This government meeting is brought to you by Eastworks and our local cable subscribers. Welcome to the city council meeting for Wednesday, December 3rd. The meeting tonight is being recorded and broadcast by E Media on Charter Channel 193 and
live streaming on their web page eastampton media.org. Counselors and participants in this meeting are gathering hybrid on an order extended through June 30, 2027, allowing us to do so. I remind both the members of the city council and the public
participating remotely to remain muted until recognized by the city council president. Also for the members of the public, please remove your camera for the duration of the meeting unless you are participating in either public speak time or the public
hearing. Thank you. This meeting is now called to order. Maryanne >> Jonathan Schmidt >> here. >> Connie Denim >> here. >> Amanda Newton >> here. >> Felicia Jazzik >> here. >> JPitinski. Tom P >> here. >> Brad Riley >> here. >> Tamara Smith >> here.
>> JT Terrell. At this time, we'd like to take a moment of silence. Thank you. Would all please rise for our national uh pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I will work toward it. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I call you to the podium, please. We
have the opportunity to uh discuss an issue of community kindness and gratitude and recognizing some students. Bren Brennan Taylor, Aiden Espazito, and Stillman Havner. If I pronounced that correctly, if I
haven't, please let me know. >> Havener, Steven H Stillman Havener. Mr. Mayor, >> thank you. Thank you for making time for this out of order. I appreciate that. I think um the the students will probably appreciate that not having to wait for a public hearing to um have us.
>> You're welcome to stay as long as you like. >> It probably it's probably going to be over an hour, so you don't want to do that. Um so I was I was emailed um last month about uh a pretty amazing act of kindness that uh originated at Mountain View School. Um I was told that there
was three students that were um really concerned about people that were going to lose their SNAP benefits and uh organized a food drive. Um, and so I thought that was great. Uh, and I thought it would be really important for us to kind of shine a light on that and recognize um, three young people trying
to do something really great for the community. Um, so at this time I would ask if uh, Brennan Taylor, Aiden Espazito, and Stolman Havner Haven, >> come on up. >> You guys just stand here. I'm going to read this and then I'm going to give it to you.
Okay. All right. So, this is for community kindness and gratitude. Uh the community kindness and gratitude recognition is a tribute to individuals who embody the spirit of kindness, empathy, and gratitude within our community. This recognition celebrates those who without being asked dedicate their time and hearts to making East Hampton a better place for all. This
award is presented to Brennan Taylor, Aiden Espazito, and Stillman Havener. Uh, three remarkable young leaders who demonstrated compassion and initiative were organizing a food drive at Mountain View School after learning that some residents would not receive SNAP benefits in November. Through thoughtful
action, they mobilized their peers, engaged their school community, and showed a deep understanding of the importance of caring for others. Their act of kindness serves as a shining example of what it means to lead with empathy and gratitude. Brennan, Aiden, and Stillman remind us that small acts
of generosity can have a profound impact and that leadership begins with the courage to see a need and take action. We honor Brennan, Aiden, Stillman for their compassion, initiative, and commitment to helping others. Their actions reflect the heart of East Hampton's community spirit and inspire us all to continue creating a culture of
giving, appreciation, and hope. And that is presented today on December 3rd to these three remarkable young people. Thank you. I appreciate it. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And on behalf of everyone sitting here, everyone, every
city councelor, we appreciate your efforts. We recognize what you've done. It's sad in this time that we have to we find ourselves in such a position that that such need is there and such a
requirement to step up at all levels. You exemplify that. Thank you again. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. what you don't want to say. >> We're just encouraging them to to begin
their introduction to to this business. Oh gosh. Uh no minutes to approve this evening. Uh we have uh however an opportunity for public comment. That would be anything that is not on our agenda. Anything that is not being
covered tonight. for example, anything on the the public hearing list. Uh for for those who have comments about the public hearing, we we take those comments later uh during the public hearing time. But for anything else, we would offer this time up to three
minutes to say whatever is on your mind. We would ask you to identify yourself when you step to the podium. We would ask you to give your address and uh we would ask you to recognize that we will notify you when you have 30 seconds
left. We have a new system. Yay. >> Hold it up very >> not very high-tech but >> not very high-tech but it's there and it'll let you know and hopefully it'll be less intrusive than interrupting speakers as you're going through your discussion. So thank you so much. Um,
step up to the podium. >> Hi, my name is Kelly Hutchkins. I live at 115 Park Street. My landlord is Pine Valley Reality. I've lived there for 15 years. I was born here, raised here, and would like to stay here. East Hampton is my home. I misspoke the last time that I
was here. I mentioned that my rent went up 51 and a half%. I was wrong. It went up 54%. When I was told my rent was going up 54%, I asked, "Is there any wiggle room?" That's a huge increase every month. I was told no due to the increase of water, property tax, insurance, and
maintenance repairs. My landlord is a local man who has inherited all of his properties from his father. There needs to be a balance between profiting off of properties and tenants staying in their homes. On the topic of maintenance, with last night's snowstorm, a plow didn't show up to my
apartment until 11:30 p.m. last night, only clearing the driving path. I happened to drive past three more of his properties on my way to work today, and their parking lots looked the same. When I got home at around 2:00, there was still no progress with my parking lot. I called the office and I asked if a plow
would be coming today. The response was, "We have four plows out working on it. As of now, the snow and ice still sits in my parking lot. This is unacceptable. I'm sure he has taken the time to clear his driveway properly. Being frustrated with this
large rent increase, I joined the East Hampton Tenants Union where I met many other tenants going through the same same things. Many of us have asked to renegotiate. The response has been no. Again, this is a local landlord. Over the last month or so, I've spoken to
many people who are leaving East Hampton because they can't afford the rent. Some rent increases have gone as high as 64% and those who chose not to sign a new lease, well, the landlord has started the eviction process. I'm asking for your help to keep East Hampton sustainable and affordable for
all who make it a beautiful city to live in. Thank you. >> Thank you. Please feel free to move the microphone however you would wish to position it. >> I'm too short. Good evening. My name is Laura Connor. I
live at 324 Main Street and my landlord is Pine Valley Realy. I come to you as a board not to complain but to inform you what is happening to the citizens of East Hampton. In October, my rent was increased by 47%, $350.
I was informed that this increase was due to the landlord wanting to get ahead of rent control. Also, the rent was increased due to water, electricity, and maintenance going up. A side note concerning maintenance, I do not have maintenance on weekends.
I do I I was told that there is an emergency number to call, but no one answers. I was recently informed that if I had a problem on the weekend, I was to call the non-emergency police number and they would contact the landlord. Due to this increase, I have had to come out of
retirement. I retired three years ago after working for three doctors in Northampton for over 30 years. Presently, I do not want to move. My family and my support system are here in East Hampton, and I have lived here for over 40 years. Of note, elderly housing
has a 5 to 10year waiting list and there are 4,000 people on that list. Thank you for your consideration. >> Thank you. >> Um, hi, my name is U. Don Chavanis. I I'm a veteran. Um
living in East Hampton since 2009. Um I was kind of surprised when I learned that the rent was going up, but the surprise was um not the rent going up, but the amount that it was going up.
So, um they said that it's best for me to describe it in in percentages. And so my rent went up um over 64%. So I guess I got a break because he could have went up 100%. So I'm
wondering what's the limit here and what kind of um um voice does the the community have because I don't think buildings make a community. People make the community. And I just wanted to know um can we rely
on the council for some input and some help with this because obviously this um landlord doesn't want to come to the table and probably feel like it's not worth it and there's nothing compelling him to do that. So um I think that's a
behavior that's bad if we just let it go unattended. Thank you. Anyone else? >> Anyone else? >> Please, >> I would like to just hold one second. Anyone online? I was about to ask and I
heard a voice. If you could raise your hand on the list on the computer, that would be great. And you'll be recognized. I will allow one more person and then we're going to take a break and go to the public hearings. So Paul, please
unmute yourself. Paul Finn, >> thank you. Um Oh, and if I'm afraid I'm having a little bit of u echo. I don't know if you could maybe mute or it's okay. Can you hear me? All right, >> we can hear you fine here.
>> Great. Um so good evening. Um, I'm afraid contrary to the the name, my name is George Fen, but George, >> in any case, uh, my name is George. Um, and I'm a project manager for Local Power. We're a business based in Williamsburg here north of
Massachusetts, although we're also active in New York and California. uh for the last 30 years we've worked in decarbonization with municipalities um such as Cambridge uh San Francisco Ithaca to create sort of cutting edge uh
policies and legislation. Um in the last 5 years we became particularly interested in waste both as a source of uh carbon and landfills and methane emissions greenhouse gases but also uh PAS the problem of PAS uh PAS
are very common in consumer goods um and therefore in waste and cause a variety of problems including cancer um and the current ways of disposing with this substance in waste I would we uh maintain is insufficient And so we
sought out an alternative and um and essentially make a project of finding alternative. At the moment we have identified a technology and company which we think can um go a long way towards improving this um and we would like to build a facility using this
technology. >> Hello. >> You have 30 seconds. >> Okay. Um and are interested and and and um are seeking interest from municipalities. Um, and so I'm here tonight to ask if you would be interested in a presentation um for us
to to further explain it to you. >> Thank you. Uh, let me say that we don't respond to anyone during public uh, speak time. So, we're not allowed for open meeting law purposes to not address
specific issues. Uh, sometimes we can say certain things. We certainly can say, "Please, I'll give you my number. Feel free to call me. It's 413-575609. Uh, and I'd be happy to discuss scheduling anything with anybody at any
time about anything. So, that being said, uh, please feel free to do that or to follow up with the city clerk with any information. Uh, >> I will do that. >> Thank you. Uh, we will continue public speak just after this. We're going to
have to put it on pause for a moment and open the public hearing. I'll entertain a motion. >> So moved. >> Second. >> I move motion and a second to open up the public hearings. All those in favor? >> I opposed. Eyes have it. >> This public hearings are now open. We'll
be discussing. >> Oh, looks like Deja the park grant and land land and water conservation trust group grant for the spray park. if you are having the deja vu. We did talk about this, but there's
some little differences, the nuances that we're addressing. Councelor Peak. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Uh yeah, so these are both grants that we uh approved CPA appropriations for. Uh they then once that was uh a factor, they the
grant went out, the grant was approved. And so as a result of that, we just need to uh make a do a resolution and make a motion authorizing the city to appropriate and spend the full amount,
not just the amount that we uh funded the the rest of the money will come in, but just for legal purposes, we need to authorize them to spend up to the full amount of the project. >> Does everybody understand? Okay. Are there any questions? Would you care to read the resolution?
>> Sure. So, I've got two of them. Um, and uh I'll do the park grant first, but uh that is it's the exact same principle for both of these grants, >> right? And then we'll entertain any uh public comment on that.
>> Yes. So, um start with the park grant. Okay. Here's the resol I'll do the resol I think that we have to vote if I'm not mistaken for the resolution and then for the funding authorization. So, we'll do the the resolution first. Um, a
resolution to file and accept grants with and from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs for the Parkland Acquisitions and Renovations for Communities uh grant program for the
East Hampton all or uh Yes, that's this one, right? Yep. The Yep. For the East Hampton All Wheels Park. Uh whereas the Millside Park is a communitywide asset providing outdoor recreation to city residents and residents of surrounding communities and has been identified as a
critical city resource for upgrades in the city's 2021 open space and recreation plan. Whereas Millside Park is dedicated to park and recreation purposes under Mass General Law Chapter 45 section 3 and the city is working to
add an all wheels park on a portion of Millside Park cityowned parcel of the Millside Park city owned parcel. Uh whereas to meet said appropriation with funds transferred and or borrowed in accordance with uh Mass General law
chapter 293 uh the uh community preservation act and to authorize the treasurer with the approval of the city council to issue any bonds or notes that may be necessary for that purpose as authorized by Mass
General Law chapter uh 44 uh or any other enabling authority. Whereas the uh parks direct uh Whereas the parks director be authorized uh to file on behalf of the city of East Hampton the
park grant applications whereas the East Hampton All Wheels Park project will cost a total of $750,000 of which the city shall appropriate the full amount of $750,000. Now therefore, be it resolved that the
mayor uh or his or her design uh be and is hereby authorized to file and accept grants from the executive office of energy and environmental affairs and that the mayor or his design uh be and
is uh author hereby authorized to take uh such other actions as are necessary to uh carry out the purpose and conditions of this grant uh to be administered by the parks and recreation department and other city officials and
that this resolution will shall take effect upon passage. I will invite the public at this time should there be any comment on the matter in the audience going once going twice online
please raise your hand. This is the time to speak. Seeing none, we >> have you read the resolution? >> I would read that in the form of a motion. >> Thank you. >> We have the mo the motion and the
resolution's been read a second. All those in any questions from anybody any issues? All those in favor? >> I >> opposed. Motion passes. >> Okay. So, uh >> vote two. The vote two is the uh the
funding authorization vote. Um I'm ready to make that motion. I don't know if anyone wants to say anything beforehand. >> Is there any comment on the issue of the acceptance of the land and water conservation trust grant for the nonatruck spray park
online. Now is the time to raise your hand. Not seeing anyone from the public. Any counselors have a questions for councelor Peak? No. Councelor Peak. >> Okay. This language is it's fine. It's
just a little different than the way that they're normally written. So, if I stumble over anything, just forgive me. Uh, I will make motion to see if the city will vote to raise, borrow, or appropriate $750,000
to pay for the East Hampton All Wheels Park on a portion of land known as Millside Park to be managed and controlled by the city's park and recreation department in accordance with chapter 45 section 3 for active recreational purposes. And to meet set
appropriation, the treasurer with the approval of the mayor or designate uh is authorized to borrow $750,000 to pay the cost of the project and in accordance with chapter 44 section 7
andor chapter 44B section 11 andor any other enabling authority uh or issue and issue bonds or notes uh of the city and that the mayor or their design be authorized to file on behalf of the city
of East Hampton any and all applications deemed necessary under the park grant or any other applications for funds in any way connected to the scope of this project. Uh and the mayor or their
designate be authorized to enter into all agreements and executive and execute any and all instruments including uh the conveyance of perpetual conservation restrictions in accordance with Mass General law chapter 184 as required by
section 12A of chapter 44B or chapter 293 section 10 of the acts of 1998 as amended. Second >> motion in a second. Any further discussion? All those in
favor? Whoa, wait a minute. We have >> got in there. >> Okay, >> councelor Denim. >> Um, >> under the wire. >> Under the wire. >> Thank you. Again, I just want to I mentioned this the other day at the finance meeting. I just want to thank the people who worked on this. Um, obviously this took a number of years.
Um, and I think I commend your persistence um, and your dedication to the young people of East Hampton and the community that you're trying to build um, with those young people and and their their families um, and any other
community member who wants to be able to to you to utilize this particular space. So, um, I know that that a lot of time and effort and frustration and uh, went into that. So, um, your efforts tonight, uh, do not go unnoticed. So, thank you
to you and your persistence. >> Thank you, Councelor Denim. Anyone else? Seeing none, all those in favor? >> Opposed? >> Motion passes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Now, we got to do the same thing but for
the spray park. So, here's the resolution. Does anyone want to say anything before I make this resolution in the form of a motion? >> All right. >> All right. I'm making this in the form of motion.
>> Go right ahead. >> Uh LWCF Nonatuck uh spray park renovation and improvement city council resolution. a resolution to file and accept grants with and from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive
Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs for the Land and Water Conservation Fund uh for uh for the Natuck Park Spray Park renovations and improvements. Whereas the Nat Spray Park
is a communitywide asset providing outdoor recreation to city residents and residents of surrounding communities and has been identified as a critical resource in need of upgrade in the city's 2021 open space and recreation
plan. Whereas Nanatuck Park is dedicated to park and recreation purposes under Mass General Law chapter 45 section 3. And the city is working to upgrade the spray park facilities, increase accessibility, providing additional
features and stra shade structures on a portion of the 270 acre city-owned parcel. Whereas to meet set appropriation uh with funds transferred and/or borrowed in accordance with Mass General
Law Chapter 293, the Community Preservation Act, and to authorize the treasurer uh with the approval of the city council to issue any bonds or notes that may be necessary for that purpose
as authorized by Mass General Law, Chapter 44, or any other enabling authority. Whereas the park director be authorized to uh file on behalf of the city of East Hampton the uh LWCF
grant applications. Whereas the Nonatuk Park uh the Nonatuk spray park renovation and improvement project will cost a total of $529,000 of which the city shall appropriate the full amount of $529,000.
Now therefore, be it resolved that the mayor or his or her design be and is hereby authorized to file and accept grants from the executive office of energy and environmental affairs, and that the mayor or his or her design be
and is uh hereby authorized to take such other actions as are necessary to carry out uh the purpose and conditions of this grant to be administered by the parks and recreation department or other city officials and that this resolution
shall take effect upon passage. >> Is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this in the audience online? Please raise your hand. Now would be the time. Going once, going
twice. Seeing none. >> I did that as the form of a motion. >> Then we'll take the second. We have >> second question here. N just a second. Just a second. >> We have the second. Yes, you saw that. >> Okay.
>> And there's no further discussion. Excellent. All those in favor? >> I opposed. >> Motion passes. >> All right. >> This concludes your portion, right? >> Just one more. >> One more. >> We got to do the second one. >> The funding authorization for the second
one. Trust me, no one wants this to be over more than me. >> Please do it. All right. >> By the way, your read the reading is much better than this. Okay, this is great practice. >> All right. Um, so do we This is the same
just the same thing. Uh, if there's anyone who has anything to say, just we're going to be doing that same thing but in a vote for a funding authorization. Anyone from the public? Anyone online? I guess you get one more chance, right? All right. Seeing none, please.
>> Okay. I will make a motion to see if the city will vote to raise, borrow, and or appropriate $529,000 to pay for the non-tuk spray park uh renovations and improvements on land
known as Nonatuk Park that is managed and controlled by the city's parks and recreation department in accordance with chapter 45 section 3 for active recreation purposes. Uh and to meet set appropriation, the
treasurer uh with the approval of the mayor or designate is authorized to borrow $529,000 to pay the cost uh of uh project in accordance with chapter 44, section 7,
andor chapter 44B, section 11, andor any other enabling authority and issue bonds or notes of the city. and that the mayor or their designate uh be authorized to file the LWCF grant
PL88-578 on behalf of the city of East Hampton or any other applications for funds in any way connected to the scope with the scope of this project. the mayor or their designate be authorized to enter
into all agreements and execute any and all instruments. >> Second motion and a second. >> Any further discussion? >> All those in favor? >> I >> opposed. >> The motion passes.
>> Thank you. You're welcome. Good. No more. Right. >> Yes. Okay, next we come to the issue of short-term rental zoning ordinance amendments and definitions and tables
and we'll be calling on councelor Denim, chair of the ordinance committee to lead us with the discussion. >> Uh thank you Mr. President. So since last March, uh essentially the ordinance committee has been meeting um regularly
um to address the matter of short-term um rentals in uh in the city um uh for for a number of years they have been operating um without any ordinance
um and um or guidance. uh etc. Um and um as a result of that um it was brought to my attention that you know there's some liability in regards to that for for the city. Um and so we
uh the ordinance committee um began working on um an ordinance that was initially brought uh forward by uh councelor Peak and then uh councelor Derby. Um and through that process of
working with the planning department as well as the fire department um and the the building department and and more recently our health department uh to address kind of this um ordinance and how best we can um manage it, right? Um
I think when we initially started um there was uh uh a lot of concern um in regards to or recognition of that uh individuals who were hosts who were uh
running um these uh short-term rentals um to to be transparent uh had received guidance uh that they uh believed to be um in accordance with expectations of
the city and began to uh operate their uh shortterm uh rentals. And so um there's an acknowledgement of um that experience uh on their part. Um, also I think that there is so through the work of this
there's some recognition that we are um in a uh housing crisis um and as we saw again tonight there's some concern around rent increases um and not just rent increases but just
housing in housing increases and people's ability to be able to stay in their homes which I believe that um some individuals use this to supplement their um um mortgages uh as well as some people use
these opportunities to um address other kind of uh needs. Um at the same time there is and we can talk more about this uh which I I know we will talk more about this um there's a number of just state codes uh in regards to fire and
building codes um that we had to both learn about um and try to understand. Um, and there's just a number of of uh factors depending on length of time that the short-term
rental during that particular year or during the year is in operation and kind of kind of expectations for safety etc. Um, and so those were a number of conversations uh that were had. Um, and then also
within here too there's a number of items uh of particular interest. sure that people have been reaching out to counselors around caps. Um we set a cap at 50 which I can talk more about. Um but that was specifically uh just in
recognition to the fact that we had passed a resolution uh regarding uh rent stabilization and the potential impact of um if we kind of opened the door up for any number of uh short-term rental
uh registrations, then how might that impact um uh people's rents, right? So that was a concern. Uh there's a concern around number of days. Uh I think that was in the in the same kind of vein of of kind
of concern around rent and trying to balance what other cities have been doing. Um and then there's just also a number of of more recent items related to um uh fire safety um which we can also talk a little bit more about. But that's the
general overview of of some of the the key points that we had talked about. Um I think that you know through this there's a number of def definitions um registration requirements. We initially started out with um having this go
through the licensing uh board and that was specifically related to we wanted to be able to have a public process um so that if there were complaints or anything like that regarding a particular short-term rental that the neighbors of those short-term rentals had the opportunity to be able
to come forward and say, "Hey, I have some concerns about this, etc." Um but uh in the last uh couple of months we learned that this is actually right up the alley of the uh health department right the the board of health. So um for them to be able to uh take on the
responsibility of u man managing those uh registrations and if need be creating a process by which um individuals um who may have concerns about short-term rentals can can come through and have those discussions. So, I think as you probably hopefully have read, right, I
don't want to go through each and every one of these things, but um I think that there was a lot of thought and consideration um put into this. I think that there was a number of items here that uh were probably very new uh for
the um hosts of short-term rentals. Uh I think there was a lot of things that were probably unexpected regarding codes and things like that that were not um known or that people were unaware of. Uh and so we tried to take a lot of those
factors into consideration. Um, one item that is not in here but we can talk about later is I have a proposed res uh proposed proposed amendment um regarding renewal of um of uh short-term rentals
um which is in line with some other uh renewal processes within the city. Um and as well as again recognizing the um recognizing the um experience of uh
current hosts uh within that process who I think have been um operating um to the best of their ability um within the city. And so just kind of acknowledging um that that particular experience and and making sure that those individuals
who put a great deal of money, time, energy into that um will have the ability to be able to um begin the process of um registering their short-term rental. But I also want to acknowledge that in the
middle of this, part of why this has taken so long is um we had an interim mayor who uh was on council. So that took a little bit of uh wind out of ourselves. Then we had to bring uh uh
President Kazinski up to speed on uh that particular process. Um, and then also I think that there was some uh last minute additions that uh the building uh department and uh the fire department wanted to add um which they felt um
provided some uh or addressed uh additional concerns that they had had regarding this. But that's kind of the overview, but happy to answer questions or anything like that that people might have. Are there any questions at this time from anyone
on the council? >> Thank you. >> I can give I can give more context to event for any of this if people have questions. >> I appreciate that. It might be helpful to hear from the public
at this time. >> Actually, I think it would probably be more helpful to hear from our departments. um >> be helpful to hear from the departments their perspectives on it also. Uh >> let's go with the departments. I see the
chief moving toward the podium. >> We always love to see you here. >> Chief Norris. >> Good evening everyone. Thank you. Um, I think what will be helpful is, so we're talking about short-term rentals obviously and the proposals that are before you tonight, and because this
falls under the purview of the building, um, the state building codes, it would be helpful to have our building inspector come up first and give an overview and the framework of what's actually required in the building code, right? >> And then we'll back into how we got to
the proposal before you. >> So, we'll have Dave open and give you that framework first. Mhm. Mr. Building Inspector. >> Um, so could you identify yourself as such? >> Dave Gardner, building commissioner. Uh,
I'm also a resident of East Hampton, but um I will stick uh just completely with uh my uh my role in the city as building commissioner at this time. uh would be I wondered you know if it would be okay if
I come up during uh a little bit later and speak as a resident because I have concerns. >> I see no reason why you should not be allowed to do so. >> Great. Thank you. Um so um building code. So it changed the 10th edition uh
came into full effect July 1st of this year. It now has uh in it requirements for short-term rentals, specifically safety um requirements. Uh its default in the
building code is a 13D sprinkler system. As soon as you mention sprinkler system, people kind of tense up because they're expensive. A 13D system is not the kind you normally see um at commercial
locations. This one is um plastic piping. It's uh it's a source of uh water is portable water source in the building. Um it's uh meant to prevent flashover so people can get out. Statistically about 11 minutes it gets
people to get out safely. Um but um causes a lot of damage. water. They there are there's potential for and there it has happened for accidental deployment uh from uh the heads are
exposed generally they can be installed in a in a way where they're not so exposed but there are stories of uh teenagers playing around for instance with frisbees inside a house or whatever and heading ahead and suddenly the place got all this water damage. So um the
good thing from my perspective is that um most of the short-term rentals will be taking place in existing buildings. So building code is actually broken down into two very uh for residential code
two very different uh codes. One is new residential and one is existing residential. Uh for new buildings, anytime there's a requirement for sprinklers, any exception to that has to go to an appeals board at state level.
For existing buildings, the local authority, that would be me in this case, has the uh option of accepting an alternative uh to sprinklers that meets or exceeds the same level of safety. Um
and well so the question that has been asked to me like right away is so sprinklers that's that's water fire alarm system which I would accept is um how how could that meet the same level of safety? Uh
so sprinkler systems don't require any monitoring. They deploy some whatever is going on they go off. No, no monitoring by the fire department. There's no alarm associated with it. So, they can simply just deploy and that's it. Nobody knows
unless somebody calls the fire department. An alarm system is monitored does notify fire department through dispatch. any number of uh reasons I believe that's safer and a better system is that the alarm systems also have not
just smoke detectors and heat detectors but CO detectors. Carbon monoxide is deadly. It's odorless. Can't see it. And if somebody is staying at a short-term rental, they may have been there for the very
first time. They don't know what's they don't know the way out. But I'll get into that in just a moment. But CO detecting, CO detection is important because um people in a short-term rental, well, they're probably there many times
because they're on vacation. You know, they're in vacation mode. They might be relaxing, drinking, um, and thinking that they're coming they're they're under the influence of alcohol. That's what's making them sleepy. They fall asleep. It could be carbon
monoxide. If the carbon monoxide detector goes off, fire departments are notified. You know, notification, first responders show up. And I think that that's far safer than a sprinkler system that has no other um notification,
uh no reason that a first responders would show up. So when the proposal to for an alternative approach to fire safety was uh brought up involving a residential
type um fire alarm system that's monitored that is something that I would gladly accept as an alternative to sprinklers in most cases. Now there are in the building code uh any new places that are built. For instance, an ADU
that's a new building. If somebody has an ADU um and they want to use it as a short-term rental uh calling for sprinklers, uh that has to go to an appeals board to get an exception to that. But any of the
pre-existing buildings use the short-term rentals, then an alternative can be accepted. Um now for anybody who doesn't know the difference uh short-term rental uh is 30
days or under. So any any building any portion of a home rented for greater than 30 days not affected by any of this. So that still leaves vacation rentals which are pretty popular. Uh I don't know how how popular around here.
They're not short-term rentals. That's just a vacation rental. not affected by this. Um non-transient is um greater than 30 days. So again, not not affected by any of this. We're just
talking about 30 days or under. Uh the draft proposal actually has a a uh states 28 days. Uh the reason for that is because the uh one in particular Airbnb sets that as the their standard
because February has 28 days. So they're looking at months and they're looking all over the world for for their contractual arrangement uh with their partners as they call them and Airbnb. Um but the um the actual uh transient
non-transient is 30 days or under is non-trans is uh is transient over 30 days is non-transient. So that's very important stuff. Um, also worth mentioning is that the building code is there's really no uh a
municipality really has no um you can't change the building code in a municipality. The building code is statewide. It is what it is. And just and not every municipality does this, but East Hampton actually did this in its ordinance. it adopted the building
code and all of the uh uh subsequent additions with amendments and everything else. So, not only is it building code, but it's also in our ordinance as being fully accepted. So, there is really no
exception to uh to all of these places being subject to the building code. Uh this, by the way, is retroactive. It goes back to any uh short-term rental that came into use u beginning on and I
don't know why but October 17, 2017 and moving forward. So it is retroactive. Um and again there there's no way around recognizing that that is what the
building code is. and then how do we apply that to the circumstances that we're faced with uh in constructing an ordinance for regulating short-term rentals? So, um
any any questions so far? Any anything? All right, Jonathan Councel, >> can I context first? >> Connie, >> councelor De. >> Thank you. I just want to make clear that uh the alternative that uh building
commissioner uh Gardner is speaking about is found under uh 4- uh50.5 requirements for short-term rental operations. And if you go to C, it is uh point 4 where it says uh there
shall be installed a whole house smoke alarm system which shall incorporate carbon monoxide detection. The system shall be installed to the current Massachusetts building code. Such a system shall be monitored 24/7 by an approved central station monitoring company. That does not mean the fire department. That just means a third party potentially. Uh the alarm system
shall be tested and inspected by an approved authorized etc. I I I want to acknowledge that yes, this was uh described to the um to the uh committee as an alternative. And when we were
talking, we talked about a variety of different alternatives uh depending on size of room, size of space, um etc. And so I can only speak for myself. I understood that it could be a variety of
different alternatives depending on the situation. Um, and so I just want to acknowledge that if we adopt that section under four, um, East Hampton will be the most regulated
short-term rental community in the entire state. And so I I just want to to acknowledge that that um you know this this was what we understood to be an alternative and it was offered to us as
something that was now codified within this um ordinance. Um the the committee did um vote to e accept these um but I think there was a limited amount of time when we had this and that
was the last meeting that we had before this particular meeting and so I just want to acknowledge for myself and I want to take responsibility that I didn't fully understand uh in the particular moment the impact that this would that this would have on our uh
host within the community. I fully recognize uh the the concerns of the fire department and the and the building department, but uh I think it is important to note that the impact that this will actually have within our city and and and what that means. So I just
want to acknowledge that and give that context. >> Yeah. Can I address that? >> Is that is that appropriate? You just said something that I find challenging. You said the most regulated in the state. >> The default mode for any portion of a
home used as a short-term rental or a building is sprinklers. >> So, am I to understand from what you said that there's no place in the state that is requiring sprinklers for short-term rentals?
Uh, I think that there's a lot of um short-term rentals that don't have sprinkler systems within their state because I think what they found was they found other alternatives to be able to address that that did not include sprinklers. So, I stayed in short-term
rentals throughout the state um recently on the Cape in the Birkers um and I didn't see any sprinklers within that. That suggests to me that the building commissioner in that particular community found an alternative to having a sprinkler system uh within there and
they only had uh uh not hardwired uh um smoke detectors. They just had >> battery operated whatever. And so I'm just I'm just saying that this is more than what I've seen in other communities. >> So So it's anecdotal evidence. you you
didn't really do the research to find out what sort of enforcement or if they've even gotten around to doing it yet. This is still fairly new. A lot of communities are still dealing with this. I know what some of the surrounding communities are doing. I speak to the
building commissioners in those communities and I know what they're doing. So, it would kind of not follow your anecdotal observation of staying in >> as you just described. That's all I'm
just saying this is not you made a statement that was very strong statement the most regulated in the state but that's just based on your observations staying at Airbnbs in other parts of the state. Mhm. So I think to your own
admission right in the meeting right you had said that in fact uh there were alternatives and so you gave us examples in South Hadley. So that suggests to me that this was not something that was
required in South Hadley uh from your professional experience and that you found other alternatives to be able to work with those individuals who were managing those short-term rentals. No, actually in South Hadley, I did exactly what we're describing here, what's in here as the alternative. That's what was
done in South Hadley in two places when I was there. >> So, that is what happened there. >> Well, that's not how it was explained to us because But whatever, but doesn't matter. Go ahead. >> So, I did want to say that >> I was just going to say it sounds like there's a little more back and forth
than usually we have at this level of an ordinance. Well, and and I just wanted to note just wanted to note that >> that just just to note that. >> Yeah. Okay. That's >> not not to stop the discussion necessarily. I'm just a little surprised
by the comments because the ordinance committee voted unanimously to approve this draft and now I'm hearing that there's some back, you know, a little bit of a anecdotal like influencing something that's really not being
accepted in that which was unanimously uh approved in this draft. That's all. So it it sounds like there may be some some additional questions on the ordinance level, ordinance committee level. >> That's nor that's what I'm really saying
is that normally we don't >> have that here. That takes place at the ordinance committee level. Councelor Pet, >> I just want to acknowledge that I think uh councelor Schmid had his hand up a while. >> I mean, I'm happy to let this play out. Honestly, >> I did not did not see it. >> It's all good. Um if we're ready, you
know, I I have other questions. >> Okay. Um, I would also just note that a strong statement I don't know that is necessarily uh in any way speaking against, you know, the ordinance that was passed. Um, but not having been there, I can't um I can't say for sure. And in that regard,
you know, obviously I'm a latecomer to this whole thing. I've been trying to do my best to get up to speed over the past several weeks knowing that this was upcoming. Uh, and so forgive me if any of my questions are ignorant or illinformed or or already answered. Um
but uh regarding uh specifically uh the sprinkler requirement or uh an alternative as provided, um I did notice there's one place in the ordinance that references sprinklers uh that then references back to a particular part of
Mass General law. And in that mass general law, it seems to only apply to uh lodgings where six or more individuals will be staying. Uh and so uh my question is um if
uh if the if if the sprinkler requirement is indeed only for those dwellings of that are going to have six or more people as my reading suggests, uh does that mean that alternatives to the sprinklers would also only be
relevant to those dwellings? Does that make sense? >> Yeah, that's that's totally different case entirely. You're talking about master law 148 that's been uh actually um out there since 2005. That's uh something that's enforced by the fire
department strictly has nothing to do with building code. >> So So yeah, and I know a lot of people get uh they see that and they get hung up on that, but no, the building code is is totally separate. Um and the 10th
edition which is now in force requires uh sprinklers in short-term rentals and again 13D sprinkler system where what you're talking about there may not have been a 13D system. It could have been an R system anyway. But um yeah any
>> if I could just follow up on that real quick. I guess I I see it as a potential point for for confusion, especially as other folks have brought up in the community uh the issue of the sprinkler requirement. Again, it's as far as I can tell, uh the only place where they are
specifically referenced. Uh and so if people are searching for that and they see that Mass General law being referenced, they're going to go there and they're going to miss the fact that there is a new addition of the building code. Um and I just wanted to note that. >> Yeah. One of the conversations that we
>> Yeah. One of the conversations that we had uh with within the context of the requirements for sprinklers or smoke detectors etc. was uh the cap of five. Uh because then when you do get to a cap or then when you do get into six
or seven or eight right that falls under a different category of what that particular short-term rent might be which was a lodging house or you know boarding house etc. So, if if there is a short-term or there's a host that's hosting six people, then they have to have a sprinkler system. If they're
hosting five people, then it could be some alternative. >> That was how it was explained to us. >> Thank you. I saw >> councelor Newton first. So, please >> um is there a second alternative?
So given the alternative of the whole wired whole house system that connects to a third party, >> do you offer a second alternative? >> Well, alternatives. So the way it it's it's supposed to work is there's a
requirement to do something and the property owner would then say uh make a proposal and say well uh due to the circumstances I would propose this as an alternative. uh and then it would be up to me to look at the circumstances and
accept that or not. And then within two weeks I have to send that alternative uh to to uh BBRS for not really approval but just to for their file. But so it
really is um it's meant to because it's it's in existing building code. It's meant to address circumstances which could not be anticipated and to allow for use of a
building in a different way. Uh and where there might be some limitations where a new building for that specific use can say well it's existing how can we make this work? Um,
>> there are other ways besides the whole house system, not sprinkler, I'm not talking about sprinklers, but the detector system that is linked to a third party. You're saying you there are other ways, other alternatives.
>> Well, what would happen if the if if what is proposed in the ordinance is not adopted in the ordinance? If it doesn't survive this vote, then it would be a case-bycase basis. In other words, there
would be no set thing and it would be based on an inspection of the building. Now, I have there are some situations where um I'll use South Hadley as an example. uh one
of those places they also uh installed um an emergency light in a hallway because the room that was being rented was buried kind of in the house a bit. Um, and there was a horn strobe
installed in the room and that's to accommodate people who had might be hard of hearing or uh diminished uh sight, you know. So, it made sense that if if a detection if the detection system went
off that a horn strobe would go off and then these folks could find their way out down an illuminated hallway to the door in the other room. the other situation I did not require those things. So, it really is a case-bycase
basis and it's um it's it's up to it's up it's it's up to my discretion depending on what I see but um not uh again it could be case by case.
It is case by case. What I was hoping and my my hope is that this what is proposed in the draft survives and then there is a a system and approach that everybody experiences and it certainly
is a um a good approach I think and there's no guesswork in it. It's just what it is. Uh I might go into a place and realize that uh yeah this is a pretty big place, pretty convoluted. Uh
maybe a sprinkler system is appropriate in this case and that is the default in the building code. That is what would be required. Um again I'm no fan of sprinklers. That's why I I tend to lean toward an alarm system which would then bring
first responders to the site. Councelor Denim. >> Yeah. I So again, I just so I I appreciate you saying that because that was how this was explained to us, right? That it was a casebycase situation, right? And within this, there is no case byase anything anymore. What
we're saying is that people have to have this particular system, right? And this is expensive, right? And having spoken to a number of our uh hosts and getting some information, a lot of people who are working and and hosting, they're not
making the kind of money and in and and revenue that is happening on the Cape or that is happening uh in the Birkers, right? One senior said, "Last year I made $4,000." And that is just a small amount to help them ease the cost and
the tension of their mortgage, right? One person said $10,000. One person who is short-term rentaling their house or rentaling, sorry, uh renting I caught myself there. Uh renting their house, right? They're using that money to subsidize long-term care for their
parent who now has dementia, right? Like I think that there is a human side to this that we're actually not talking about. And so I just want to acknowledge that these things are in fact expensive. But I appreciate you saying that because in our understanding through that it was a case by case uh situation and this
particular item there is no more case by case. What we're saying is is that hosts now have to have to adhere to this particular uh thing. And again uh yes we did vote three to zero but we did not have enough time to be able to actually think about the ramifications of that.
>> Councelor Janzik. >> Um thank you. I want to go back to what councelor Schmidt brought up around some of the confusion um specifically with the definition of short-term rentals and to that section I think it's um section
C6 around or C7 around the MGL 148. And so there's to me I was also confused about that because in the definition that this ordinance puts forth it says that any properly licensed bed and
breakfast hotel, motel or lodging house as defined and permitted should not be considered a short-term rental. And then we have the section that brings up the idea of the lodging house. So I think that that's an example of some confusion
bolstered by what councelor Denim was just speaking to around the whether it is there's alternatives or not. So I am wondering a little bit as to what your thoughts are with this current ordinance as written because by your own admission
it does feel like there's some confusion here and I'm I'm wondering if you feel like this is ready to go at this point. >> I'm not confused by it at all. when I read it when we left the the ordinance meeting uh I thanked the uh committee for for their vote because it it at by
the end of that meeting there didn't seem to be any confusion on on my part >> tonight and so even there's redundancy so I'm just I'm curious what your thoughts are even hearing >> well bringing 148 back into it that's that's a lodging house so in a building
code it says uh this applies to uh it'll even lodging houses used as short-term rentals. So, actually the definition for short-term rental comes from Mass General Law 64G. That's where it all started. So, that is the definition for
short-term rental. It gets confusing there because specifically it says that it is not a hotel or a motel or a lodging house or any of these things, but then the building code comes in and says a lodging house used as a
short-term rental. Mhm. >> You know, and so the reason for 64G was to establish the ability for short-term operators to get insurance primarily and for taxation purposes. So, rooming tax
like that hotels and motel have to pay. By the way, hotels and motel require sprinklers. even motel that have doors that go right outside. You're you have a single room, you open the door and you're out of the building, but they require sprinklers. So, just for
comparison, and those are businesses that have to compete now with short-term rentals who are, you know, for in a lot of cases, uh, the the place has already been built. They're running it out of their home or or a home that they don't
even occupy. But so the definition comes from 64G and there's also things in 64G that u require some of the things that were brought up early just legal um >> can I clarify something?
>> Sure. Oh yeah, go ahead. Yeah, sure. >> Uh Dan Constantine, I'm the fire prevention officer. I just want to clarify the the the sprinkler as far as uh MGL 148 uh 28H. So, two different things we're talking about here. Dave's talking about the building code, the
sprinklers under the building code, right? That's his pervy. Okay. 148 section 26H is law. Okay? It's not code, it's law. So, it's it's it holds a lot more weight, right? That falls under the fire department. Okay? And that's
administered by the AHJ, which is the which is the fire chief. So in this in this particular instance, even if the building commissioner were or if we to have the um alternative uh put in as far as the
fire alarm system goes, if there's a short-term rental that has that rents to six or more that are not to the second kindred 148 section 26H kicks in and they have to sprinkle the building no matter what the building code says. So I
just want does that clarify it a little bit better as far as that goes? So it's two different things. And so even if they have this system, they still under the under the under the law, they still if they're if they're renting to six or more that out to the second kindred, they still have to sprinkle the
building. And that would be an order that would be issued by the by the fire chief. And there was an appeal process for that, too. Uh and such. But I just want Is that is that a little clearer now? >> Uh yeah, that's clear. I guess >> if I may do um >> I guess I'm I'm mostly thinking from the
context of of the public um who doesn't have you know the the benefit of all this. Uh there's just something about including that when it is so different from everything else that we're talking about here that I think felt confusing uh and that I think will result in
future confusion. Um and that's all I was saying. It makes sense that, you know, I think what you're saying makes sense and I certainly understand, you know, anything that rises to the to that number of people will be um held accountable. It just seems like kind of above and beyond
what we're talking about here. And I think it makes sense to include, you know, something else about the sprinklers um if you know there's regulations and and stuff in the building uh code that are are separate from that. the the idea of putting it in was for transparency so everybody knew up front that this was this was you know
if they put in the if they put in the alarm system all of a sudden they get this order I just want to make sure they know up front that there's this other law that's out there under the fire department >> right right I think the important piece and thank you for that I appreciate that um again it goes back to the the number
of people that you're having right but also within that context of that kind of lodging house as you said that's a requirement right and So, as much as we'd like to make this an easy read, right, I think anyone who's interested in doing this, I think
they're just going to have to dig in and there's some level of accountability of understanding the laws and kind of what you're getting into. Just as I thought I was really beginning to fully understand this, I had a question and that was uh brought up by
uh Mr. Constantine. Uh your comment was very clear. It seemed that over six or more non-kindred to the second requires a sprinkle system.
>> Correct. Put that in here. then everybody understands that as well as the law because it's not only in the law it's it's in your ordinance and then that would be understood that that would seem to clarify in my mind the issue and
then also address the separation of under five or five or fewer people these are the regulations that help to clarify it for anybody I don't know seemed to me for a moment Am
I stating it correctly to the experts in your enforcement area? Okay, that's good. All right, >> councelor Jazz, >> I just want to follow up. Thank you. I want to follow on that. I think that to me speaks to a question I kind of brought up earlier, which is I think it
does this doesn't feel fully done to me because we're having these discussions. And I do I appreciate councelor Denn's point that there is going to be some level of accountability for people who want to engage as short-term rental hosts here in East Hampton if and when
we pass this. And we don't need to create something that's unnecessarily confusing if we are confused at this level. And I know I've certainly been watching the recordings of the meetings. I've been pouring over this language and um I'm no stranger to legal ease. I'm
confused about some of it. I do think there's a middle ground where we can elaborate some of these pieces. And this is certainly not the only section that I think warrants some reflection, but we should, it behooves us to make this as easy as possible for our current and
future short-term rental hosts to be able to follow the law once we pass this. And I don't think it's going to be helpful if we pass something that is going to be out of the gate confusing when we all want the same things. We want to have people be safe, not die,
um, you know, be able to do all the things that short-term rental hosts want to do. So, I just wanted to name that because I think that there's still some language that to me feels missing and this is an example of that. >> Good. Thank you, uh, Councelor Peak.
>> Thank you, Mr. President. Um, okay. I just want to make sure that I understand this and then I have a couple questions. So what it sounds like to me is that the and I apologize for not being more involved in this along the way because maybe I could have this some of this would become more clear to me before
now. Um but um it seems to me like like in terms of this section C here uh and that that we've been discussing at length that sort of where we are is that there was a recent change in Massachusetts building code
which would require sprinkler systems or in the case of an existing building an alternative that was approved by the building commissioner. Right. That's that's the the basis of this is that there that that's there for
existing buildings and it would require and if it was a new building then if you wanted something other than sprinkler systems you got to go to the state. >> Am I I got that right? >> Y >> okay. So then when we put this in here, it says that there shall be installed a
whole house smoke alarm system, which is a alternative that you would generally approve of as seeing is just a safer safer. Um, yeah. Okay. So that makes enough sense to me. Um, I guess if I were to see it, I I might present this
present both of those options because it's possible that in some cases one would be preferable to the other for one reason or another. And if those are both acceptable under the building code, then that's just one thing that I would I would consider. Um but I guess the other
question that I would have is um say that we're years down the line and we have um a different uh building commissioner like that that ultimately is the building commissioner's jurisdiction right so if the next building commissioner says okay well
this is what the ordinance says but I actually don't like >> carbon monox I don't like these detection systems I want it to be state then then would this entire thing be sort of obviated because >> no no once a system is approved by a
commissioner it that you you have a co essentially you have a co for that >> sure for that unit but if a if a unit someone later wants to come online >> and they're going through a different they're going through this process with
a different like would like >> the same >> this is this is acceptable and in our ordinance because you think it's acceptable and I think that your case for making that is very reasonable. But if a if a future person doesn't find that to be an acceptable solution, then
even though it's in our ordinance, our ordinance to your point really doesn't have a whole lot to say about this. This is state code. And so I guess that's maybe that's a little too hypothetical of a concern, but do you sort of see what I'm getting at?
>> Councelor D. Oh jeez. >> So in looking at this at this in the in the in the same frame, another building inspector could say that's actually I think more than what I think needs to happen given this particular case by case situation.
>> Right? I guess I'm just nervous that we could write something in that we say this is acceptable, but ultimately it really doesn't matter what we say. it matters what the building commissioner says and a different building commissioner could think something different and at that point we've
written an ordinance that gives bad guidance I guess is is my just um I'm always trying to think about these things about things you know the the I guess the other the other question that I would have is like it seems like a lot of this is written um as helpful
guidance to um to talk about uh like to take the existing state code and reflect the existing state code in our ordinances. And so I guess
um this is more a question for the council than the department heads u although I appreciate your input as well but like h when because this is something that I've seen before in other cases in ordinance like what happens then when the state code changes
um but our ordinance still reflects an old state code that's no longer accurate. Do we run the risk of um giving bad advice to people who are using this as a as their first touch point? >> Um
well, this is required to be reviewed at a minimum of every two years. And so I think if there is a change, then we would work with the building inspector and the fire department, fire chief, the fire inspector as well to be able to make those amendments. Right. I think it
was very intentional about being able to build in those um those review, right? Those opportunities for review to address those things because these things are changing, right? Like frequently, right? So,
>> yeah. No, that makes total sense. just just I guess the one place where I have a little bit of I think that the intention of that is really good and I and I hope I guess the only place where I have a little bit of the problems like I'm pretty sure that our charter also says that we should review all of our ordinances on every year that ends with
a five and it's a year that ends in a five and we're we haven't done that. So, like I just think that like we do sometimes skip these things when things are hectic. And I I guess I just see that as not a deal breaker for me, but a potential liability that something could
change and just in the hustle and bustle, it doesn't get updated and then we've got an ordinance that's telling people to do things in a certain way and that is actually not reflecting the up-to-date uh state requirements. So that's um again not a deal breaker but
just a concern I wanted to flag. >> Mhm. >> Councelor Newton. >> Thank you Mr. President. Could we add like a clause after the installed a whole house smoke alarm system where it explicitly states like an alternative
may be approved by the building inspector on a case-by case basis. Would that help? So that's clear. >> But it's it's myith it's my understanding that what the building
commissioner is saying is that that is the alternative. What >> right? >> I thought I asked him is there a second alternative and he said yes there is another alternative on a case by case basis. Isn't that what you said? Well,
only because so this is an alternative that I would accept in in most situations. I mean there may be uh and because of
existing buildings this is uh is something that I find as being actually the intent is safety getting people out of a building uh and and I find that it it meets or exceeds the intent and the
level of safety that sprinklers would provide. Um, what I don't know is what's on the horizon. Like if somebody has an apartment building, so things change, right? Uh, somebody uh, what if Anyway,
I don't want to get too far astray, but so yeah. So, um, is there a second alternative? Um, it's possible, I suppose, that if I I've not been in any of these places yet, you know, I I have no idea. Every place is
different and when people ask me what would you require for just about anything? It depends. It depends on the situation. Um depends on what's there. So some places might be uh painfully simple like you know there could be a
room with a door that goes out the back like an immediate thing. Uh you know escape from the building. would it even require anything other than notification? Uh, and a carbon monoxide detector, you
know, that's that's for me is a big is a big one. Um again you have people the reason there's a difference in the building code for for one and two family dwellings that
are non-transient occupied and transient occupied dwellings is because of the level of safety changes familiarity with a building. I understand. >> Uh you have people staying for the first time in a place, they don't know in the
middle of the night if there's no emergency lighting for instance, no system to alert them that something's wrong. But I guess what I'm asking is would you hypothetically like is it possible for you to accept
some an alternative to this that maybe is the person has a 10-year carbon monoxide and and fire detector in each room. They have like a certain number of fire what are those extinguishers? And they have like an extinguisher over the
stove. like would that be something you could accept as opposed to the hardwired? >> Chief Norris, I see you on that and if you have a comment. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. So, >> because I see a little bit of difference
between the building and department and the fire department and this No. >> Yeah. So, just again, um, not to belabor this, but just to help people better understand, um, we we now had an overview tonight of what the building
code requires for these short-term rentals. And part of that now leads to the alternative compliance. >> So, the building commissioner um, worked with Kathleen Constantine and I to look at, you know, what are those options? What do those options look like? And from the fire safety perspective for
these occupancy for the occupants as well as the property, we came up collaboratively with what's being proposed right now. Why did we bring this proposal forward to all of you? When you look at the occupants in these buildings, it's a transient population.
People have said that already tonight. They're unfamiliar with the layout of the buildings, regardless of square footage, size, length of hallways, all that. So that's the first concern from the fire safety perspective. Second concern is whether they're here for
vacations, um visiting families, whatever it is. When you have these occupancies, there's a higher potential for tampering with the system. So that led to the addition there of having a monitored system. So it would eliminate
the potential of tampering because it would trip a supervisory alarm. The other concern when you look at the fuel types and fuel loads across this country right now, including East Hampton, they're extremely um flammable, combustible, and you don't
have to look further than whether it's ebikes, ecooters, lithium ion batteries. Um everything around here is all synthetic based. >> You heard the building commissioner talk earlier about sprinklers and how that protects flashover. I I won't get into that. But by having a monitored
hardwired battery system, which was our recommendation to the building commissioner, it will help people escape those areas based on all those conditions. So that's the reason why this alternative compliance was brought forward in the manner that it was, for
those reasons, for the occupants, the fuel loads, the timing to get out, um the potential for people bringing in all these things. you look out across the region now, whether it's cause a fire because of overloaded um circuit breakers, extension cords, things like
that. Um it it can happen here. And I'm I'm not crying wolf. We're trying to find a balance. We're trying to find a balance between making sure the occupants are protected, their investment is protected, and trying to find that balance for financial means.
Um so that's how this all got brought forward. Thank you. >> Is there a less Oh, sorry. >> Go ahead. >> Is there a less expensive option? So, this is about $5,000 plus monthly fees. Is there anything that you deem safe
enough that would be much less expensive for the the owners? >> It's really two separate questions you brought up. Is there a less expensive option? No, there's not. And and the reason I
say that is can could we sit here and work with the building commissioner and say, "Okay, we want to put in smoke detectors that are battery operated." And they send out a local alarm. Okay, that would give notification. How quickly would the fire department be
notified? Because it's not going to a monitored station. Are these people are they awake? Do they know how to get out? So that system that I just described to you, a standalone battery operated system, is not as safe as what is being proposed to you. Did I answer your
question? >> Yeah. I guess I'm just really trying to figure out for constituents like is this the hard line or is there something that costs less because the cost is going to be very hard for a lot of people to
>> meet that if you or chief >> whoever wants to respond to that specific question then I'll take counselor Den thank you so uh to your question is it a hard line so I've been
doing this for 32 For me as a public safety official, this is my strong recommendation to this legislative body. Yes, that's my hard line. If you choose to do any alternative that then shifts some
responsibility, um I'm giving you my recommendation. We, the three of us, are giving this legislative body our strong recommendation for these occupancies. What you choose to do with that, that's on you.
>> I saw councelor Denim, councel peak, I saw you also. Were you responding to the same question? >> Yeah. No. No. So if not >> to to your question, right? The this is the alternative that they could come up with, right? So this my
the point that I'm trying to make is this does not have to be in here. It does not have to be codified. Right? There could be another alternative. But now what we're saying is that this now is the baseline. And I think that's where I'm struggling with that because
when we were talking, right, it was it's a casebyase situation, right? And so that's how I think myself and maybe others on the committee kind of understood it that there might be other alternatives. So I don't I don't think that this has to be codified because
they could come up with that this is the alternative that we're recommending given the size blah blah blah blah blah blah blah right of the space and so that's just the concern. So I appreciate the the level of concern the safety the
everything that's understood. I I think it's the it's the we're saying that this is the baseline and I don't think that that's necessarily how we understood it initially. >> Thank you, Council Peak.
>> Yeah, I feel like uh I may be repeating myself, but there's just this one question here that I just can't uh help sort of uh just getting out of my head. Just to recap, so the what we're proposing here in C4
is an alternative to the state requirement that our building and fire officials feel is an acceptable alternative. And I feel like that their case for it being
an acceptable alternative is sensible. But what I'm not sure about is just whether just it's it's just about who has the authority to make these rules and it's about whether or not us writing any of this actually has like let's just say that there's some tragedy down the line
and that that tragedy occurs in a place that has the monitored hardwired you know uh detection system as as being proposed here and that the three of you decide we've actually changed our mind. you need to do the the state code. Uh,
and that's that's that. Does this ordinance carry any water at that point? Because it feels like we don't actually have I don't I'm not aware of us having the authority to actually set those parameters for you. So, it sounds like this is guidance, but that guidance
feels um ephemeral, and I'm just nervous about that. Um, like I I'm I'm nervous that like th this is what we're proposing here is is does this make sense? Am I am I sounding like a crazy person here or does this make sense? Like that like this
this is guidance on what on an alternative that you currently would feel comfortable with. But if those circumstances changed and either you no longer felt comfortable with it or you moved on and your replacements no longer felt comfortable with it, then would this language in our ordinance actually
provide any sort of binding guidance on whoever's in those jobs in the future to actually do anything? Or would they be able to say, "Well, that's an ordinance, but I'm actually following state law, and state law says it's this or whatever I'm comfortable with, and I'm not
comfortable with this thing." So, ultimately, it's it's the building commissioner's decision based on the recommendation if they take that into consideration of the fire department. >> Mhm. >> If there's a Let me jump to the fire
side. If there's a city ordinance that states that sprinklers are not required and state law says that they're required, then they they need to sprinklers need to be put in there. So,
>> exactly. Okay. So then I'm just I guess I'm wonder I'm just I'm that's I guess something that I I'm I'm worried that if this isn't actually like if ultimately there are other factors floating in the world like maybe
one thing that I I was maybe these sorts of things would be a good fact sheet to go up on a website saying hey are you looking to do a uh short-term rental in East Hampton? here are some codes you need to be aware of and here are some way, you know,
solutions that we think you could talk about and here's who you should call. That to me makes sense because it's non-binding. But when we put this in an ordinance, this is a law and it feels like it's a law that is not actually a law because it can be overridden at any point if whoever is in your positions,
whether it's you or a future person, feels differently about this being an acceptable uh alternative to state law. Mhm. >> Um I'm not trying to get too meta here, but it just there's something about that that troubles me. >> That sounds like a question for legal
counsel of >> I don't think we need it >> at that point. You know, who did to separate for us or do you think it's all clarified? Did it's clear? >> I was >> I feel like I didn't get to fully answer the question before when it came up. And
what I want to say and I'll use an example. Locally, we have a place that added a third unit to a two family that would require sprinklers. The former commissioner issued the permit, didn't mention anything about sprinklers. The place is built, the guy didn't put the
sprinklers in. I went to the state building inspector and said, "Hey, we have a situation." I was told by them that the um because the building official approved it
then that stands. So, in this ordinance, any of the short-term rentals that are registered under this ordinance with that provision that I approve,
another commissioner could not functionally come in and say, "No, I disagree with that." And so, that's all undone. But if you don't adopt this in this ordinance, then anything goes as far as like what's required. And the
default the default is sprinklers. Now, those are vastly more expensive. And I've already expressed my concern about sprinklers. I'm not a fan. Now, I have to get past that with with the chief because fire is always pushing
sprinklers for everything. And I don't necessarily agree and especially in this case. So that's the importance of it being written into the ordinance. Otherwise, it would be then a case by case after an inspection and it may come
down to yeah, you need to do this this and it will involve sprinklers. Um, and especially for accessory dwelling units that are used for short-term rentals because those are new buildings. Uh, that would be the default. You need to
sprinkler it. They could take it to the appeals board if they want, but and um so I I'm not going to respond to that. >> Riley's been waiting. >> I know. I just I just want to clarify really quickly. >> Go ahead.
>> Um so it's just I I completely understand what you're saying there when it comes to existing things. But I guess the situation I'm worried about is like imagine that 10 years down the line, I get a one-year job somewhere else and I decide to put my house up on Airbnb while I'm gone. And at that point, this
is what's on the books, but the feelings of the the people in your positions have changed. Like, does this even carry any water if you decide that you actually don't want to consider this? >> Well, it depends. If you registered it through the ordinance, per the ordinance as a short-term rental, and it's
approved, I inspect it, I approve it with the alarm system, you're you're good. If you don't and you decide 10 years down the road you're going to short-term rent your house, it'll be subject to whatever um
is out there at that time. I mean, I I don't know. The ordinance can change. as was mentioned earlier, it's up for review every year, every two years or something. >> Um, I mean, things do change and in fact the conditions of the ordinance can be amended. You alluded to ordinance which
is very outdated. I'm very painfully aware of a lot of those sections that I'm tasked with enforcing and I don't know which way to go because they conflict within the ordinance themselves. So, it is what it is. But C council Dan,
>> yeah, I just I I think I think language is is really important and I I I don't think that it's anything goes, right? I think we're asking for what's reasonable, right? And and I think that this could
be the reasonable response given the size of the house or something else much smaller or whatever. or if it's a one-bedroom room and the door's right there, then what's the reasonable thing that someone in any of these positions are going to be doing, right? And I think that it's a, as you both said, I
think it's a collaborative conversation about what's the most reasonable thing. But, you know, going back like this could be one alternative. And so, if this is one alternative, then I don't necessarily think that this is something that has to be in this ordinance. >> Okay.
>> I mean, that's where I'm at. >> Thank you. I councelor Riley has been very patient while we've had lots of going back and forth. Councelor Riley. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Um, so the the first thing that I want to say is is not a reflection of the dialogue that has
been going on. Um, I appreciate the dialogue and that people are asking questions and and sorting this out and I think that's healthy for democracy. Um, you know what I I will say though is um having served on the public safety committee for four years, um I've gotten
to know the chief very well. Um all of the members of the fire department, um I was chair of appointments when we hired the building commissioner. Um, I engaged in a very lengthy Q&A with him at the
time about his philosophy in um, inspecting buildings. And just to say that there there are decades of collective experience just between these two individuals
>> who have seen what happens when something is not well regulated. um and that that the things that you see from uh non-regulated or underregulated
instances in in this scenario usually involves people dying. Um it is members of the public, our family who would be visiting even the professionals that would be going into the building to rescue them as well. And and this is not
to diminish the the Q&A because I I think that's really important, but we also need to understand that if this is the recommendation of the building commissioner and the fire department, it's because they truly have embodied
the circumstances of when something is not well regulated. >> And that's a lot. That's a lot for an individual to take in. Even if it is something as, you know, as small as, you know, well, you know, we got everybody out, but all of the
pets died. That's still, you know what I mean? You're still embodying the the the stress and the trauma of the work. So, I what I I don't see this recommendation for an alternative as being controversial. um and that if this is
what Chief Norris is recommending that we include, then I I think that we should do it. Um the other piece that I I I kind of want to point out here is that we are talking about right now the absence of a regulated industry in East
Hampton and that we are we need to bring ourselves up to code to regulate that industry, right? for for whatever reason in the past we have had people operating um short-term rentals and Airbnbs in
East Hampton with zero regulation and that's dangerous that that to me is scary that we haven't done that yet. So I I welcome that we have got to this point. Um two other things that I wanted to mention.
One is to to the point of discretion. We we can never account for the discretion of future employees. That's just we don't know who those people are, right? I would like to think that the chief will stay with us until
he's 80 years old. He's probably going to leave >> 80 >> before then. >> 90. I thought, wait a minute. But >> you're going to leave early. But the point is that somebody somebody new will always come into these positions and
the discretion piece is always going to be a wild card. But what we do have at our disposal as a council, like when we went through the appointment process, I was able to ask the building commissioner about his discretion, what
his philosophy is. So, you know, this is not like we would just end up with brand new people in these positions without us being able to have some sort of a say over whether or not you can you can have this position, right? The city council gets to be a check on some of these
conversations. So I think it is incumbent upon us and all of the future counselors that come after us in in in many years to always be mindful of the discretion power that
some of these positions have. And then the last piece is that you know we live in a federalist society and there is a supremacy clause that says that every government over the top of us gets automatic say over
certain things. There are very few instances where we get to say this is what we are going to do and we don't really care what the state of Massachusetts says. So if at any point the state law changes or the state gives more authorization to
a building commissioner or the fire department to do x things, it doesn't actually matter what our ordinances say because by being a supreme government over the top of a local government, they can at any point tell us that our ordinances are null and void and we need
to do X. Right? This is always um a part of American democracy. Um, so with all of that, you know, I recognize that I I'm only here for one more meeting after this. So, you know,
my comfortability in voting for this tonight, I think, is separate from what I'm hearing as a lot of uncertainty and questions of my fellow counselors who will be here in January.
And I know in the past we have come to public hearings and we've gotten into the weeds and we've started to ask questions and then the more that the dialogue goes on the more questions we have. >> Mhm. And as a sort of general philosophy
on this council, whenever those things have happened, we've always resorted to saying, "Hey, why don't we just bring it back to committee >> to readress some of these things so that way we know exactly what it is that we're voting on and what it is that we believe in and and what the, you know,
what the rules actually state. So, I would be in favor of that because it seems like there are a lot of questions that may not be easily answered tonight. Um, yeah. And I guess that that's just how I
feel and and I I would hate to restart that process again. I know that members of the public are here and probably want to weigh in and this has been an ongoing issue. So the the the question that I have with
all of this in context is can we can we talk about what happens tonight? If, let's say, we put it up for a vote and the vote fails, what then happens to does that mean that nobody can have short-term rentals in East
Hampton until the cool down period? Right. We would we have to wait 6 months before we could even reintroduce legislation. Is that correct? >> Typically, that would be the case that we would wait 6 months to have new legislation to discuss the topic. It matters the area of of of matter. we
would re resort to what had existed right >> in the past >> uh whatever that is >> a moratorum >> and there's a and there's a moratorum currently in effect right >> which had been put in place with the
hope that we would come to some sort of resolution and have something to propose >> I know we have several members of the public who are probably anxious to say something have spent lots of time waiting to say something
>> and uh I think it would may be unfair to continue to hold them off from saying something at this time. Although we may choose to uh put this on hold in terms of going back to committee. That that's
a possibility that we have. Uh we could vote on it. Uh that's all up to us. >> Right. >> So that being said, uh councelor Denim. Yeah, I just I just want to, you know, address something. I I think this is the biggest kind of sticking point, right?
And I think that we've already discussed that that this is an alternative that already is an option for the building inspector, for the fire department, uh, etc. But I I think that again I I tried to talk a little bit about
the the residents and the hosts. They're the ones who are impacted by this. This is not cheap. This is expensive. And I think that this becomes an equity issue because the reality is is that having spoken to some of the hosts that
if this gets passed as is, they're out. like I can't afford that. I make four I made $4,000 last year as a short-term rental to help subsidize my mortgage and now I have to put in a $5,000 system. Like that's just and and I have
to pay monthly in order to be able to have that monitored. That's just not feasible. So now we've created a situation where there are people in the community who were looking for an alternative because years ago it was explained to them however it was that they could do that. And now what we're
saying is sorry even though that there's other alternatives out there you don't have access to that because this is the baseline of what we're going to be working with and so they are impacted by that. The other thing that I think is really important to understand is that in looking at the registered the number
of um looking at the who's registered for short-term rentals right now 70% of them are women. So it is a very specific population within the community that's going to be impacted by that. Also, many of those
individuals are seniors within the community and they made this particular choice of doing this to help supplement their income, to help supplement their housing cost. And as we already know and are fully aware, the cost of living
housing in East Hampton is expensive and it's rising. And what we are doing by cottifying this is we are taking away from them an option that allowed them to be able to stay in their home. I think that's unacceptable. And what we're
asking and what we're asking of the fire department and what we're asking of the the the commissioner is we don't need this. You are you have this as an option. Like what are the other options to be able to help people stay in their homes? This is just one more income
revenue opportunity for them to be able to do that. And so what's going to happen was when the people who started this and who wanted to be able to do this to help supplement that. What we are now opening up the door for is the people who can afford it. It's the people who have apartment buildings that
who are going to have the opportunity to take one of those apartments offline and they can put in a sprinkler system because they're charging so much money right now for residents. All of that is money that they could then use to be able to turn an apartment
into a short-term rental. And so all we're doing is reproducing wealth for the people who already have wealth in our community. I think that is unacceptable. And what what this is is unnecessary because it already exists within their
ability to be able to choose that. And so I think we're setting up our community for a mess in terms of people who are no longer going to be able to afford to do that. >> Councelor Jadzik. >> Um thank you, Mr. President. I I there
there's been a lot of really good points raised and I >> and um I am on the same level as councelor Riley is I'm feeling very inclined to perhaps put this back to subcommittee and to
your point I want to acknowledge the people who are here and online who want to speak. We've had a lot of time to hear from our departments which has been great and we need to hear from our residents too. So, I guess my question to you, Mr. President, is should we um maybe put our discussion on hold to a
hear from our our residents or if we were to make a motion to move this back to subcommittee, could we then still hear from the residents or what would maybe the appropriate order of operations be? >> The appropriate order would be to hear from the public and then send back to
committee. So that would be my >> for anyone who would care to speak >> because I I I do want to acknowledge the time and the there's been a lot of effort also put in and I think we have a lot more to discuss ourselves but I don't I want to hear from the residents as well. So
>> so I would be inclined to say that I'd be in favor of going back to committee but I think we I see some nods. Uh but I am very cognizant of the long wait and the trying to make this work for the entire
community. I'm sure we have folks in the audience who have been waiting. Folks online, please come to the podium. You have up to three minutes to speak. Anyone from the public? three last time. Yeah, this is different. We
don't have 100 people. >> Ryan Griffin, director of public health. I just wanted to reiterate what councelor Riley said about um the importance of having an ordinance or regulation in place cuz currently the short-term rentals that we have in East Hampton aren't regularly inspected or
permitted. And um just a prime example is about a month ago I got a complaint about a rental and it was an unpermitted um bathroom combo that they were renting out. So I just want to reiterate the importance of having some type of regulation ordinance
on file as opposed to the wild west as I believe it is now. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Nathan Marquee, 37 Holio Street. I'll be city councelor Alexa, so I'll be sitting on this board in January. Um I um
I appreciate um Councelor Denham's passion and I agree with her wholeheartedly with the points she made. I also understand um councelor Riley lady and um others concerns particularly with department heads um
professionals and their some of their concerns about the short-term rentals. I do I don't know much about this. I wasn't planning on speaking about anything this evening. I was just going to sit in my chair. I feel that it would I wouldn't I wouldn't
like to see a vote be made tonight and then have to wait for six months to come back up for a vote or the legislation be changed. I think that the most appropriate course of action would be for council to send it back to subcommittee try to
get more input or do whatever council does which I guess I'll find out soon. um and have it be brought back up in January or February and stuff and try to get um it kind of the screws tighten down so it could pass committee. But
that's my um that's my opinion. My name is John Lceto. I'm a short-term renter in East Hampton. Um I also happen to be an operations manager of a commercial a commercial building. Um so I have a rapport with
the state uh fire department and the state building department and I've had ongoing conversations with them over the last few years. So what I'm about to say may help you or confuse you more. Um, so the whole short-term rental thing
at the state level is still a super gray area and they really are trying to reel it in themselves. And um, it's very confusing in regards to laws versus codes. And what I can say is a
few things. Um there was a training at the state level in regards to short-term rentals and East Hampton for whatever reason did not make it to the training. There was a training for this because again it's very convoluted and it's very
hard to understand. Um, also what I know, and anybody can check this, fact check this themselves, there are no fire sprinklers in any short-term rentals in the state,
even six and over. Um, they are trying to figure it out, but there has not been a push to put fire sprinklers in them yet. Um, there are no there are uh the fire
codes do not include the word short-term rentals. So, that's why when we go to look it up, we can't find it. It's not in there yet. They're working on printing that into the fire codes, but it doesn't exist. Um, uh, I'm not sure if this fire the fire
alarms that were trying to put in are above and beyond the state code. I didn't get a chance to look that up because this all happened very fast. But what I do know is that if we decide to trump the Massachusetts code and write
something into our codes that exceed, it must go through the attorney general's office. with for a hearing to be approved to do to put in codes that are above and beyond the mass codes.
Um, let's see. Uh, just a couple more things I want to say. Um, I thank you for mentioning that we I think that you had mentioned that
the hosts that currently have been hosting already, we we're they're going to think of a way to autorenew. I think that's very important. I think that people who have already proved that they're worthy hosts, they should be renewed and not be kicked aside by
someone who comes in who's a new vendor. Okay. Um and the noise ordinance is uh simply a discrimination. Um East Hampton doesn't have a noise ordinance. We can't impose them on short-term rentals. Um,
only uh I personally monitor my property and I go outside and say I have neighbors. You can't be loud out here. And then my neighbors stay in their pool till 10:30 screaming Marco Polo. So >> good
>> online comment. >> Once we finish with the the in-person comments, we go to online comments. So please, you finish your thoughts, sir? >> Yep. And then just the vague nature of the ordinance uh giving these inspectors
discretion is um you know it defeats the reason why we have codes. We have codes because that's what the that's what the building inspector and the fire inspectors go by is the codes. When you just say you have discretion, then everybody gets to make it up as they go along. >> Thank you.
>> So, there's some wordage in there to that needs to be checked. Um, >> I would like to just say that the videos and the minutes from the meetings for the last 6 months have not been up from the ordinance committee meetings. So, a lot of the hosts could not reference
them if they couldn't make it to the meetings. >> I'm going to allow this to continue because of the what you're talking about as a process issue and that's very important that we have a good process. So, please I will allow this to continue. Go ahead. Yeah, I was just
saying that we couldn't all stay on the same page about and watch the videos or read the minutes to the meetings and stay up to date with what was going on with the progress of the ordinance committee meetings. Um and then I just
wanted to say one more thing is both both the >> the state fire department and building department said that we really should work with them on this to make sure that we are within you know
>> I will I will call it. Thank you. Thank you. Time is up. >> Sorry. Hello, my name is Mona Scott. I live at 159 Park Street in Precinct 4. My daughter Lindsay and I own a house together, a farmhouse. We purchased it
together as a way for me to stay close after my husband, her dad, passed away in East Hampton in 2019. My daughter Lindsay Rothschild and her partner Aaron LaRose created a guest suite in my home that they manage as a short-term rental.
They make it viable. This makes it viable for me to live there. It's a lot of hard work. They are here every week cleaning, restocking, and they spend time communicating with the with the guests. It warms my heart. They do this so that I can be here. I interact with a majority of the guests. They are mainly
here on weekends. They're usually visiting family in East Hampton, going to a wedding or attending a funeral. Sometimes they're visiting kids in local schools um in colleges or attending the art fair and or a local 5K. I know that Lindsay and Aaron are in communication
with the guests. From what I understand, they from the um guests that Lindsay and Aaron are super hosts. I don't know exactly what that means. And from what they tell me, many of the guests comment that they like meeting me. So, I guess that's a win-win. I know they were really Lindsay and Aaron were really
shocked when they received the punitive sounding cease and desist letter last year as they had been very conscientious to create a safe and welcoming space and to comply with local and state laws. My daughter can't be here today as she's at
a conference, but I wanted to come and share that I know that she's been working alongside other East Hampton hosts and the city council to create a local ordinance. Uh she shared her frustration that after cooperatively working together with the city council
ordinance committee over many months um that it seems that the burdensome regulations were put into the draft ordinance of the last committee meeting. Um I appreciate some of which um council member Connie Denim has spoken. Um of
course of course we care about safety. I'm in the same home with the guests. Lindsay and Aaron are much more present than a traditional landlord would be. So, it's hard to understand why burdensome regulations that exceed long-term rental standards would be put
on short-term rental hosts. Thank you for listening and I urge you not to overregulate short-term rentals and embrace the benefit that short-term rentals bring to East Hampton residents. And the legal um memo that I did have an
opportunity to see also pointed up a lot of things to be concerned about. And so I also would support sending it back to committee to review the things that have been brought up here as well as the things that were brought up in that legal memo which I believe you all had a
copy of. Thank you. >> Anyone else here in the audience? Thank you. Hello, my name is Mindy Catherman. I am a short-term rental host. I work as a
realer and I'm a long-term rental host. I appreciate the committee. Um, we've been slogging through this for nine months and it's been a lot of hard work and I appreciate everyone hanging in. Um, from a long-term rental host perspective,
I want to say that every single time, 98% anyway, um, that I've gone into my long-term rentals, there are smoke alarms that are on the counters, on the refrigerator, not not present at all. And it's very
frustrating. I've never had that in any of my short-term rentals ever. In fact, every guest if there's a problem calls or texts me, they know that I'm available 24 hours a day and they can reach out and I'll be there within minutes to take care of it. So, I
appreciate that. Um, at the end of the last meeting, the ordinance committee meeting, also want to say I care about uh everyone's safety. It's super important to me. At the end of the last meeting, the building commissioner and the
captain Dan were talking about the amount of money short-term rental hosts make. They were throwing around $50,000 to $100,000 a year. And I want to say I think that's anecdotal. Thank you. >> Anyone else
from the public? >> Hi And we're still looking at the folks in uh in present here. >> I'll be really >> continue. >> My name is Chase Hunter. I live at 21 Pine Brook Drive and uh I've had nothing
to do with any of this and this is the first council meeting I've been to, but I have been um a renter at a short-term uh rental unit. And I think they're really important. And I've had friends come up from other states who have visit visited cuz we didn't have a place for
them to stay and they have stayed there and they spend a lot of money in East Hampton. Uh which is, you know, another benefit of them because we don't have a hotel or someplace for them to stay. So, uh, more power to you all for figuring some of this out, but but please don't
take them away. Thank you. >> Thank you. Dan Constantine, Melinda Lane. March 2025, Clipton, New York. Mom and her child perished in a fire. No smoke alarms.
Wisconsin 2024. Six members of this gentleman's family died. No smoke alarms. The short-term rental revenues are rapidly approaching hotel revenues, which were 93 billion last year, according to E- Turbo News. Short-term rental revenue numbers are predicted to
double by 2030. Hotels and motel are commercial properties that fall under more stringent laws and regulations, but both have the same type of clientele, short-term renters. Why should there be no oversight for the short-term rentals? We learned this in
the 20th century with a lot of tragedies that happened in hotels and motel. All these safeties issues could be addressed if we took the necessary steps of regarding vacation rentals as commercial enterprises as they are. Your one and two family homes. They're commercial enterprises. Now,
most states and localities still categorize these properties as residential use. With a hotel or motel, guests are considered part of the general public and pay a lodging tax that is used to fund, among other things, regular government inspections of the accommodation to check for safety
issues. Short-term renters of vacation homes also pay a local lodging tax, but they aren't getting any of the property get getting a property that has been inspected properly. We've been willing to regulate hotels and motel in the name of safety, but
while at the same time ignoring short-term rentals as their popular popularity has exploded. Compounding the problem of capacity is egress, which is one of the most ignored safety issues in the short-term rental industry. Thousands of rentals have been created
in spaces that would never be permitted in commercial settings. Sleeping areas are improvised in atticss and lofts that lack legal egress windows. Many are set up as places for children to sleep. In a fire, heat, smoke rises to these locations rapidly, making escape even
more difficult. Local governments regard these properties as residential and have little oversight to address egress. Uh just looking at some of the short-term rentals in town. Uh and I looked at uh weeks what it cost to be a week. Um one of them was $1677 for a
three-bedroom Virginia. She's a super host. 334 reviews. Um Lindsay Superhost. 39 reviews. It's 1,085 to stay there. Um $2,26 for a three-bedroom that's got 100
views. Uh for Laura, uh she's a super host. So, uh safety is extremely important. We need to treat these as commercial properties. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> We're still dealing with the public if I may. So, anyone else here as a member of
the public? Laurel Gardner, Plain Street. Um, I usually prepare things really carefully, but I just wanted to start by saying that to call these burdensome regulations as opposed to the long-term rental
regulations again just comes down to safety. If somebody is staying in an unfamiliar place for one or two nights in party mode, it's a lot different from somebody that you get to know over the days, the months, the years that they're staying with you. And speaking of equity
issues, isn't it more important to have I mean the state made accessory dwelling units buy right in places that didn't used to be able to have them because we're trying to get more housing stock, not more tourist rentals. I'm not saying
we shouldn't have them at all, but I'm glad there's a cap and I'm glad there are safety regulations. And I'm really hoping that you city councilors will think carefully about this. If somebody's only making $4,000 from their short-term rental, then okay, maybe they
are going to have to long-term rent the place instead because then they won't have to use the cumbersome, burdensome safety systems. Um, I guess I'll the only other thing I wanted to say is that I I I was glad that the mayor put a
moratorum let let people who are already running these things have more time to get in their income that they've been making. But just remember too that some of these are whole house. Some of these are not owner occupied. Some of these are people who live out of state and are running one here. And again, what's
happening to our housing and to our we keep talking about affordable housing here, folks, but this is taking away from affordable housing. So again, I'm glad there's a cap at least. That's all I want to say. Thank you. >> Thank you. I have somebody online who's
wanted to speak. Roxan. >> Okay. >> I see a hand from the account of Roxanne Mariana Prell. If that's you, please unmute and hello. Is that Roxanne Mariana Pro?
>> So, please please unmute and take your >> Can you can you hear me? >> Three minutes. Yes. Thank you. >> You can hear me? Okay, great. Okay. Hi. Uh my name is Roxan Mariani Pra. I'm known by Rocky. Uh I am a senior
um and I rely on uh operating a short-term rental in my uh two family home to supplement a modest income. Like many older homeowners, I'm not doing this as a large-scale business. This is a small
home, owner occupied, and I host just a few guests a year. I heard what people are saying about what what's being um posted that one might make as a short-term rental uh
owner. But I want to really really identify the fact that what it costs to run one versus what is demonstrated online is it's a it's a stretch. If you want to see my my um financials, I'm
happy to share them. I'm super transparent and what um Captain Constantine uh made seem like was like this like super lucrative business is it's not actually that. But I'm happy to be
transparent. Um I have nothing to hide. I will share all of my expenses and what I actually earn from a from a short-term rental. I want to nip that in the bud quickly. Secondly, I want to say that I support reasonable regulation of
short-term rentals that balances safety and community standards and and I actually attended quite a few of the meetings with the ordinance committee and I really appreciated the collaborative environment that that was
that was there. And um I want to um applaud uh Councelor Smith and Councelor Denim. And while uh councelor well now mayor Derby was on the that committee that it was a really wonderful uh
community uh collaboration. It felt really great and I know that JP you came in afterwards. It felt really great. It seems like at the very last minute things sort of got pushed in a more uh universal requirements for auto for
these these um uh sprinkler systems and uh hardwired systems which which are not if you look at the memorandum it doesn't actually say that the building commissioner is the person to >> um restrict those that is actually that
comes from the fire chief. the fire chief is the one person who can identify whether or not it has to happen. There there were a lot of things that sort of got clumped in at the very last minute that felt really pushed and I really prefer the more collaborative experience
that I had in those smaller meetings. I really would advocate that the council takes this regulation back to committee and try to identify what's essential. >> Please finish your thought.
>> Yeah. And what's true and then and don't ex extrapolate all these other extraneous I don't know details that aren't aren't relevant. In any case, thank you so much. I really appreciate your time. >> Thank you. Uh, if anyone else would like
to speak online, please raise your hand. >> I would like to speak. >> Please do so. >> Hi. Uh, I'm Matt W. Can you hear me? >> Go ahead, Matt. >> Yes. I'm an East Hampton resident, homeowner since 2008, and happy to uh
address the council. Thank you for uh giving me a moment to speak. I'll keep it brief. Um, as a homeowner, uh, I'm very alarmed with this overreach from the city council and especially the building inspector. I didn't realize he
was an attorney. I would really caution the city council against taking advice, especially legal advice from the building inspector. I think this is extreme overreach recognizing councelor Denim's uh, statement. East Hampton
would be the most extreme regulated uh community in the state for uh short-term rentals. If this uh measure was to pass, I would encourage every single homeowner in East Hampton, whether or not you ever
thought of uh doing a short-term rental to immediately go and apply for one of these 50 uh sacred spots. It's incredibly limited. Even if you're not thinking about it, you better get get it locked down now. I wasn't thinking about it, but I certainly would because I would want to reserve my right to do
this. I think it's an incredible overreach. I think the city is exposing themselves to an incredible amount of legal risk. I would I would certainly sue if I was a uh short-term renter uh of an of my unit. I would immediately
contact my attorney because I think this is an extreme overreach of the uh building inspector who I don't believe is an attorney. I would like to um also acknowledge uh Mindy
um Catherman who happens to be my neighbor. I don't know her very well. Um although she's lived next door to me for some number of years. Um, I had no idea that she was short-term renting until she contacted me in uh with alarm about the
level of crackdown that was occurring in this community. Again, uh, all I knew that she purchased a a property that was in total disrepair and spent a huge amount of her own money to rehab it. The property seemed to be incredibly
improved, and I never heard any kind of problem whatsoever. She told me she was short-term renting. I was extremely surprised. I had no idea that this type of overreach was occurring. And I told her I would come here because it was incredibly shocking that a person who
invested in their own property to rent it would be >> uh facing this kind of discrimination by the city council. I would also like to encourage the city council to not conflate the issue of affordable housing with this issue of short-term rentals.
People who own their property should be allowed to do whatever they can to survive and make a little bit of money on their property. It's a tiny amount. If anyone in the council has ever uh used an Airbnb around the country, you'll know that these properties in
East Hampton rent for peanuts around $65 to $100 a night. It's nothing. They probably rent for minimum of two or three nights a month. >> Please finish it. >> Even if they rent it for every night of the month, it doesn't matter. They should be allowed to make any amount of money they want to on their own property. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Anyone else from the public? >> Nancy Pearson. >> Yes. Hi. Um, let's see if I can get me up here. >> We can hear you. >> Um, okay. Good. My name is Nancy Pearson and I own 14 Taft Avenue. Um, and I
believe this short-term rental ordinance will apply to me. I was one that received the cease and desist letter. Um, I've owned it since 2001. I'm not taking it out of the housing stock and it won't be appropriate for me to long-term rental it because I the reason I have the house is to come and visit my
two children and two grandchildren that live in East Hampton. Um, I believe that having short-term rentals in um, East Hampton are a benefit to the East Hampton because people who don't have room in their homes can have extended family come visit, which is what
happened um, over Thanksgiving at my my rental. Um, I do have strong opinion that you do not codify the state law. Don't even attempt to do it. leave the state law and the building um the
building codes to stand on their own. You can direct them with a fact sheet. I love that opinion. Um but don't try to codify it because if anything changes, you guys are stuck and every two years isn't enough. And then we don't know
what we're doing as hosts to um to to be in compliance. And if we have to reapply for registration every two years or every year, we don't know what the co codes are going to be. So, please don't codify. Leave it to the the state law to
change it if they want to. Um, I also have some issues with other provisions and I I believe uh the the ordinance as proposed is too vague um and needs to be further fleshed out and I would strongly support it being sent back to committee.
Um, a couple of things that are still too vague is the caps and how they're determining which of the 50 will be there. Also about um um let's see uh also about uh let's see what else sorry what else was there? There there was a couple of
areas that I didn't understand and like the 250 days for me who is uh not owner occupied. Um you've exempted out other things. I would like to have that restriction um exempted out for those of us who weren't were in existence in
March of 31, like 2025. Um anyway, there's there's other things. I strongly encourage you all to send it back to committee and I will definitely take part of those committee meetings. I just didn't know when they were occurring in the past. I couldn't figure out how to access them and I couldn't
figure out what actually happened in those meetings. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else before we discuss whether I would to proceed here? Anyone else from the public in online community
in person? Not seeing anyone else. I would >> in person. >> We promised you that you could speak as a person. So although we've heard from you as a a building commissioner, I will
I will keep keep that promise. So please, >> as a resident, uh I'm alarmed at the idea that a whole house uh could just take place in any community in any residential setting without the way the
draft is set up now. It's simply a registration. If you comply with everything that's in the draft, you're you're good. Uh other communities have special permit requirements for short-term rentals that gives the public
a chance to weigh in on on a case-byase basis. So for and actually uh suggest conditions which can be agreed to. Um the basis for my concern is also founded in two legal uh decisions in
Massachusetts on the basis of uh the single family homes used not primarily as a single family home uh should not exist in a zone where commercial operations are not allowed.
So, in all of our residential districts, uh, you have no right to establish a commercial operation right now. They have to be in commercial districts. So once a home just any building but once I'm just talking about
homes are used for more than half of a year then the the principal use becomes that short-term rental which is a commercial operation. The uh it falls into a different category entirely by building
code and zoning ordinance. So, uh, the provision that currently exists in the draft for allowing it up to 250 days for non-owner occupied is something that is problematic space. >> So, I would like to see that changed and
that should be addressed. Owner occupied is different because then the use becomes an accessory use to the owner occupied dwelling. Whereas non-owner occupied over half a year becomes a
different use category completely. It becomes an R1 which is on the same par with hotels and motel and it should not be allowed in a residential district. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. Um, back to the council. If the public has had their say this evening, if we return back, the public is certainly invited to return again. Should that be the choice of the council uh to continue this hearing, should it
be the choice of the council to continue and go ahead and uh return this to ordinance, then the public would be entitled and invited and asked to participate at the ordinance level as well as continuation of a hearing here.
I take it that that may be the will of this this this council. Uh, and I would entertain such a motion should there be any further discussion on that subject. Now would be the appropriate time. Councelor Riley.
>> Yeah. Uh, just uh, very quickly, I I just wanted to say I I know that this process has been going on for a really long time and there are instances when the government moves a lot slower than other instances and this is one of those. So, I just wanted to express my
gratitude to everybody who has been engaged and continuing to have these dialogues. I know that this is sometimes painful to get into the weeds of these kinds of policy debates, but it's really important. So, I just wanted to uh thank everybody for um being
engaged. And um unless there's any other uh questions or remarks, I would move that we send this agenda item back to the ordinance committee. Second. >> If we move to do that, then would you
also recommend that we continue the public hearing? >> Um I I think that we're all set with the public hear that that's >> I I because I don't think we should close a public hearing if the matter is to come back before
this this council. >> Can we >> I think that public should should remain that right should remain. We'd have to continue it indefinitely, right? Like because we don't come back. Well, we could continue it indefinitely. We could continue it to a definite time and then
decide at that time. Uh we could not pick it up sooner than the time that we would define continuing indefinitely. I'm concerned about the legal aspects of doing so during the public hearing
process. I think it's important that the public know it would if if we're going to discuss this again, it will be discussed in in the ordinance and it would be discussed at this city council meeting and date in the future. That way the public is assured, okay, go in
ordinance and it's going to go to public hearing. So I think it's important to continue the hearing so that everyone stays informed and knows what the steps are. >> Okay. So then, Mr. President, I would I would like to withdraw my motion. um because I don't know what that time frame looks like and I I would defer to
the members of the ordinance committee to set that time frame. Thank you. >> Point of order, >> please. Point of order. That takes >> councelor Newton needs to remove her second before. >> Oh, I would like to remove my second. >> Oh, thank you.
>> Mr. President, please. It >> is removed. >> Do we have any further discussion about continuence and times? Um, >> we may think about it for a moment.
>> I'm just going to be very honest. I would rather we vote and decide whether or not there's pieces in here that we want to keep because as our health director pointed out, we are operating without an ordinance right now. And I
think that this the city is has a liability at stake and there is nothing in here that is so egregious other than one point that we spent over an hour talking about whether or not that that that we want that in there. Yes, there's
other pieces in here, but I I I I just >> Thank you. >> Look, look it up, right? I'm not finished yet. Yeah. So, I think that it is is prudent upon this council to decide if there are pieces in here that
we want or don't want and then put something on the books so that that the city is safe. This has been reviewed by the attorney, big chunks of it. So, there was comment about a brief that was after we had
received comment from the city solicitor. So, I think that there are pieces in here that I think we're we're spinning our wheels uh around some issues in here that I think that if we just decide whether or not we want them or don't want them that we could we
could resolve this many uh aspects of this. Thank you, Councelor Peep. >> Yeah, I I completely understand the um desire to be um to to have something in place. I think that makes a lot of
sense, but I personally for me to feel comfortable voting on this, there's there's a couple things that I um I just want to get a better sense of. First of is I'd asked questions about this in the past. I just kind of want to understand probably from the solicitor a little bit
about how this um uh as uh councelor Riley put it the sort of supremacy clause aspects of this goes like if there's elements of state code that are in here and then the state code change or there's things here that that we don't actually the potentially a
a different building commissioner's like opinion could overrule what's in here that makes me really nervous so I I want to get a matter sense from a solicitor about from the solicitor about how that works and beyond that there we haven't really talked about it until just now but there is that the there was a brief
from a national industry group on the subject now like look we we get a lot of you know those sorts of groups send their things along and sometimes they're nonsense but just given how serious some of the the statements were
it would make me feel a lot more comfortable if the solicitor just said Hey, this is crap or actually this is something that I hadn't thought of that we should really think about. So that's just I I'm just personally not comfortable moving forward until I get some of that just so that I understand
kind of what the ramifications of us voting to accept this uh is. >> Council Jzik. >> Um thank you, Mr. President. I I agree. I if we were to move to do a vote at this point right now, I would probably
vote no and I'm concerned about that because of the cooling off period that you mentioned earlier. I think I I won't speak for anyone else on council. I'll just speak for myself personally. I think that there are enough other issues that I personally have not yet had a
chance to raise because of how we've addressed the back and forth with the Q&A and the public and our discussion that I think warrant a lot more discussion and we haven't really even unpacked the issue around why the
ordinance committee voted 300 to put forward something that they themselves have said tonight that they did not feel comfortable with. So I think just from that perspective alone, I'm I'm full wholeheartedly in I want to put this back to subcommittee and I think if
there's a concern around timing, let's put some timing regulations in place. We can say a month, two months, we've heard directly from the public um tonight and we've heard over email and other conversations that the people who are going to be most impacted by this from
the short-term host perspective are fine with us delaying this. They don't want us to vote tonight. And they've said that tonight loud and clear. So whether it's we come back to this in February, January, March, whatever it is, I think that to me feels much more um prudent at
this point. But again, I will vote no if this goes for a full vote at this point. Councelor Smith, >> as someone who's on the ordinance committee, I had an extraordinary amount of emails that hit yesterday asking
very, very detailed questions about this and I feel that I would not be doing my due diligence to try to come up with an answer within those 12 hours between then and now. And because of that, I feel fine taking this back to committee
for those reasons. Um, I would like to understand a little bit more regarding the time frame issues. I don't feel that that was Can you just come ahead with that where you're saying we have to not put it off of public just I just want to
>> I I think the the hope would be that the public would know that yes we intend to continue and that the continuence would be such that the next step would be to go back to the ordinance committee with the expectation that that matter would be returned to a public hearing
>> at the council level on a specific date. Okay, >> whatever that date will be subsequent to whatever we think at this time would be sufficient for the ordinance committee. >> I very unusual to take the staff quite
I'm presume you're here as staff. >> I Yes, I am. I just wanted to let you know the zoning ordinance piece of it. It has to be continued to a date and time certain otherwise it will have to be readvertised as a public hearing again in the paper which is very expensive. So we try not to do that. >> So I did just want to put that out
there. You have to do that. >> I'm just going to throw out a date. I don't know if it's a good date or a bad date, but it's a conversation starter. What if we said uh so this is our first me? This is Wait, yeah, this is our
first meeting in December. What if we continued it to like our first meeting in February? It gave us approximately 60 days to work uh something out. And if at that point there's a feeling that there's not been a reasonable like a a
satisfactory conclusion, it can always be continued again. But I mean, if you want to do 30 days instead that or or whatever, like that's fine. But I just think like let's just pick a meeting and then if that isn't enough time, then we
can always do this again. >> Yep. >> So what do people think about that? just ineb >> the first meeting in February you had mentioned last you wanted to bring bring back up the school budget vote I don't know if that is still set in stone or just want to remind you of that
>> yeah no >> thank you >> another another issue yeah so uh so the question that was just brought up was the date of the first meeting >> I'm checking would have been February 4th is the first meeting in February
February 4th. So that that's what councelor Peak has has suggested. Councelor Denim has suggested we deal with it tonight. She has another comment. >> I mean, if people want to push this off, that's fine. Um, I think that just given the fact that there are going to be new
people here in January. We might want to push it to the second meeting in February just to give people enough time to be able to like get up to speed. Also, we're dealing with recommendations from the um
affordable and fair housing partnership that are our next meeting. So, I'm get I'm it's probably not going to get till January uh to be able to come back to this. So, >> till you said January, but you were suggesting February.
>> No, I'm saying we're probably not it >> in committee. >> In committee. >> In committee. is not going to come to a meeting until January. So then fe the end of that can always be extended. >> Yes. So that's what I'm saying. But just as a start, >> I presume it would require an announcement in a public meeting in
order to continue it at that time. Should we decide that the second week, the second meeting in February is too soon, that could always be continued. All it would take is the announcement. Okay.
Anyone else? >> I will say a few short comments and and they're really specific to I think we want to do the best for what is is for the entire community both on the level of
the safety of anyone who stays in in the units whether they be long-term or or short short term. We want to comply with the laws of uh the Commonwealth and the federal government if should there be any regarding this matter. Uh so the
question to deal with the attorney I think is important. So I think that that's something we want to do. We want to take in into consideration the issue. I've heard the issue of the cap and I know that there's some thought about
whether there was any there was another proposal that had been on the table and that was for 50 plus uh five or 10% more units to in order to be able to give the health commissioner time to be able to
evaluate and take on the paperwork for the for the units and allow for flexibility. ility to have growth in the number of units assuming that there might be a requirement for more a request for more. I think legally we
could be in a very tough situation to set a fixed cap on on this. So there are lots of issues that need to be addressed at the ordinance level uh and to come back to here. So, I appreciate the public coming and helping us with this
process. I would entertain a motion for the second for the continuence through to the second meeting in February and for the matter to be in the meantime referred back to ordinance. >> So moved. >> Second.
We have a motion and a second to continue the public hearing until the second meeting in February, which is the date of again >> 18th, >> February 18th, Wednesday, February 18th at 6:15 p.m. in these chambers.
Wednesday, February 18th at 6:15 p.m. for the continuence of the matter. And in the meantime, it would go referred back to ordinance committee for discussion. Any further discussion among the counselors on that subject? Seeing
none, we'll go to a vote. All those in favor? >> I I >> opposed. The eyes have it. This matter will be continued to the affforementioned dates and go back to committee.
Thank you all. Do we need a break? Do we do we have >> I would make a motion to close public. >> Wait, wait. We have another Do we have to deal with the other one? >> Uh, short-term rental request to review or general ordinance amendment
short-term rentals. >> I think I thought they were all together. >> This is this is a zoning ordinance. >> The zoning ordinance as separate. Uh, yeah, the zoning ordinance. I thought we would
we were continuing. Was that motion to refer both or was the motion only to refer the subject of the ordinance? >> What? >> Because our intent I thought was to continue all of this.
>> I didn't realize because they didn't have num uh little things like that didn't I thought this was one big item. >> Um >> let me say this. Is there anyone here who came to speak on the issue of the zoning ordinance with regard to the
short-term rental zone? Because if that's the case, you should have the time to speak to that subject. Now is the time. Um kind of what started the ball rolling on adoption of an ordinance for short-term rentals was the fact that the
use was not on the use table. Short-term rentals are a specific use and our zoning ordinance like many zoning ordinances uh throughout the Commonwealth will say that anything that is not found any use
not found on the table is considered prohibited. That's why I sent a letter to 14 Taft Avenue. I received a complaint. I followed up as I had to do. Sent a letter to cease and desist because the use was not allowed per the
zoning ordinance. So, this is just a method. This is a a way to get the use on the table to make it uh a legitimate use. Um, so it's it's important to do so. and
also the definition part of it. So, >> so the definition and the use part of it, do you see it in conjunction with the subject? >> Well, for it to be allowed uh to an allowed use, it has to be on the use table to be an allowed use. So, it's
important that it ends up on the use table otherwise >> it creates a conflict in the ordinance. It says if it's >> if you find if the use is not on the use table, then it's Don't deal with one without the other. >> Correct.
>> So let us if there's no other person wanting to speak to the subject, we could also entertain motion to send this >> to ordinance committee and to the uh continue the hearing on that matter.
>> So moved. >> So moved. >> But I wanted to be sure there was no one else from the public since we had advertised a public hearing on the subject that had be specifically stated. Is there anyone member of the public online or in person who would also care to speak to that subject?
That was the zoning ordinance amendment rental zoning ordinance amendments of the short-term rental zoning. No one. Thank you. We've covered that base. We can entertain a motion. >> Point of order. Point of order. But I'm
sorry. >> Councelor Denim. So, this was voted on by council. This went to the planning board. So, we're kind of on the clock of getting this passed. So, I guess I'm trying to understand, do they have to be
in unison or can we adopt the because we're going to have to do a short-term rental general ordinance. Uh, so I'm just trying to understand, >> will we attempt to have the planner here? And >> is this going to have to go back to the planning board for approval again?
>> We're on the clock. >> Um, you you have time. It's from the date of the close of the hearing is is the time >> from the date of the close of the hearing. And we would be continuing the hearing. >> You're continuing the hearing. Yeah. I There is I I was trying to find it
earlier. Um, there is a timeline, but this was just advertised as a public hearing not that long ago, so you're you have time. >> Okay. I just want to make sure >> definitely to do that. Um, I was going to add something else, but anyways. Oh, yeah. Thank you. >> I wouldn't I Oh, I was going to add I
wouldn't suggest only approving one without the other. >> Y that's helpful. I was concerned about the timeline. >> Good. So it doesn't sounds like we don't have a time issue. We can entertain the
motion. >> Yeah. So moved. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second to continue the public hearing for the rental zoning short-term rental zoning ordinance. Any further discussion? All those in
favor? >> I opposed. that was continued until February 18 at 6:15 p.m. in these chambers. Will that matter also be referred to ordinance? Was that part of the motion? >> Yes.
>> So that was part of the motion. Was that understood by everybody? >> Yes. >> I see a for affirmations. Good. That motion passes. >> Councelor Peak, you were talking. >> I move that the public hearing be closed and that we take a fivem minute recess.
Second >> motion and a second to have a fivem minute recess and to close the public hearings. All those in favor? >> I opposed. >> Motion passes. See you in 5 minutes. The time is now 8:48.
>> Please. Microphones back on. Cell phone on off. All right. going back to the uh meeting and I believe we were at public hearings and gosh I look around the room and I don't see anybody but hearing
comment >> if I may want to stay >> I'm going to go to the podium. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Going public speak time. >> Public speak time. Public speak. I'm now a member of the public. I'm
James Corsinski and I live at 47 Hannen Brook Drive. But I just wanted the public to know that this uh coming not this Sunday, but December 14, Sunday, December 14 at 700 p.m. there'll
be a gathering at u the Christmas box Angel at u across from the Nshawanic Pond right next to the municipal building. I'm pointing over here because it's right over there.
And it's for the gathering is is is for folks who have lost a child. >> And I'm sorry if I get very emotional about that, but that's why I came over here. >> Uh
we don't expect that to happen in our lives. It isn't something that you anticipate. When you have a child and they put the child, you're lucky enough to them to put them in your arms. you look down and and it's just the most amazing experience in the world. So, I
wanted the public to know that for those who have lost a child, whether they be still born or however old they may be, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. Not everyone will understand you. Not everyone will
understand your griev grieving periods or that the grieving never stops you. may want to take advantage and join with some other folks who are in similar situations. And that's the opportunity and the beauty of the Christmas Box
Angel. So, at 700 p.m. on December 14th, you have that opportunity uh to join and say a few words at that time if you care to say nothing but just to share your own heart and
your own experience. I wanted to be mindful of that and I thought the community should take a full advantage and they don't have to be from East Hampton to be part of it. >> Thank you. >> Sorry, what's the location?
>> Uh, >> it's like this little tiny park. >> Oh, the location is is the I think it's technically called John Bader Park. >> Okay. >> Right over behind the parking lot. >> Yep. between the the uh rubber thread
property >> and across from Nashuanic Pond and adjacent literally adjacent to our public parking lot here at the municipal building >> uh on Willist Avenue. >> Perfect. Thank you. Anyone
else from a member of the public who cares to uh have public speak? Anyone in the online uh group, raise your hand now? Seeing none, public speak time is nearby
closed for the evening. Uh, moving on to items for immediate attention, communications from elected officials and boards and commissions. Councelor Denim, >> uh, just want to remind everyone in the room, um, that we have the municipal
leadership academy, so we are still collecting applications. Um, so um, we're they're trickling in. Um and so hope to get some more um so that we can um you know offer up that opportunity
for folks to learn about the city but also uh meet the amazing department heads like Chief Norris in the back. Uh right it's a great opportunity to um learn about the work of of our city department. So I hope that um folks will
um sign up for that. >> Anyone else? Councelor Jansik. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I'd like to uh let people know and invite them to this Friday's is uh the East Hampton City Arts 20th anniversary celebration.
It's a fundraiser and an acknowledgement of 20 years of us having ECA here uh in East Hampton. Uh I think we can all agree that arts and culture are really important and vital uh parts of our community. And so this is a way to come together, celebrate, and um raise some
money for ECA. So, that'll be this Friday at Margold Theater from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. There's going to be u music, live painting, uh food, a silent auction, awards, lots of other fun stuff. Um, and then I also wanted to mention that this Sunday is Hubilation.
I believe that's at 5:00 p.m. Um, and so just wanted to let the public know as well that that is happening this Sunday. >> That so sound like great events. >> Oh, yeah. >> And lots of fun. Um, anything else? >> Just where where is hubilation happening
this year? Is it at Millside Car? >> I believe it's still at Millside Park. Yes. >> Okay. >> Councelor Denim. >> Yeah. Sorry. I just want to back Leadership Academy. Um, the application is online. So, if you just go to the uh
city website and you just search for Municipal Leadership Academy, it will uh take you there. >> Thank you. No other comments. Uh, we have communications from the president and vice president. Mayor communications.
Mayor's not here, but I'm actually here. >> Was online. Oh, I thought I thought you had left. >> I see you online. >> Mayor Communications, you're you're up. >> The voice behind the curtain. >> Thank you. Uh, sorry to be joining you remotely. I just wanted to um say I
don't really have a report but hubilation's at 5:30 at Milside Park and and I look forward to seeing everybody at the uh ECA celebration at the Marold on Friday. >> Excellent. Anything else? >> That's it.
>> Nope. That's it for mayor communications. um finance committee counc uh we met last week to discuss the items that we discussed in public hearing. Uh
and it doesn't look like we have any new business related to finance. So I think we're going to not meet next week. >> So congratulations >> uh people who don't have to deal with me for an entire two weeks. Um so yeah uh
that thus concludes >> anybody from public safety. >> Yes council. >> Thank you Mr. President. Um I just have a um uh a point of clarification if I could get some from I guess whoever would be
our closest parliamentarian. So the public safety committee has not met in maybe six months um for you know various political reasons doesn't matter. Um and that chair is
absent. Um there is some business that still needs to be resolved before my time on the committee is over uh including approving minutes. Am I as the clerk of public safety allowed to
step in as interim chair in order to conduct the city's business with our our new any two members of the of the committee may call a meeting of the committee. >> Okay. So then um I will um confer with um councelor Newton on setting up that
meeting that will that will come um within the next couple of weeks. Um but I will um check in with the um council clerk to ensure that that is properly advertised. >> Good. >> All right. Um and thus concludes. >> Yep. Uh an extension on West Street.
>> Yes. Thank you. Um a 90-day extension of the traffic and pedestrian safety on West Street. Uh in the form of motion, please. >> Second. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Motion is second for 90-day extension. All those in favor? >> Opposed? Motion carries. appointments.
Councelor Smith. >> Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to defer to Councelor Riley tonight because um I had a car emergency on Monday. >> Oops. All right. Um thank you, Mr. President, and thank you, Chair Smith. Um so the
appointment committee um last met was it this Monday? >> Yes. >> Yeah. God, it feels like it's so much longer ago. Um on December 1st, we had before us one um new mayoral appointment and then a series of mayoral reappoints.
Um so first is the uh mayoral appointment for Leslie Shar to the commission on disability with a term expiration date of December 31st, 2026. Um we did not have the opportunity to meet with Ms. Shar in that meeting. Um,
however, I have known Miss Char for many years now, um, and can attest to her ability to serve in that capacity. Um and then while I could not confirm with her um any of the requirements for
identifying with a disability or being a caretaker um I do want to say that we have more than enough folks on the commission on disability that we don't need to worry about having that um demographic quorum. So um I feel comfortable
uh moving her forward uh for appointment. I I just like to pause and see and actually that we voted two to move her forward. So I wanted to pause to see if anybody had any questions or reservations about doing so.
>> Seeing none. >> Okay. Um so in the form of a motion I would like to um ask the full council to appoint Leslie Shar to the commission on disability with a term expiration date of December 31st 2026. Second >> motion and second to appoint Leslie
Char. All any further discussion? All those in favor? >> I opposed. >> Motion carries. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. President. And then um we have a series of mayoral reappoints. Um so just to confirm, each of these appointments all have term
expiration dates of December 31st, 2028. So I'm not going to read the date for each one. This is for everybody. So, I'm just going to go through the names and the boards and committees. >> Perfect. Thank you. Um, so in the form of a motion, I would request the city
council reappoint the following. Robert Newton to the aquafer protection committee. Jamie Pocket to the Bees Committee. Genevieve Gold Leaf to the Bees Committee. Gail Cannon to the Charity Funds Committee. Deb Peavey to the Council on Aging. Katherine Kerry to
the Council on Aging. Peter Flet to East Hampton City Arts. Connie Dawson to the Energy Advisory Committee who was also being moved into a full member appointment from an associate member. Jamie Pocket to the Energy Advisory Committee. Beverly Wodika to the
historical commission. Evan Garber to the Manhan Rail Trail Committee. Ron Ronald Albertson to the Manhan Rail Trail Committee. Beth Tiffany to the National Pond Committee. Wendy Taylor Jordian to the planning board as an associate member. Anthony Carella as the
plumbing and gas inspector, Leslie Button to the registar of voters, James Johnson to the veterans council, and Richard to the veterans council. >> Second. >> So, this was to move this to committee.
>> Uh, no, this is this is to affirm their reappointments. >> Is there a question about whether they should or should not be? It was it was Yeah, I was just wondering if you might consider holding off to the
next meeting on those. >> Um, >> is there I mean, so then what would we we would have to send it back to committee? Is that what you're suggesting? >> I was going to ask that. >> Okay. Um,
okay. I I'm sure that you have a valid reason. So, um, so then I will withdraw the motion. >> Um, >> a point of order. I'm sorry, I'm confused what's happening. >> Um, it's it would seem as though um,
President Kisinski has some reservations about the >> reappoint moving moving the a full list of reappointments at this time. >> Okay. I'm just trying to understand what >> Yeah, we were we were talking about >> I've requested that the list be
considered for our next meeting. >> Okay. >> And so the motion was withdrawn. >> Can I Sorry. Can I ask another question for what what is that a timing thing? What what's I don't understand. >> I wasn't anticipating that that would be
the case this evening and I would >> appreciate indulgence. So then my my question for you then, Mr. President, is do you need us to hold a new hearing on these individuals as in you you feel that there is something that needs to be
discussed before we move forward? >> There may very well be. >> Okay. >> And I'm not obliging to talk about it at this point. >> Okay. Um >> but if the group feels that you'd like to proceed,
>> here's here's here's my my challenge. Um that I I think >> I'm expecting that you may receive communications. >> Okay. All right. Um I'm I'm happy to hear what other folks I
I'm I'm I'm happy to do this. I would just Does anybody have any issues with us doing that >> with a delay? >> I'm now very curious, but I wouldn't say an issue. >> I appreciate that.
If I may, Mr. President, I'm just wondering um because it's such a large list and I I'm sure you don't want to unnecessarily call out specific names that may be up for concern, but that to
me feels like it might delay reappoints of other people unnecessarily. >> You're absolutely right. They the request was to delay to our next meeting. So, just to confirm, so there there have been questions in
the past. While the term expiration dates um for these individuals does technically expire December 31st, it does give us a little extra time to to hear. Um there is also a provision within the city that even if the term
expires, the person is not automatically removed until their replacement has been confirmed. >> So, whatever this uh reservation is that you have even if it goes into January this does not preclude any of these
individuals from >> ser from serving >> that's correct >> that's correct >> counselor D >> again just clarifying so these are mayoral appointments so >> mayoral appointment requests there isn't a deadline that expires with the request
>> but I just want to be is is the concern coming from the mayor The concern is not coming from the mayor. >> Okay. So >> the deadline is January 3rd though. >> That's correct. >> Right. So we would have it resolved at the next by the next meeting. The
expectation is >> next meeting. >> Yes. >> Okay. And and just to also confirm that with that January 3rd, if we do not move at the full council on this, then the the mayor's essentially pushes it
through automatically. That's correct. >> So either way, >> either way, the the appointments go through. >> That's correct. >> If less less accountant takes action, >> right? >> And it may choose not to. >> Right. That's correct. >> That's right. Okay. This gives us time to make informed decisions.
>> Um, understood. So, I would just say with with respect to the process, um >> if you could send all of the information that you have to each of the three members of the appointments committee um
in a in a separate email so that way all three of us are familiar with what is going on so that way we're ready to >> Absolutely. >> Perfect. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> So then I'm going to um I had already started to make a motion so I'm going to withdraw any previous language that I said. Thank you.
>> There wasn't a second. Yes, we don't need to worry about this. >> Um so instead, I um will make a motion to send these mayoral reappointments back to the um appointments committee. >> Thank you.
>> Second. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. You made a motion. I >> motion and second to present back to the committee. >> That's correct. >> Good. Any all those in favor? >> Opposed? Motion passes. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. President. Um and then the last uh order of business
that I have before you is um that if you recall um some months ago in my absence, uh new business was introduced for the code of conduct for appointed members of boards and committees and commissions.
That was incorrectly sent to the appointments committee. So, at our last meeting, we voted 200 to resend that agenda item back to the full council with a request to send it to the rules and government relations committee for consideration. >> Second.
>> See if I understand that. To send back from the appointments committee to the rules and government relations committee, the code of conduct appointed for appointed members of boards, committees, and commissions. Motion in a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor?
>> I approve. Opposed? Motion carries. >> All right. And um we will confer uh as a committee to identify when our our next meeting will be. But I let me just check here. Just
so um it actually we're we'll keep it the same, right? Yeah. So um then the appointment committee meeting will next happen on December 16th. Um, conference room 2 at 6:00 p.m. >> Conference room 2 6 p.m.
>> Yes. And and please come if you would like to speak to >> Sure. >> Yep. Thank you. >> All right. And that officially concludes. >> Thank you. Ordinance. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I'd like to talk about the general ordinance of it. Just kidding.
>> I'm kidding. Uh, our next meeting is going to be December 18th. >> Sorry, we're a little slow on the update there. >> It's all right. >> All right. >> I think most people um December 18th at 6 p.m. will be our next meeting. Um, I think I asked for a room, but now I'm
forgetting. Yeah. Yeah. I can't remember what room, but you did ask. >> Um, and then I have uh several items. a request to review residence requirements. The review of affordable and fair housing partnership zoning ordinance.
Um, amend exhibit A to add position of public safety dispatch director and city council action request review sandwich board signs uh in form of a motion. I'd like to extend all of those by 90 days. >> Second.
>> Motion a second to extend by 90 days the aforementioned items. All those in favor? I >> opposed. Motion carries. >> And I think the ordinance committee has given enough to city council this evening. >> Good. Very good judgment.
>> Are you sure? >> Could be. >> Are you Are you sure? Are you sure? >> Uh property. >> Uh so properties. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Property is not met. I'd sort of like to see if we could maybe meet uh next week if there's a time that works. So maybe we can chat
um after the meeting uh about that. I should have had it scheduled ahead of time, but just to be safe, I'll go ahead and request a 90-day extension on both of our uh outstanding items. Second >> motion in a second to extend for 90 days the two items for the property
committee. >> Is there there was a second? Yes. Motion to second. >> All those in favor? Opposed? Motion carries. The extension granted. >> Anything else? >> No, that concludes Mr. >> That's good. Thank you. Rules and Government Relations.
There is no chair. We have a clerk. >> We do have a chair. >> We do have a chair. The chair is not here this evening. You would have a new chair. We had a meeting. >> Okay. >> Yes. I'll be happy to report. >> Um, thank you, Mr. President. So, um, yes. So, rules and government met on
Monday. We at that meeting, we elected a new chair and a new clerk. The chair is myself. The clerk is councelor Newton going forward. Um, and then we will bring on board anyone who joins in the new year once we have our our new organization. But we met to discuss the
city council 2026 meeting calendar. Um, and so I'm not entirely sure how best to uh I guess read this into the record. I have a calendar which uh the clerk has prepared and which I've corresponded with the clerk on uh with one change
that the clerk is aware of. Do I need to read all of the dates specifically at this point or can I just say that the calendar has been approved? And so >> the calendar was handed to all the counselors. The assumption is that they are aware of the dates. The change that I can speak to you could speak to the
change. >> So we approved the calendar as is with the one sole change being in July. So the original proposed date was the 8th of July and we voted 30 to move that date to the 15th of July. Um because the
concern was that since the 4th of July falls on a Saturday next year, either the week of the 1st of July or the week of the 6th of July could theoretically be considered vacation weeks. And so we thought that it would be safest to move to the 15th and then that still gives us
enough leeway between the July meeting and the August meeting. So the suggestion is to move the calendar date to the 15th for the July meeting which is traditionally one meeting in a given month. >> Uh and that sounds like a good plan. Um
in terms of all the other dates and any conflicts with uh any any religious organization, any group, anyone who might feel that they might not want to have the council be you were satisfied? you're not aware of any other uh issues
as far as religious holidays for any of the other dates and we did double check as as much as we could. So, >> thank you. >> You're welcome. So, um that was the main item. I'd like to request a 90-day extension for the resolution in support of the water operator retirement reclassification in front of the motion.
>> Second. >> Motion second to extend the uh water operator retirement classification 90 days. All those in favor? >> Opposed? Motion carries. >> Um, we do not have our next meeting set
yet, but uh we will be setting that. >> Were you >> Do we want to vote on the calendar a motion on the count? Yeah. I was I going to say >> Thank you. Um, yes. So, I would say then I would like to put a motion forward to vote on the calendar um with the amended date of July 15th as as mentioned
earlier. >> Second. We have a motion, a second to uh accept the calendar with the amendment to July 15th as the first meeting in July or the only meeting in July. Any further discussion? All those in favor? I >> opposed. Motion carries.
>> Thank you. Um and that thus concludes >> action. Thank you. Old business. New business. On to mayoral appointments. Yes. Um I was just conferring with with um
councelor Smith on if I should do this. Um so uh in the form of a motion I would like to send the Can I just do you want me to read out each name or just say the aforementioned appointees. >> Um
>> I'm happy to do it either way. >> Probably as late as it is. I'd love to say affforementioned but we should mention the names. Then I will go then I will go quickly. >> This is the public reading. >> So um so in the form of a motion um I would like to send the following mayoral appointments to the appointment
committee. Um Eileen Royceman affordable and fair housing partnership with a term expiration date of December 31st 2026. Thomas Dro to the Manhan Rail Trail Committee uh December 31st 2026. The rest are all 2028. Michael Sherwick
to the Barnes Aquifer Committee. Sean Abbott to the Bees Committee. Daniel Butrick to the Conservation Commission, Jay Ryan to the Conservation Commission, as well as Jay Ryan to the CPA committee, Ken Evacia to the CPA committee, and Josh Rosenblat to the
ZBA. >> Second motion in a second. So that was for the nine appointments or >> Yes, >> that was for the nine appointments. >> Yes, just the appointments. There's more after that, but that's that's for this
one motion. Any further discussion? >> All those in favor? I >> opposed. Motion carries. >> All right. And then in the form of a motion, I would like to send the following uh mayoral reappointments to the appointment committee. Um each
have a term expiration date of December 31st, 2028. I will do uh this and Mark Tanner, the city solicitor, 2026. Recall for all of us that have done this before and for the new counselors that
the um city solicitor is always a one-year appointment as opposed to a three-year appointment for most or five for others. So, uh, Janet Tetro to the Affordable and Fair Housing Partnership, Laura Fischer to the Agricultural Commission, Renee Hill to the Bees
Committee, Scott Redmond to the Board of Assessors, Thomas Malsbury to the board of public works, Mark Tanner, city solicitor 2026, Luis Jacobs to the Council on Aging, John Bruner to the CPA, Steven Kichelli to the East Hampton
City Arts, um, Wendy Hamill to the Manhan Rail Trail Committee and then Amy Marsters to the National Pond Committee. >> Second motion second on the 12 reappointments. Any discussion? All those in favor?
>> Oops. I didn't see the hand. Apologies. >> Abstain from one of the reappoints which is Steven Kachelli. >> Yep. >> We have one abstension. In the absence of that, you would vote yes to all the others put to be sent to
>> to the appointments committee. your appointments committee. >> Yep. >> All so good. Sorry, it was confusing. >> Yeah, that's okay. >> Can the rest of us vote? >> The rest of us are at this time would be asked to vote.
>> Thank you for the abstension. >> So, all those in favor? >> I. >> Good. >> All right. And then finally, >> I was expecting you all to vote. >> Um, and then finally, I'm not sure why this is a put in as a separate motion. I'm just going to read it. Um it is a uh mayoral reappoint for sheer assignment
to the affordable and fair housing partnership with a term expiration date of December 31st 2028. >> Second motion is second on the mayor single mayoral appointment. >> All those in favor >> I >> opposed. Motion carries
>> and that is it for appointments >> finance perhaps for the other. >> Is that where we want to send? >> Yeah. Is that city clerk's a proposal for vital statistics fee increase? All right. Well, maybe we do. That's >> the fee increases. >> My feelings.
>> Finance may be an appropriate place for that discussion. >> I would move to send the city clerk's office's proposal for a vital fee stat vital statistics fee increased to finance for review. >> Unless there's somewhere else that folks would much rather have. >> Yeah.
>> We have a motion to second to send to finance. All those in favor? >> Opposed? Motion carries. If there's no >> point of order. >> Point of order. >> Do do we have a finance meeting next week? No. >> Well, I guess we're going to have to. >> Okay. I just want to be clear that
>> Oh, only if we want to deal you want to deal with it right away. Is this something that >> No, I said possibly February take effect in February. But >> so there isn't a requirement to there isn't an urgency to necessarily >> on Wednesday or we'll talk about it on
>> Let's just talk about it after the meeting. um whether to whether to meet unless you want to schedule something. >> No, because I was kind of think Well, let's talk about it after the meeting. >> Excellent. Motion accept the motion to adjurnn. Then >> move second. >> Motion to second to adjurnn. All those
in favor? >> I >> I >> no hearing nos. No, this meeting is adjourned. >> Thank you. We have papers to sign this evening.