 14. It would be extremely tight. Whereas it would be less tight if we did it today, but any applicant that would come in between now and if we set an interview date today. We'd be reaching out to one applicant to potentially set that date. But any other applicant, once the data set would have to meet that date. Whereas if we declare the pool sufficient in two weeks, or if in two weeks were it the same situation or a potentially better situation of having at least the number of applicants that there are openings. We would be reaching out to potentially more applicants. And we're guarding interview dates. We could potentially we could talk about a potential interview date today. So that those reach outs could happen as CAFs come in, so that we have better idea on November 30, whether applicants can make those dates, but Pam. Just speaking for myself, it feels light to have just one person and two spots. I mean, maybe a wonderful person. It just feels like we ought to at least have a couple of people. My own thinking. I will say my thinking is the same. I always hesitate to declare a pool sufficient when there are exactly the number of applicants there are spots, let alone less applicants than there are spots. So my inclination I think would be with you Pam is wait two weeks. All of us go back out and and get our other counselors doing the same scene if we can in a two week period that has a holiday. You know, whether, you know, if we declare it sufficient will we get more I have no idea if we don't declare it sufficient and go out will we get more I have no idea right but but I hesitate myself personally to declare it sufficient. Now, when it any other time period we would if we were not trying to get this potentially done by the end of the year we would not. I feel like we would not as a committee declare it sufficient at this time. And I'm not sure. A two week delay will completely harm our possibility of getting this done by the end of the year. It's not to say it won't. That's why we asked for the waiver to potentially be able to clear it now because it gave us a little more flexibility but I don't think it. It prohibits us from moving forward by the end of the year if we don't declare it sufficient today. Yeah, I would support that that we wait till and then each of us commit to sending out an email to in our districts and trying giving one more try. Jennifer. Yeah, I'm fine with that. I wasn't wanted to go either way. So, without a vote of sufficiency, we are essentially done the ZBA vacancy. I don't, we, the policy does not allow us and we did not ask for waivers to deal with selection guidance or interview questions without a declaration of sufficiency. I do not expect them to take a long time when we do declare them to clear the pool sufficient. I will just move them on to the next agenda. So, to give you date. We have, if we declare the pool sufficient on the 30th. We could potentially have interviews as early as probably the 11th, but we're looking at the week of the 11th of December. There needs to be posted one week in advance, unless we would seek to potentially ask for a waiver of that policy to allow a little more time for statements of interest to be submitted. So, like if we would declare the pool sufficient on the 30th. If we say the interview for example is December 11, then statements of interest would need to be posted on the website by December 4, unless we asked for a waiver which would be a very quick turnaround because we can't ask for them until the pool is sufficient from the applicants. So, we could explore dates other than December 14, if we want. That week, December 18 right now is the last scheduled council meeting where this could be acted on. Another possibility, depending on what's going on is to add another meeting after December 18 to bring any recommendations to the council in early January. After the swearing in of the new council so that's another option we can talk about about interviews Pam. The opportunity exists to, like you said, perhaps have interviews on the 11th. I would be open, I think on the 1213 as well. If that if that freeze it up, I'm pretty sure I don't have anything on the Tuesday night or Wednesday night or during the day. I think it gives us a few more days of opportunity. Or, and then also the 14th during the regular meeting right. So, so how does this sound as a plan. I will create a Google, some questionnaire or something some, some, are you free questionnaire that I will send out to all of the committee members and as CAFs come in, I will send them out to see to to candidates to to applicants to be on a rolling basis so that on the 30th, or beyond we have. We know who is it hopefully who is available when to potentially move the process forward a little more smoothly does that sound like a good plan to people. That's what I will do for interview dates. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions regarding ZBA vacancy. We're going to move on to general by law 3.26 nuisance house with a proposed new name of nuisance property I welcome chief Ting and building commissioner Rob Mora here. Thank you both for joining us. We are, we'll get into the review of what is in the packet I just want to summarize what happened, or what was done and why there are two revisions in the packet right now so. So the revision labeled revision 10 was the revision created and cleaned up after last CRC meeting. The meeting Rob had suggested that I meet with him and chief Ting or someone from the committee meet with him and chief Ting to go over some some remaining specific questions and concerns and comments that Rob in particular had and if the chief has any then. I, I worked on scheduling that meeting. That meeting took place this past Monday. I had invited our vice chair to attend. I think Pam did not see the email in time due to some potential traveling maybe or something so she was not there. But the revision 11 is what resulted from that meeting and so the track changes in revision 11 are based upon a clean version of revision 10 so that people could see exactly what was changed in response to meeting with chief Ting and the building commissioner. That's the reason that only has those changes. The track changes in revision 10 are between revision nine and 10, but I did not carry them forward to revision 11 I started with a clean copy so that it would be absolutely clear to this committee. The changes that were made during the meeting with chief Ting and the building commissioner mora. So, so I just wanted to explain all of that so that people are like well these tracks weren't in this version. That's why we will be discussing and starting with what I will put on the screen is revision 11 as we go through this. And we will start where we stopped two weeks ago because we haven't been at all through that part as a committee, and then we will go back to the beginning and go through any of the changes that were made between 10 and 11. And then we will start after a last discussion and go through any changes or any comments questions, revisions that anyone in the committee would like to see or discuss sort of as we did with rental registration and any bylaw we work on as we go through anyone, you know, before we get to a vote on anything. Are there any general questions about what happened. The meeting itself, we can go into a little more specifics of that, of that meeting if you if you'd like or if you have questions of that now or as we go through and you see some of those changes, or anything else before we just start the review process. Like were any questions of the chief or Rob, or the building commissioner at this point, seeing none I'm just gonna put it on the screen then I'm going to page down to, I think, where we're supposed to start. I just like a comment. Sure. It was, I was in doing the rewrite for the revision 10 after we'd had pretty good conversation about it, and just trying to simplify the entire document. It's so helpful to have both chief and the building commissioner be part of the conversation that to point out that in fact, many if not, most of the sort of the penalties and the notification of tenants and landlords and and or owners was already in our nuisance house bylaw. And so I think it that helped simplify it, rather than being a two tiered. You know, if you get this many points it's it's x if then you get some more it's why, and it just became. This is what it's been. We're going to maintain that but we're going to make it clearer in communication that that's the, that's the situation. Yeah, thank you Pam and and we we thanked you last week last meeting you weren't here and we, we used your revision and all and we thank you very much for that, even though you weren't here for that and so all of this is based off of all the work. You did to get us to, I think that one was revision nine. So, so last time we got through item D nuisance property designation. And so, so it looks a little different than what you you presented Pam and we can go through some of that that there but so we had marked that we would start at E persons liable at this meeting, because we have not gotten through any of that on the review of the sort of revision that last meeting. So that's where we're starting. I do want to explain I know Pam you had a question about the use of the word infraction so I will explain how that came about. We identified Pam and I identified and talking about it before the last meeting that that things were a response some things were referenced as a response some things were referenced as a violation. It was unclear what either of those meant. And so in the meeting with the chief and Rob we were trying to figure out which are we aiming for a response or a violation what's a response what's a violation. And then also trying to make things consistent so using the same terminology each time and, and the decision at this point and it's up for conversation. So I don't want to make it imply that we aren't going to have this conversation the decision was to use a term. And that after conversation I had and the chief can describe a little bit more about this regarding response versus violation, we decided on the term infraction. Because we decided a term needed to find. And if you used violation, we had violations and other parts of the bylaw that we didn't want to mix up with the use of the term whatever we're using here on persons liable. And the use of the word enforcement action was also somewhere else in the bylaw that we didn't want to mess up again those definitions. And so the chief in the middle of a conversation said infraction. And so we stuck on that word of infraction as something that wasn't used anywhere else in the bylaw as, and then there is a new definition of infraction up there and the way it is currently defined is essentially having a ticket written for violating this particular bylaw so so that is where but that's where this term came in we can define it. We can have we should have the conversation about response or violation in a sense but we defined the term infraction to mean so so a second infraction infraction only means if the person has had a ticket written for them. We might want to define whether it's on the property or the person we want might want to talk about things like that has the property had an infraction versus the person. We could not encompass. If, for example, someone calls to complain about a lawn mower at nine in the morning being used or five in the morning being used on a property as a noise violation and the, the in the, or an officer responded to, to that complaint but did not write a ticket for either an instance property that would not count as an infraction for the purposes of first or second or third under this bylaw. I hope that was clear. So that but but I know Pam and I believed that the committee needed to discuss what we were aiming for with first, second and third and what does or doesn't count under that. And what infraction is currently defined as and why things changed throughout to be clear about this.  It was about the word infraction. You covered it. Jennifer. It is there or a financial penalty with an infraction. I think it would require a ticket to be written. Yes. And that's set like an infraction. Is that well this if the tickets written under this bylaw right now the proposal is I think $300 $300 fine or penalty. We could change that number to anything between zero and 300. Okay, thank you. It actually is $300 right now. That's what we impose as a fine. Okay, thank you. Looking at section E with the rewrite or any of the changes that were made at the meeting. Are there any concerns questions or requests for changes at this point. Pam. I would ask for the conversation that changed the time, the time period from one year or from the current lease period to a one year period. And I understand that I understand that if it's a rental unit, it's much more likely to be a lease period for the same people will occupy a home for the 10 months or whatever. Whereas if it's, if it's an unoccupied issue. One year to the next makes make sense. And I guess the, I'd like to hear the rationale for combining them into a one year period, because the lease period, typically in Amherst typically does run for a year. So that's maybe that's valid then. So, I, the conversation two weeks ago, and all came down to a couple of things. What are we aiming for on a nuisance property violation. You know, as you get to the third or greater, are we aiming for, like, is the goal to identify properties that are nuisances or the people creating the nuisance, or both. And if you stick to a one year lease, well, number one, a one year lease period and a one year period from those who are not leases or even for those that are is, there was some other language in there about if the lease, if the tenants were the same or right. So, so even the one year lease period for long term tenants treats people differently depending on whether they are renters or owners, an owner. So the one year count back, it doesn't matter when it happened per se, whereas a one year lease period does then for an owner create a new count for the owner of the property every year. When the tenants change over the owner gets a clean slate every time the lease changes over for counting a second or third violation of this to get to that the owner of the property. When we get to the third or greater owners become liable but with a one year lease period with that restarting. It doesn't do the same thing but then when you go to a long term tenant like I was. I rented the same house for eight years I think it was my lease was a one year lease a one year lease period means every time my lease renewed. I started over at one. So I could have two in two infractions two tickets in June that on the nuisance property but come July, I'm now down at zero again, even though I've been the same tenant for eight years. So it was it was sort of that that sort of trying to make sure everyone is in the same position, no matter the circumstances of when or how you live there or owned it. I'm fine with that if, if, if Rob and and or have the, you know, can can track it. Robert chief, do you have any comments on that. I'll just jump in here we do have the ability to track anytime we respond to a complaint. It's documented. So on our end it's tracked at the very least, but if we were to move forward with taking a look at somebody's lease. That's something that we wouldn't have. We would have to gain some compliance from the landlord to get a hold of that lease, or through Rob's office potentially for rental registration. Jennifer. Yeah, I mean, part of my concern was for the people, the neighbors who live near a house that is a nuisance, you know, year after year that aren't, it doesn't, you know, then that house gets a clean slate every time new tenants move in, but to the neighbors it feels like a continuous issue. So I don't know, maybe that can't be addressed, but but I know that that's a concern. Well the way it's written now it wouldn't be a new slate every time new tenants move in. Right, which is good. I mean if it, if it solves if it that. Any other thoughts on E I think I've got everything showing for a yeah this was all of E. It basically tracks the current bylaw with a few changes for the clarity of what what response and all is F enforcement and penalties. The changes here. The loss of rental permit got moved from E down to here. Number four you'll see is deleted in conversing on Monday with with the chief and the building commissioner. It seemed repetitive of repetitive and slightly confusing of items that were in G so it's not that that corrective action plan has been removed or anything. The, it's just sort of the aim was to clear that up and have it only repeated only put in that paragraph was almost identical between F4 and G3 or something I think or G2 and so that repetition seemed strange and might have created some confusion as to which one means so that's why it was deleted in F. And Pam I think you had a comment somewhere in here about numbers it wasn't number six of maybe needing to go somewhere else. No, I think if it's if it's enforcement and penalties. I think that covers it it's enforcement is part of tracking as part of enforcement. Any other comments on enforcement and penalties section. Come on. I just one question. Yeah, back to the before. So if we're looking at the at the register rental permitting process. This actually does link in fractions with at least consideration for revoking a permit. Yes, I'm looking I'm looking at Rob. Is this what is necessary for at least the basis of consideration for revoking a permit. Yeah, I think, you know, I think if the situation was that a PD, you know, found the three infractions and the designation was made then. You know, they could make the recommendation to us to consider, you know, some sort of suspension or revocation of the residential rental permit. I think it formalizes what we had informally in place, you know, all this time. So I think it does. You said if a PD issues tickets, if this is this is broader would this also include any kind of you don't issue a ticket but I don't I don't know exactly what your department issues. We do issue tickets as well. The regulations that we enforce have some sort of penalty structure within it some we can assess some the court has to. But we do have non criminal disposition within the rental regulations that basically covers a violation of any law or regulation that we enforce. So we have that ability. I don't think we'll use this as our go to, you know, document and regulation when we're dealing with say, you know, occupancy or junk vehicles trash on the yard. You know, we probably would have this as an available tool if we needed it, but we probably wouldn't be using it as much as a PD would. I think this is, this is kind of the first time that this is the first time that we're that we're trying to make a connection between activity and behavior and and the permitting process so. Yeah, and I just noted, we've said it out loud but I put it in here because if this doesn't make it to the council or out of CRC before next term we don't want to lose the fact that when this goes before CRC finishes with this CRC will probably need to propose revisions to the rental registration by law to add in this particular reason for potentially suspending revoking or denying a permit. This is not there right now because this was not ready to go. And so I added the, the comment that as this gets closer to finish, we'll have to revisit that. Proposed or brought up those revisions to that bylaw because we're waiting to see what that bylaw looks like until until we get through this term. It's probably premature premature to try and propose revisions to the bylaw to incorporate this in that bylaw so so the note will stay there. Anything else for enforcement and penalties. We will move on to notification. And instead of corrective action plan I put it as nuisance proper nuisance property correction process. I think it had correction process in there already or something and just a change in title. The conversation is, we've changed all references to mailing or emailing to delivering so that it, it widens the what constitutes delivery then or notice. And then you'll notice. In here, there was at Rob's request in addition of that compliance could include posting the notice on the property itself Rob had indicated he might, you know, I either notice or if it's because of three police, you know, tickets written by the police department versus three tickets written by the building commissioner and inspection services. It might be hard to figure out who the tenants are to notify the tenants. And therefore posting on the property would be helpful in doing that. So that that was sort of the, the reasoning behind adding that phrase. Some of it was just rewording for clarity. We added days to these items. For timeframes that I think that was Rob's request of making sure there were timeframes and when things needed done. Excuse me, is this cumulative or or sequential first five days is. No, it's supposed to be cumulative so. Would they would they get would they submit a corrective action plan before they schedule a meeting. Yes, they would submit the draft correct. So the draft correction act corrective action plan should be submitted prior to the meeting. Is the goal. Okay. So it would be. Yes, so down here upon receipt. Johnny. Um, is it clear that it's business days or just. Do we need to say that or just days is enough. So, um, um, the reason as I was also asked it is because the bylaw the general bylaws and the charter, the charter says anything under 10 is business days anything above is calendar days. Oh, interesting. And then my other question was like, it's, what is it the time between like 10 days to submit the plan with will the staff have enough time for the meeting because the meeting is supposed to be within 14 days and so just four days and that's what I was thinking of this holiday in the middle or something. Does that give the staff enough time to go over the correct corrective plan. Robin. Yeah, I'm, I'm not worried about that. I think we'll, we'll make the time. I mean, this is again, a pretty bad situation at this point, the third, the third refraction hasn't occurred. So my, you know, my concern, and not that I, you know, I, I guess I don't care if it says five or seven days or 14 or 21 days, my concern was that it didn't have any timeframe other than that the owner shall contact the town. And then, you know, what happens next and I wanted there to be an expectation kind of built into this that it's serious and the owner manager needs to produce something and implement it so that we can start to see some change. So, adjust it however you think is best but that that was really the intent. I would agree with Rob. So we can change five to seven. We could change 10 to 14 and we could change 14 to 21. If, if we're worried about those timeframes, but Well, they seem it sounds like they're the staff and they're comfortable with the way it is, and we can always change it once it's put into motion and we find okay there's not enough time. I guess that maybe if we have to change I think within five days is fine and then present a corrective action plan within 10 days and then the meeting might could be maybe. But if they're fine I'm fine. Yeah. Yeah, I'm, I'm, I'm good with keeping the timeframe relatively focused. I mean, this isn't, this isn't going to be willy-nilly. This will be because there have been previous and repeated infraction. So I'm comfortable that there's at least some attention and the timeframe. So, we added clarity that if you don't implement the plan, you're violating the bylaw. And that if you don't contact the town schedule a meeting or submit a corrective action plan. That's also a violation of the bylaw. A quick question here relative to a corrective action plan. Is that relegated strictly to the landlord or do the tenants participate in this as well.  The onus to schedule it is on the owner. As up here. The owner must schedule. The owner or their designee has to contact the town to schedule a meeting. And so the onus is on the owner, the owner needs to be there. But once you've hit the third infraction, tenants are also being notified of all of this going on. So the owner could certainly let the tenants know when the meeting is and all. But the onus is on the owner. Easier to read this way. Shawnee. Yeah, I just want to also emphasize that we did hear when landlords came to us and they had concerns that if it's the tenants were creating the problem why are we being penalized and I just want to acknowledge that we heard that, which is why the earlier complaints are the tenants are responsible. It's only when it just keeps repeating after three times or something. That's when. Right. Am I correct in saying that. Yeah. Yeah, I think that sounds reasonable. Yeah. You know, because there's, I think, you know, in my in my line of work, we look at everything individually in terms of the circumstances, there's always different variables. So we don't like to have like a strict guideline. We have a lot of discretion and I'm hoping there's some discretion so that every circumstance can be examined for what it is. Yeah. I wanted to actually point out that. On the third infraction third and and additional infractions, the, the tenants or the people causing the infraction are still included in the liable in the liable loop. They are. They are. They are still. Yeah. Yes. Yeah, so that's up here. Yeah. I think this is the exact point that I was trying to make earlier is that our existing bylaw has this in it. And so it is with slightly different wording, it is the same condition that we had in the bylaw from 2012 2013. So you saw me playing with item E, I would like to discuss item E. It was written as when, when is a nuisance property designation. Gone, right? Once, once you're designated a nuisance property, how do you remove that designation, right? And, and thank you to Pam for realizing we didn't have anything in here about how do you get that off your property. And I've been thinking about it and and Pam proposed corrective actions inspection for compliance and written approval of the town. And I wonder if it would be clearer if we said, following, you know, if the property receives no other infractions within six months of the date of approval of the corrective action plan or something like that. So, you know, put a timeframe on when the, because we're requiring approval written approval of the correction action plan by the town needs implemented at that point, if there are no infractions after a certain amount of time after that written approval. And that seems a little more straightforward as to when something happens then then hear about corrective action and inspection and then written approval to remove thoughts on when nuisance property designation gets removed. Jennifer. I'm just trying to think I'm sort of thinking this through of a real life property on sunset. That was a major nuisance in the last academic year. And so it's managed by a big property management company. The individual assigned to manage that changed at the end of the academic year. And she literally put things in the lease. So the tenants were aware of what behaviors weren't allowed. And actually, so far it's, it's been like a new property. So, would you say now it didn't get you know we didn't have this in place so it wasn't designated and nuisance last year but if it had been, then would you say, you know, it in this case it was a clean slate starting with the new tenants. So at what period of time would we then say it wouldn't be. I guess what I'm saying is this is a case where when the tenants change because they changed other, you know, they sort of, they realized what was missing in the last lease and they put it in so now it really is like a new property. Or, you know, it's not a problem property this year. I'm just sort of thinking this through at what point would they could lose the designation, because kind of the factors that were in place last year aren't in place this year. So the designation right now requires going through the corrective action plan and doing that and meeting but then it also allows once once, you know, the intent is to also allow the town to suspend or revoke or deny a rental registration permit but it does not require the town to do so it's on a May. And so, let's have a question for Rob if let's say something had let's say they had gotten a nuisance house designation last year, and then they said, well I guess that would be their corrective action plan to say look this is what we're going to do the next year. Yeah, I guess so it six months into the into the new lease would be the new corrective action plan. So, might then you think of lifting it or would you want to wait the whole. So from from my experience with these agreements that we've made. I guess there'd be no urgency to end it, but I don't mind if there's language that say says after six months, you know we may consider that, or they can request that. Sometimes the, the, the conditions of the corrective action plan should continue even with the new tenant. Sometimes the corrective action plan itself will be so specific to the current tenants and basically the timeline would only run the duration of the lease. When we're on agreement that the tenants should be leading, you know the owners taking those steps. So I think there's, you know, I think it could happen, you know both ways but the language was good but maybe adding to it with with the timeframe would be okay as well. Then violation free six months. Question two. Yeah. Jennifer then the chief. I'll let the chief go first. Okay, I like what Rob was saying, you know, going back on discretion, you know, if we think about, you know, the different variables when I say the variables so for example if it's a summertime, you know a lot of these rental properties will have sub letters, people who aren't even on the lease. If different tenants change hands, if there's for living in there and to move out into new ones move in. There's just a lot of different variables I think that should be considered. And that's why I said, you know that there should be some discretion there on a case by case basis. Jennifer. Yeah, I would. Well, yeah, agree there should be discretion and like what Rob just said is sometimes what's like in this case they, it wasn't they weren't required to do a corrective action plan because it hadn't been designated nuisance house but the changes they made. I think if they remain in place with each lit lease that will keep it from becoming a nuisance property. So, I guess it's just with Rob said sometimes the corrective action plan I guess would be specific to tenants or a specific situation and sometimes the changes really make it. If it could be, you know, ongoing to keep it from becoming a nuisance property. I mean, so like for example, you know, and I think we discussed this when we last met. So for example, if you have a house where, you know, the nuisance is, is, is the fact that the tenants fail to shovel out the, the walkway. Right, which is a bylaw within our town I think the finance right now is $10 for that. But something along those lines and there's three of those infractions. I mean, now far and you push it at that point you say, okay, you are now suspended from being able to rent, because you're not shoveling out your driveway. Do you see what I mean, it's, I guess that's my point is that you know you really have to gauge it in respect to what the, what the issues are. Jennifer. No, I just put my hand down like in this. I'll just say in this case it was a two unit house that shared a backyard so there was really like eights living together and so now it actually says in the least there's a limit to how many guests can come. And so that's made a huge difference for the block. You can have guests but you can have 100 guests. So. Yeah, I'm thinking about the comment about the discretion based on the essentially the category of interaction. The couple of houses up on on East pleasant street that are perpetually over parked and occasionally have parties and so forth. Are are good examples of sort of ongoing problematic properties where it may be it may be a milder a milder form of of infraction, meaning it's not necessarily a police citation. But it ends up building up into a really, a really problematic and nuisance property. And I think that's, that's where we still want enough, you know, okay, extra parking. Everyone says, well, that happens all over town. We never enforce that. And it may be true. You know, Rob staff, APB, they can't spend all their time enforcing parking, but sometimes it's the combination of whatever's going on at the property that just becomes really problematic. So make sure we maintain enough of the, of the force behind the bylaw to, to make it stick so that the corrective actions plans. Stay in place, like Rob says stay in place long enough so that there's not much chance or less chance of slipping back into old habits. I have a feeling our attorney is going to have comments on specificity here but we'll we'll wait for those comments. Since they're better at writing than than we are on this. Okay, any other items for the corrective process the correction process. The last section of the bylaw is that state law is not preempted. That has no changes right now. Any thoughts on that one. We will move up to the beginning and work our way through to section G while we have time. And here is is what we talked about last time so the question is sort of. What are the additional changes or discussions that people want to have regarding the first half of this bylaw based on what we did last time. And this is where you can see the infraction was added. And corrective action plan definition was deleted because we threw it sort of into what the correct into the correction of active process down there as to what it would include. So it got deleted up here. And so this one. So the question I have here is properties are not written for violations people are written for violations. So, when we talk about infractions and when we talk about down here. You know, for property receiving a first or second infraction, well the property hasn't received any infractions so doesn't stand up. I think we need to add something somewhere about this. Sorry, I'm trying to unmute. Yeah, you're correct. So for a nuisance bylaw nuisance violation a TBL citation that we would issue it would be to a person, but it is attached to a residence. So that's how we track it really. So it's a nuisance house bylaw. So we target the the residents and not necessarily the party guests. Whereas if it was a noise complaint, for example, we would target the residents, but the guests can be culpable as well because they're contributing to that unlawful noise. Whereas if it's a nuisance house violation. Again, it would be issued to the residents but it's attached to a specific address. So, hopefully that doesn't complicate things. So I think we just have to it might be down here in E the property hasn't received so maybe we just need some different wording about upon the third infraction, you know something written for resident, you know, I think we just need some more wording down here but maybe not under definition of infraction. So I'll make a note down here for when we get there. Maybe it seems like it's implied and maybe maybe that's maybe that's not clear enough. But but instead of trying to define it to the degree.  The property sound the following person shall be liable. And so it describes the occupants where it nuisance took place the person to organize something the person's engaging. And that right there I think that section E connects the persons to the property. Again but the property is not in violation of a bylaw people are in violation of a bylaw. If people are in violation of the bylaw. How does the owner have any standing in that. Right. So, nuisance it shall be a violation of this bylaw to create host allow attend or engage in a public nuisance and then we define public nuisance. Upon a third infraction of this bylaw on a one year period the property, the property. What if we say on or at a property. The property shall be designated a nuisance property occurs on or at a property something like that. I'm looking at Robin Gabe. I think I defer to Gabe but just from what he was saying I was thinking the language like in connection with a property you know and but if he's comfortable with this. I think it does the same. I'm comfortable with that. I'm just trying to say you're trying to designate that it's it's a property, even though it's being issued to a person. I like the term in connection with a property. I do too nice job wrong. I think that I think that deals with my, my concern about the definition of infraction and everything so we'll go back up here. Any other questions about definitions. I think they're even in alphabetical order now violations. Oh, I had one a little bit lower and I think you probably covered it but. So we have these are references to either mass laws that have some that pertain. Number two is zoning bylaws that pertain. Number three was general bylaws. And number, I think it's C. And things that don't really have bylaws attached to them. Right, which I'm, I'm fine with. Well, except for blocking number four blocking of public way due to do the gatherings actually is cited above under a three a obstruction of public ways. So it's, you know, we don't necessarily want to be redundant, but it's really clear to somebody looking at this bylaw that's included. I don't know how. How a PD wants to have it clarified. I don't mind having C one through five. I just want to make sure we don't repeat it. We don't have to, like excessive littering is another one under. Yeah, so the littering and dumping it's not really quite on that and it's not really quite on refuse and collection refuse collection. So it was sort of making sure some of what we were thinking was definitely included. I have no problem with that. So I, I'm going to take us back to, I raised my hand to take us back to zoning bylaws. So this, this section, all the A, A, B and C is what's defining what a public nuisance is. And, you know, a C to a one the MGLs we've talked about disorderly conduct and possession that's a lot of that's already included possessions already in the current one, we have to fix some, some number in here. Let me highlight that. B, the two is then zoning bylaws that create public nuisances. Outdoor lighting can, depending on how bad it is maintenance of vegetation I don't have a problem with them parking I don't have a problem with but occupancy related to household I have a problem with including as something that is considered a public nuisance. We've had this discussion I believe before. And I'm bringing it back up I, I do not believe we should be including occupancy related to household as a public nuisance. As I've said previously, a fifth person in a house does not automatically create a public nuisance the presence of a person by themselves sitting in a house is not a public nuisance by what we're trying to go with here in my opinion and so I think it's inappropriate for us to include to be in this bylaw. Jennifer, because you're saying that the, it's a violation somewhere else if you would have more than the four unrelated so it doesn't have to be stated here. It is, I won't dispute our zoning bylaw does not allow more than four unrelated individuals to occupy a house but if five unrelated individuals occupy a house that occupancy alone in my mind does not create a public nuisance that. Yeah, I don't disagree with you I'm just saying the violation is covered somewhere else. Yeah. Fine. So, I would delete this. Okay, hold on. Don't, don't believe it yet. I'm not yet. We're having a conversation. All of the, all of the other items outdoor lighting maintenance of vegetation parking obstruction regulations false alarms, etc, etc are all covered somewhere else. And one of the issues that we've talked about ad nauseam is that over occupancy of properties creates conditions where many other violations are, I'll just say more likely to occur. The four person go to go to chief and then I'll finish. Go ahead. I know a devil's advocate. That's what I always try and do to try and fill the holes here. So, if we're going to use that as an argument right. I would argue. So I have, I have three kids at home and my wife. So we have five people that live in a household, are we considered a nuisance. You know the way, right. But only because you're related. So, I guess my point is the whole nuisance violation is really it's geared towards somebody who's being a pain in the neck somebody who's creating or causing some kind of trouble that is affecting others. I find it hard to have that argument that a person just being present would be a nuisance. That would be challenged. I think I'm going to respond to that. I think it has, it has held up in law and in court that that occupancy limits are allowed. And I think what we have seen time and time again is that in neighborhoods with a home that has converted to a group rental home. Because there tend to be four cars or four plus cars, depending on the number of people living there. It is the, it's all the accoutrements that a person brings to a place that starts to create the nuisance situation. It has been said many, many times that a family with one to maybe three cars tends to manage themselves and their, and their activities in a way that is conducive to harmony in a neighborhood. It's at the saturation point of about four people living in a home, each with their own, each as individuals running their own lives, not as a coalesced family unit that many, many of these issues start to cause some problems. We have it on the bylaw. If it is in itself, just like any of these other ones that we're referencing, if we do not reference it. Why not that is the number one issue that I should say number one. It's often the issue that people call into Rob saying it's clear that there are seven people living in the house next door. Sorry. We all have cars. It's there, etc. Last year. I think you wanted to respond and then I'll go to Shalini and then myself. Yeah, I hear what you're saying, Pam. And I said that I disagree with you. It's just that. We're looking at this as a bylaw. So for example, if we're going to issue a ticket, you know, there's it's already, there's already a separate and I agree with you. There's separate bylaws for all of these. But you know, the bigger issue is if there's more than four unrelated, then obviously that would fall into Rob's world to handle in terms of finding a corrective action for that. So if you're already going to find a corrective action, now we're going to find a $300 fine. I just, it's almost seems like it's duplicitous. Shalini. Yeah, I would say that we have the other things like you said, like the noise, the dumping the problems that people are reporting due to the extra number of people in the house is the noise parking. And even when we did the rental, the survey that we got from neighbors, most of the complaints were around excessive number of cars litter the garbage, the noise. And that is already being controlled for in this bylaw. Now, if they were just quietly living, there were five people, we would not even maybe know that there are five people living. And if they're not creating a nuisance, then we may never even know about it. But if you did find out they're five people living and there's a separate law to deal with that that's the zoning bylaw that they can worry but if they're quietly living they're not violating a nuisance they're not creating a nuisance in terms of noise for parking litter garden, all of those things that are that's a separate violation that we can talk about in that bylaw but as far as nuisance is concerned, I don't see how just by the fact that there are five people quietly living that creates a nuisance. Rob. So I agree with everyone here, I just wanted to mention that, you know, where I thought the reason I thought it could be removed from this bylaw and still be okay is that, again, we wouldn't use this bylaw to enforce that. You know, when you think about, you know, if we, we become aware of a household with more than four occupants and we want to do something about that, and actually get that corrected. So let's start that process immediately. And those are usually in the forms of agreements involved their attorneys or the somebody's attorney, the landlord or the tenant, and, and we start working on that immediately upon finding out about it. I wouldn't say to them, well if I catch you two more times, you're going to become this designation at the property, and then we'll have to develop a corrective action plan at that point. We'll use this bylaw, and we have the tools, hopefully with their, you know, with the rental registration being updated, we have better tools, but we have the tools in place to, to deal with that when we become aware of it immediately upon coming aware of it if we want to. Thank you, Rob. So, my problem with that one. So, when you look at the purpose. The purpose of the bylaws to protect the quiet enjoyment of residents in town, and empower the town to take corrective action on properties that have become a public nuisance by the unreasonably, or should be unreasonable, interference with or disturbance of the general welfare of a neighborhood or town through documented pervasive criminal activity code violations or other causes precipitating the deployment of any town resources pervasive, you know, unreasonable interference with unreasonable disturbance of the general welfare and when you look at the violations we've done disorderly conduct interferes with neighborhoods possession of alcohol can unreasonably interfere with excessive outdoor lighting over the course of weeks maintenance, you know, not maintaining vegetation when we look down here with public urination and fights all of those are actual actions.  Although I would probably be willing to get rid of that one because that's more of an interior thing than an exterior thing but um, you know, junked vehicles vehicles on a lawn over the course of months. The only one here that deals with a person's status inherent status, not an action they take, but their inherent status is occupancy related to household. As Pam you said, Chief Ting with five members of his household simply because they're related well that's not a public nuisance, but if one of them's not related Rob would say that's five unrelated people. So just one of them is unrelated and then it suddenly becomes a public nuisance, or can be considered a public nuisance to be writing this ticket under and that that reeks to me is unequal enforcement of a bylaw based on something other than actual action based on family status. You know, to give an example, it wasn't five people but my parents took in and had, you know, my there, their son in laws sister, living with them temporarily because of just time changes and job changes and they just that the person needed a home for a few weeks or a few months. If they had had five people there that someone unrelated under our definition of bylaw, and they're all adults, they all behave fine, but you would say that's a violation of a public nuisance simply because they exist and I just, I, I can't agree with that. Jennifer. I mean, I guess, I'm okay with it because as Rob said, they were not use this bylaw that they would not use this to enforce a violation of the occupancy bylaws. I don't want to get into the art, you know, the whole thing about splitting hairs there's it's a totally totally different situation when if your family of five and the grandparents come stay or your son in law sister comes and stays that it's a totally, you know, it's a totally different situation. We all know that then if you have seven students living in a house that's meant for four, but I, I would be willing. I don't want to go down that road I mean it's completely I think we all know it's a completely different situation. But if the occupancy would be if it's if they're not going if you're not going to use this bylaw to enforce the occupancy limit. You know, I would trust Rob. You know, I would just go with you know Rob says he's not going to use it so I wouldn't. That's why I'm willing to let it go here, but I don't I mean it's apples and oranges to talk about a family that has a guest come and live with them if you have, you know, seven students living in the house and very often the houses that are nuisance properties is often because there are more than four and I know. Again, in the situation on sunset, it's just one example but because there were basically eight students living together. There was constant noise and activity that was disturbing to the neighbors. And so this year, each of those eight students can only have three people at a time that's written into the lease and that's now there's there's peace on the block. So it's a very different situation than if it was a family of six, and, you know, two in-laws came and stayed for, you know, 270 year old in-laws came and lived with them I mean it's it's it's not. We've had this sort of discussion before and it's, it's just, I think we all know that that one thing has nothing to do with the other but again I could live with taking this out this is Rob said he's not going to even use this bylaw and of course that part of our that zoning bylaw requirement. Pam and then chief. I would, I would want to ask Rob then if, if he wouldn't use this bylaw for over occupancy. Is there any measure by which over occupancy is. What's the term we're using infraction is deemed an infraction so that with three infractions of the same problem. Even if you respond to it immediately upon upon notification of it. Do you have the ability to link that to a permit revocation. Yeah, so that's, you know, that's what we're missing currently from our existing rental regulation bylaw so with our rewrite the draft does address that. And when I think of the situations how these actually occur, you know, could start with an APD response that makes us aware of the occupancy. So there's that other, you know, nuisance activity occurring that may or may not end up with an infraction but APD gives us the report and we know that there's seven people living there. I, I would expect that we want to, you know, step out of this process that APD might be dealing with by, you know, dealing with the parties or the gatherings and cite the violation under the zoning bylaw or the rental regulation and deal with that immediately instead of waiting for that second or third occurrence to be able to do that. And I think that's the way mostly it usually happens, you know, when it's related to a nuisance house is that, you know, we become aware of it because of a fire or police response and somehow get enough knowledge of what's going on there look into it further. I will add Pam just just for further clarification the current draft of the bylaw of the rental registration bylaw allows for suspension or revocation. For outstanding violations with when more than three notices of violation have been issued for the property within the three years immediately proceeding the most recent one. And violations of that bylaw include because we have included in that bylaw that include violations of that you would violate the rental registration permit bylaw if you are found in violation of a zoning bylaw. Because we've included compliance with all local bylaws and regulations is as part of a requirement to obtain a permit so non compliance with all of that would constitute a violation. Rob and then I think the chief might have a comment. You can go ahead Rob. You can answer my question anyways. Okay, and you know the key thing there for us is that found in violation and not taking the appropriate steps to to remove or eliminate the violation. And that's what we don't have currently in our current bylaw. You know you have to prove that the owner knowingly violated the bylaw so yeah they signed a lease with seven names on it. That helps to build that case or, you know there's that, you know, repeat repeat, you know occurrence. Again, that's really hard to document for this type of situation so you know we don't, we don't have, we haven't had a nice way in our current bylaw to get to that point, and the draft will do that. I was just going to add it makes it is difficult in many instances because we've seen houses where you know the friends their friends will have their friends living there, or they'll have a girlfriend living there and they're not on the lease. And there are times when the landlord only has four people on the lease, and it's the students that are violating it just makes it really difficult. And for us, you know we have never from the police department standpoint, we have never enforced that that's a that's an inspections territory. So that's something that we wouldn't even touch. Okay, and then Pam. No, no, I hit the wrong button. I was going to say you go Pam first if you have anything. No. So, okay, I just want to correct this because it sometimes expands the differences and I think we're all saying the same thing. Jennifer when you were saying that those are two different things I think we all agree that having grandparents and so forth is very different sometimes from, and they say really wild and really grandparents, but I think they're on the same page but what I'm understanding is your question is that how would you write it to separate out. You know, more than five, more than four unrelated without them saying, because that would also apply to grandparent, not grandparents but let's say a guest, and so forth. So, unless we specifically said that students are living or something. Anyway, yeah Jennifer Jennifer. That's part of our bylaw. And it, I mean, I think Rob knows how, right, you know how to determine the difference when there's a violation of the bylaw versus when there's not Rob. Yeah, usually we do. But, you know, just as a reminder, our bylaw, and which is a common situation allows the, the occupancy, the family occupancy, not the forum related occupancy to have up to three borders and lodgers, which is usually the kind of situation that kind of defaults to when we get into that. Looking into that further so that's a very common situation for whatever family arrangement to have a couple of people living there also renting a room, or to have a follow up question that I want to hear with. Yeah, just a quick question. And you know this better than I do Rob, how does it work you know with the shelter, you obviously have more than four unrelated people and like the, the, a better chance house, you're going to have more than four unrelated people living there. And I guess my point is, you know, I don't have a problem with enforcing it. It just, it just can't, you know, we can't discriminate or single out certain groups. You know, I guess that's my take on it. Rob and then. Yeah, we, we have a lot of, you know, different reasons why there's, you know, groups living together that are protected under parts of 48 section three nonprofit uses they get a different classification than a single family dwelling with, you know, formula for unrelated occupants we don't, we don't look at it that way because it's, it's a, it's its own use classification depending on whatever reason or program that they're based on and how they operate out of that home. Thanks. Yeah, I just think that this does deserve a fuller conversation, but I am so curious, Rob, if you think that if they, if a house was not creating any noise or nuisance that we didn't know about, and you found out they were five and it was like a really large property with a long highway so you don't have cars or anything indicating, but there are like six people living there unrelated. Would you be able to take, you know, take them to court, because there are six people unrelated people living, but there's no other violation other than that one. Rob. So you're asking if I would be able to. Take them to court, but defend. We're going to ask if I would be willing to. You know, because we obviously have all kinds of different situations and decide which ones we take the enforcement action on and which ones we less formally advise and hope to see improvement or change and educate on the bylaw. If we really wanted to, we can take that enforcement action and we can take it into court and see what happens. You know, I mean, that's where that's that's what would happen the few times that I've been in court with these types of issues. I'm no doubly undoubtedly the first thing I'm asked by the magistrate the judge. Is there a health and safety issue in the home. And that's always the beginning of the conversation. Right. So we, you know, we learn from that we learn from those experiences and, and we focus on the ones that do have those. Those other problems associated with them and put our time into those. And yeah, that was my question. Thank you so much for answering the question I didn't really ask. Have reached a consensus on whether the next draft should leave this in or remove it. I think Jennifer I heard was okay with removal for now. I would like removal. Ham, I think you were against removal. Shalini. You were for removal. So right now, the next draft. We'll delete it. That can sound. It's just out loading. That's fine. Yeah. Okay. Anything else we started at E today. So. Anything else in here. Yeah. I think that your hand is still raised. No. Actually, I was just going to say that because there is this, it wasn't a consent item, like, I'm sure you'll put a note around it. And I think, like I said, that does deserve its own conversation. And for the next year, so that, or sorry, CRC, what, how to handle that and to have more clarity. So everyone's on the same page. That's a great segue into our next. Next conversation on the agenda for today. But chief and then Jennifer, because I think we're wrapping this up for and I'll bring a clean version of this back next time. I guess my, my only other one item here that I guess is up for discussion would potentially be false alarms. The reason I say that is because a lot of these college households will actually try and remove alarms so they can smoke pot or, or do whatever. So if they're actually using the larps, that's actually a good thing, even though they're false. So I guess I just throw that out there for discussion. I personally would be okay with removing false alarms. Jennifer, this, you don't have to talk about that one because I know your hand is up for something else. Yeah, I just want, well, actually two things. One, I think it's, there's complete clarity around, we have a bylaw that we can have for there's all different categories of housing, but we do not allow more than four unrelated individuals to occupy single dwelling unit. So, I mean, that's very clear. So I don't understand why we'd have to have more conversation about that but that the other thing I did want to ask if I could, or if I have to wait because I don't know if the chief and Rob are going to be here for the whole meeting. But I, it, could I ask a question if it or not directly related to this. A couple of meetings ago I brought up the satellite fraternity on the 300 block of Lincoln. And I don't, I know from one of the residents that there were arrests made there so that's that's there's been a problem there and I'm not sure if it's owned by the fraternity or not. But the situation now happening on that street is, there was only one owner occupant left on that block, and they are moving and, you know, right, they were able to get and I think in their case it was correct a special permit. So they have an accessible dwelling unit and both the both units can be rented out now they have a special permit as non owner occupied. And the reason they requested it and they were granted it by the ZBA last week is because really no family would probably want to buy that house, because the entire block is now, you know, student rental houses that's just what it is. So they're at the satellite fraternity and again I don't know if the fraternity owns it or that's just who's living in it. But they're the, I believe the owner, the one owner occupants, I'm just going to say this kind of adults living on the street would report issues at that house that I believe had one time resulted in and five arrests. So what happens when there's going forward, nobody on the street to kind of call into the police when there's issues. I mean what happens to that block. I know that's getting away from what this CRC is doing but I just, since I, since you're both here I just wanted to ask, you know, should like that house. You know again if it's owned by the fraternity maybe there can be a conversation with the fraternity but I do worry about that block going forward. I think I can answer some. I'll go ahead Mandy. I was just going to say to relate it to our discussion so it's clear it's fine under this discussion. How would they become a nuisance property or any of those properties potentially become a yes thank you. Exactly. So the tools that we would utilize number one. I don't think it's owned by fraternity. I think it's rented out to fraternity brothers, and I think the turnover every single year happens to be the same fraternity members. So, when you designated a satellite fraternity I don't know if it's if there's a true designation as a satellite fraternity I think it's just fraternity brothers that rent out that particular house. So we do have specific areas. Just like what you're talking about, for example, Phillip Street. It's all pretty much rentals for the most part. So when there is a noise complaints usually pretty significant with the parties. So we have other other things that we can utilize to try and break up the parties for example the nuisance house violation. If we find somebody that's underage. That's on the property that's in possession of alcohol that gives us the authority now to kind of clear that party out and to issue a nuisance house violation. But the it is limiting, you know when we don't have a complaint. We don't really have a lawful reason to be there. We can't just walk on the people's properties per se and start IDing everybody we would need a reason to be there. So it does make it a challenge. Well, yeah, you wouldn't even know there was a party if nobody calls. Correct.   I just want to clarify with Jennifer respond to Jennifer so that this is very clear. I know there's a law that by law that we shouldn't allow more than four people. I'm only saying that it needs for the discussion because we have heard people saying that that's not being enforced but what I also heard Rob say right now is that if it does go if the lawyers of the tenants take the town to court. The first thing the judge is going to ask is if there's any violation of health and safety and if there isn't if the house can allow for six people to live, then it wouldn't hold up. So my question really was and I don't want to take up time right now to do that because that's not what we're doing. But the question would be then for Rob is under what circumstances do we issue or take action and what is that action and, you know, what is that process that's all of that needs to be worked out, which I don't think is very clear, at least to me, but I don't know what you're saying. Yeah, that will go to transition we can talk about whether to add that item on to transition memos or not. I want to clean up and finish up this item here. And the chief was would wreck didn't necessarily recommend but suggested that it might be possible to remove false alarms and wise to remove false alarms from this bylaw. Any objection to removing false alarms from this bylaw. I am seeing shakes of the head of no or just silence so we're going to remove it. With that, we, we will we're not done with this bylaw. I will say that we're not done with it. We will put it on next time it's just going to be on the agenda is the rest of the we're down to two meetings for two meetings. I just one final thing on the bylaw I sent out the request to notify or to seek input from others. Yes, the packet for this meeting was up. And so those emails are still going out out to UMass and SGA and the property managers if they could get sent I have an email, you know, and so we might in the next two to four weeks, receive comments on the draft that was seen today. And so we'll see what we get with that but but at Shalini's request I did send that out this week, requesting that larger sort of emails be sent seeking comment Pam. What is your timeframe for response. I did not put any timeframe in that email for response one person did ask me what is the timeframe. That's the one I have to respond back I will ask them two to four weeks by the end of the semester for the students. I do not think this this council will get to to nuisance because GOL is almost done with their meetings to and anything we do has to go to GOL first. So, but that's what we're going to talk about when we get to transition memo. I want to thank the chief actually let me before the chief and Rob go. Let me move to public comment and then we'll move back to transition memo, just in case there's any public comment that that would be useful for the chief and the building commissioner to hear, and then we will come back to trend. The transition memo. So right now I'm going to open public comment public comments on matters within the jurisdiction of CRC will be accepted residents are welcome to express their views for up to three minutes. And CRC does not engage in a dialogue or comment on a matter raised during public comment if you'd like to make a comment public comment right now please raise your hand using the raise hand button. No hands raised I am closing general public comment, we will move back to the transition memo before we do thank you to the chief and to the building commissioner for coming and and being participants and giving us your advice your thoughts answering our questions all of that it is extremely helpful to the committee that you were here, and that you spent time working through this as we slowly move to revising the bylaw. So, thank you all. But we probably don't need you. And it's probably not interesting the rest of it for you. That brings us to the transition memo. Let me pull that up. And this is a required memo. I think that the committee, the chair, but through the committee sends at the end to the council every year, every two years upon the change of council terms. So this is the draft memo. It is a draft. There are four things required in the draft for things that we must include, we have to include items that have been referred to us that are automatically carried over per council rule of procedure 8.9 a and 8.9 b. Those items are items that have been referred to us where we have not acted or that do not have a negative action on them. And now there are two items that are active referrals to the committee. They are the two that you see here moved to refer the comprehensive housing policy to the town manager and CRC for implementation. That was actually done in a prior term. So we've built it in our committee and moved to refer the nuisance house bylaw. And that's the one that we've been discussing now. So, so normally within those two in that section we list a status and any recommendation on those, you know, any recommendation of it's automatically referred but does the committee recommend keeping it automatically or is the committee going to request that the council remove the automatic referral is sort of thing and then what the status of the referral is what have we been doing updates and stuff like that I obviously have not written them because I wasn't sure where we were on those. Pam, you have a question on that before I move on to the other ones. We had the rental registration referred to us it is not completed either. It is our work is done because we voted a recommendation to the council so it is out of our committee upon that vote of recommendation, which is why it's not listed here it is literally something that council needs to deal with so it would be a council automatic referral. It would be a council carryover item if the council does not vote does that make sense it's not a CRC carryover item. Yeah, regarding the comprehensive housing policy I remember that Chris best right in the beginning of our term had made a presentation, which they had highlighted the town staff had highlighted some and I wonder if we should reference that so that it's not lost, because there was some good suggestions. Yeah, we can reference that. And we could also reference or make a recommendation that at the beginning of each term, a status update be done from there, or that CRC that CRC talk about any potential. And if this committee would like recommend that any new CRC committee discuss any actions that committee itself would like to make to implement the policy. Would that be something that the committee members would support in any memo here of that that upon, you know, Constitution of the next CRC that CRC discuss any actions it might want to take to implement the comprehensive housing policy. Okay, should I go. Yep. I was thinking like you know how the ECAC had such a comprehensive thing and then they just, they started to prioritize, but maybe not prioritize in our case but but maybe the next year I see can, you know, given the town's values and goals and like there's been a lot of talk around affordable housing or mixed and home ownership and so like taking the bat that everyone agrees upon what what way do we want to focus the town's resources and so forth. I think it'd be worth the next CRC to have a conversation about what they want to prioritize and, and then that would lead to town managers goals and things like that. That sort of type of description and all okay for adding into this memo. Committee members. Any other thoughts on the items at this point automatically carried over I'm waiting on nuisance obviously to figure out how far we get before we had instead of it. For all I know we'll have sent it off to GOL beforehand although I don't think we will but but I'll drop that paragraph later Pam. So, so just so I'm clear. The coverage of housing policy was referred to CRC back in whatever 2021. So it basically just sits on our on our back burner unless we decide to pull it forward and as Shalini suggested, establish some priorities related to it. It otherwise. Yeah, it's like the master plan CRC doesn't actively talk about the master plan either. You know, we should probably do the same for the back I mean anything like that that's within our charge feels like we should address and, and at least say, you know, at least do an annual update or something. Yeah, yeah, so that that that will I'll add it in here but but it's a good thing for number four on or number five or something so items not automatically carried over there are none for our rules. I hope it says none item CRC believe should be carried over this is this is sort of the list where where we would talk about some of that Pam sort of some of the recommendations that this committee has learned or that we think a new committee could do that we didn't do or that we didn't do well and it might be useful to do it better as a committee or as a chair or things like that. So I pulled this part generally from what's on the agenda every week. And so, you know, and and from last transition memo about the master plan public forums and things like that so items for ongoing updates, we have carp implementation and the comprehensive housing policy implementation we could add into that master plan if people thought that would, that would be wise, you know, sort of, you know, updates on that this is where we recommend things we could do better that we didn't do well. And then potential conversation topics is is where where I said Shalini hold that thought this is where the committee would say hey, here's some things. The next committee might want to converse about right now this is the items on this were on the list from like two years ago, so I did not like make this up per se you've been staring at it for two years and we've done nothing with it. So we can have the conversation as to what we should have in our potential conversation topics but this is what was there, which is small starter homes first time attainable home ownership opportunities the municipal parking district and the proposed proposed 40 our district bylaw. Yeah, I don't think I want to add that here just because I do believe that enforcing and implementing the nuisance by law really well is going to take care of the concerns that were raised in the survey that we collected about more than four people living. And then, once that is implemented and if there's still issues, then I think it does deserve a discussion because even though we may be clear that there is a law we should execute it. However, again, like I heard Rob say today that if we are taken to court if they try to enforce it and they're taken to court the first thing the judge is going to ask is, is it violating health or endangering anyone and if that's not the case if a big house can accommodate six people and has six rooms, it may not hold up in court. And that's my understanding but like I said, that's what Rob said today, and which is why, if you all feel moving forward that the nuisance by law is not taking care of the nuisance that was being created, then it would be worthwhile coming revisiting this to figure out what are the actions that Rob does can take, what will hold up against the law and what the process will look like. I don't, I don't think there was clarity around that. And master plan, should we say update and implementation because it would be also good to just get maybe there's no implementation but an update or no. I think implementation the forum every year in the primer gives the update. Any other comments on the potential conversation topics. More thoughts on them. I'll think about it for the coming week. And then I continued to list the zoning pride priorities that the council has has directed the manager to work on as something that should not be lost. That CRC did not lose track of. They just issued their RFP and they have three firms that have submitted their qualifications. So I think that's kind of underway. We could, we could just say form based zoning design guidelines consultant work instead of use of consultant money for support. We may, we may be able to participate in holding forums or something like that as a CRC role. Support with that but also, I would hope that the consultant would have some conversation with CRC. I think that's a form of support. Yeah. About that support consultant for firm based zoning design guidelines. I don't think that's pretty specific. We're just, we could just list form based zoning design guidelines. Sure. Shalini your hand is still raised. Are there any items that CRC believe should not be carried over. I think that's the open ended thing. It would potentially come from this list of automatic carryovers that we would recommend not be carried over. I think I need to think about it a little more. So that's the other one. And then last time we included the policies guidelines and procedures from from us. And so these are all linked to and then there was relevant documents all of this is the same as last time. And then a list of members and there's a draft that one's not on here. It's always been a draft. So it has never been finalized because it's just that but I will put it in the packet next time. Sorry, I forgot to put it in the packet this time. It is accessible in SharePoint, but that is the memo. The president has asked that we put this draft memo in for the December 4 packet as a draft in case the council wants to discuss it we would then finalize it after the December 4 meeting. And the council would do whatever it does on these memos at the December 18th meeting. So this will not be on our November 30th agenda because it won't. I'm going to wait to put it back on until after the council has discussed transition memos in general. Pam. So, yeah, I was it was not clear to me what council does with a memo from CRC. If that's the CRC. Material being handed to the council what what actually did they have to do with it. So their opportunity would be to look at the items that are automatically carried over and say, you know, I actually don't want that item automatically carried over for whatever reason and therefore under the rule section C of that rule. I don't know if one councillor can request a vote on whether to carry an item over or not so the some part of the purpose of the memo is to give all councillors an opportunity to potentially cause a vote on whether something gets carried over to the next council or not. Thank you. Any other questions. See none. Our next item of business is discussion items. There are no minutes in the packet. So we will be postponing those to the next meeting. I thought I would do meetings. Are there. Am I just blind. I put them in there Mandy. I thought I let you know. You might have and I might have forgotten. I'm pretty sure but that's probably totally on me, Athena. Which two are they Pam. They are October. Let's see October. Five and 19. Okay. Anyone want to make a motion on those or are there any requested changes before motions main. I will we accept the meeting minutes from October. Let me just double check that's the date. Keep looking at today's agenda. Yeah, it's the fifth and 19th that are in there. Okay. Thank you. October five and October 19 as, as written. Is there a second. I'll second it. Any discussion. See none. We're going to vote. Yeah. Who goes first? I guess I do. I'm an eye. Pam. Hi. Jennifer. Yes. They are adopted four to zero unanimously with one absent. And therefore I don't have any announcements. Other than help with ZBA applicant recruitment. The next agenda ZBA will stay on it. And new says house will be on it again the transition memo as I said will not be on the agenda till our last meeting of the year. So I'll wait for the council discussion. Any other items that should be on agendas coming up. Any requests, any items not anticipated. See none we are adjourned at 632 p.m. Thank you so much. Thank you. Bye bye. Have fun Jennifer. Bye bye.