This government meeting is brought to you by Eastworks and our local cable subscribers. Welcome to the East Hampton City Council meeting for Wednesday, March 18th, 2026. 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. Councilors and participants in this meeting are gathered hybrid on the order extended until June 30th, 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 the public speak time or the public hearing. Thank you. This meeting is now called to order. Maddie,
>> JP Quisinski >> here. >> Connie Denham >> here. Tamara Smith >> here. >> Felicia Jadzik >> here. >> Tom Peak >> here. >> Jonathan Schmidt >> here. Amanda Newton,
Cyam Jamrog McUade >> here, >> and Nathan Marque >> here. >> Great. So, I just like to take a uh moment of silence for folks to think about anything that they need to in order to be present this evening.
Great. If you would like to participate in the recitation of the pledge of allegiance, now is your opportunity to do so. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice
for all. >> Great. Thank you so much. Um, we have two uh uh uh city council minutes to approve. So, I will take a motion to approve the minutes for February 18th and March 4th,
2026. >> Move to approve those minutes. >> Second. >> I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, Maddie, I will turn it over to you for a roll call. >> Perfect. Okay. Uh,
start with Jonathan Schmidt. >> Hi, >> Connie Denham. >> Hi, >> Amanda Newton. Felicia Jadzik. >> Hi, >> JP Quisinski. >> Hi, >> Tom Peak. >> Hi, >> Tamara Smith. >> Hi,
>> Nathan Marque. >> I >> and Cam Jim Rang McQuade. >> Hi. >> Great. Thank you. Uh, Vice President Janzik, >> I'd like to make a motion to suspend the
rules so that we can bring up to member or that we can put forward to nominations for mayoral appointees. >> Second. >> So, I have a motion and a second to suspend the rules to acknowledge uh or to uh swear in or appoint to uh members
of the public. Um, all those in favor? >> I roll call. Roll call. >> Oh, great. Okay, this is going to be me all night long. Why am I pretending like it's not? Um, okay. Uh, I think I'm supposed to start in a different order
so that it doesn't seem planned. Um, Connie Denim. >> Hi, >> uh, Jonathan Schmidt. >> Hi, >> JPI. >> Here. Yes. >> Not just you. >> Felicia Jadzik. >> Hi. >> I was thinking something else actually.
>> Tom Peak. >> I >> Tamara Smith. I >> Nathan Marque. >> Hi. >> Cam Jamro McQuade. >> Hi. >> Madam President, >> I'd just like to make a comment if I may quickly. >> Sure. >> I just wanted the members of the public
to know that our esteemed assistant city clerk. This is her first time doing roll calls at this type of a setting and she's substituting for someone else who is the city clerk who's new also. So, this is bear with us. >> Great. Thank you. So, uh, Vice President
Jazz. Thank you so much. Um, so I'm going to only talk about two members of or two appointees who are here tonight and I'm going to wait for the rest uh when we go through the appointments section. But um the appointments committee met last night um and we were
able to um chat with and interview one appointee who I'm going to talk about first who is K. Collins who we would like to recommend to council to be appointed to the community relations committee for a term ending December 31st, 2027. Um, many of you here and
online actually are probably very familiar with Kay. She's been involved in various city activities for the past decade or so. She has a uh a particular history and knowledge with this committee in particular, which I think will be really valuable as we're trying
to staff up this committee again to get it to full quorum. Um, she has a facilitation background. She's used to having crucial conversations and really um we had a nice conversation about her goals with this committee and how she would like to help bring some public education around current issues to the
community. Um we were uh myself and councelor Marque were the only ones present. We did make take a vote to um send forward K's uh nomination with a two vote and so I'd like to put that forward to council for a full vote tonight.
>> Great. Thank you. Any questions? >> No, no question. Just want to comment >> or comment. I'm a uh I've known Kay for a long time now and have been highly impressed with her ability to facilitate
variety of different positions, her ability to uh understand and listen and I think that's an important very important uh characteristics for the the the committee. Thank you so much. >> Great.
>> Other comments, questions? someone online. Uh oh, sorry. Uh, Councelor Smith, >> as the member of the appointments committee that couldn't be there, I just wanted to say that I also would have recommended um these appointees as well.
I've had RSB for two weeks now. It just won't go away. Um, and because of the nature of appointments, it's not an online meeting. So, I just wanted to acknowledge that and say that I too would have voted yes.
Thank you. No other comments. Uh C Vice President Jadzik. >> If you want to make >> um Great. I'd like to make a motion to approve K. Collins to the community relations committee for a term ending December 31st, 2027. >> Second.
>> So I have a motion and a second to approve K. Collins to the community relations committee. Any further discussion? Seeing none, Maddie. >> Okay. Um, Kai Jim Rob McQuade, >> yes. >> Nathan Marquee, >> yes. >> Tamara Smith,
>> yes. >> Tom Peak, >> I. >> JP Quisenski, >> hi. >> Felicia Jadzik, >> I. >> Connie Denim, >> I. >> Jonathan Schmidt, >> I. >> Okay, motion passes. Um,
let's do this again now. >> Okay, that's me. >> Mhm. All right. Come right to the front right here in front of all of us. >> Yeah. Have her face me.
>> Yes. Hello. >> I'm just getting to where I need to be. Okay. All right. Very good. Nice to meet you, by the way. All right. Um, so if you will just raise your right hand. Um. All right. So, do you swear or
affirm to perform the duties as a member of the community relations committee to the best of your ability? >> All right, perfect. Well, thank you so much for your service to the city. We're excited to have you. >> Vice President Jad. >> Yes. Um, I have one more appointee I'd
like to put forward right now who is Angelique Baker. Angelique Baker is also someone who's probably well known to many of us here in the room and online. She serves as the current chair of the commission of on disability. Um and she we'd like to put her forward for uh appointing to veterans council with a
expiration date of December 31st, 2027. Um Angelique is a veteran herself and has been looking for ways to get more involved with the veterans community here in East Hampton. And so again, once more, Councelor Marque and myself voted 20 to recommend Angelique's nomination
to the full council. >> Good. Thank you. Any questions or comments? >> Uh, Councelor Marquee, >> I just want to um know if um Angelique Baker, does she want a photo for her records? Yeah.
>> Okay, that's important to know. Important to know. Um, if no one else, uh, I want to, uh, thank Angelique for, uh, her continued, uh, support for the city. I know that you're also on been involved in other, uh, committees,
including the, uh, uh, commission on disabilities. Uh so certainly appreciate um you taking this on as well and certainly hope that this uh provides you the opportunity to connect and reconnect with your fellow veterans because we
certainly appreciate your service. >> Great. So uh >> I'd like to make a motion I'd like to make a motion to um put forward Angelie Baker to the Veterans Council with the term expiration date of December 31st, 2027. >> Second. So, I have a motion and a second
to appoint Angelie Baker to the Veterans Council. Any further discussion? Seeing none. >> Okay. Um, all right. Connie Denham, >> I. >> Felicia Jadik, >> I. >> Jonathan Schmidt, >> hi.
>> JP Quisinski. >> Hi, >> Tom Peak. >> Hi, >> Tamar Smith. >> Hi, >> Nathan Marque. >> Hi, >> Ca Jim. Rob McQuade, >> hi. >> Okay, great. Motion passes. Great. Congratulations. You >> the eyes have it.
>> Yes. >> Maddie is very busy this evening as you can see. >> What? Um me. Hey. Good to see you. As well. All right. So, do you, Angelique Baker, swear or affirm to
perform the duties as a member of the Veterans Council to the best of your ability? Absolutely. All right. Perfect. Well, lovely. All >> right. So, we'll continue. Um, next we uh have a few minutes. We can take probably one
individual for public comment. Uh, this is an opportunity uh to address the council regarding any topic not listed under public hearing. Uh it is important for folks to know that um when speaking uh because this is not you may be speaking about something that is not an
item on our agenda. We are not able to actually respond. Um so don't uh please don't interpret that as not wanting to engage. It's just that we are legally not allowed to be able to do that. Um it also you will have uh 3 minutes to to
speak. Uh when you have 30 seconds left you will hear an alert. Um, and then you will hear a second alert when your time has concluded. Um, so please come to the podium. Um, like I said, we probably only have time for one. We will continue
public speak uh after the close of the public hearing. Um, but please state your name and address for the record. >> Hello, Carolyn Christing. I am on Main Street 4. >> Oops. Oh, okay. Okay. Uh Carolyn
Cushing, Main Street Precinct 4. Uh I'm also on the rent study committee and I read a version of this last night and people suggested I come back and share it with the full council. The US and Israel have launched a war of choice in violation of international law. This may
seem far removed from housing in East Hampton, but the billions and billions of dollars being spent are dollars that could be being used to make life better in our community, not to kill school children in Iran with our tomahawk missiles. National Priorities Project, a
think tank based in Northampton, identifies what we could be spending our tax dollars on instead of illegal wars, including housing, education, healthcare, and clean energy. The estimated cost of US spending on the war in Iran is $1 billion a day.
Additionally, since October 2023, we spent 25.5 billion to Israel. Historically, they are the country that receives the most military aid from the US each year. National Priorities Project has a trade-off tool that translates this
national spending into East Hampton's portion of tax dollars spent. That would be 15.84 million from East Hampton. This would pay for $1,445 public housing units for one year. Would
also take care of the deficit I believe the mayor is talking about of a couple million dollars in our budget. Um but uh we don't have to put all our eggs in one basket. We could split these benefits over say four categories. So that would
be 361 public housing units. That would be 32 elementary school uh teachers per year, 170 veterans getting their VA medical benefits per year. 11,324 households getting solar electricity for
a year. More households than we have. So I would rather we be spending on this. I hope that we just get these messages to our electeds here. You I'm sharing with you and keep talking to the
electeds you're connected with that we want to spend our money on lifegiving things not on war. And um people can you can visit national priorities pro nationalpriorities.org to learn more and under explore budget you can pull down the trade-offs tab. Thank you.
>> Awesome. Thank you. Um, that brings us to 6:15. How convenient was that? Um, great. So, I will take a motion to open the public hearing. >> Motion to open the public hearing. >> Second. >> So, we have a motion and a second to open the public hearing. Any discussion?
None. Uh, Maddie. >> Okay. >> Uh, Jonathan Schmidt. >> Hi, >> Connie Denim. >> Hi, >> Felicia Jadzik. >> Hi, >> JPenski. >> Hi, >> Tom Peak. >> Hi, >> Tamara Smith. I >> Nathan Marquy. >> Hi.
>> Cam Jam Rock McQuade. >> I >> Great. Motion passes. Uh, chair Jamar McUade. I will turn it over to you. >> Thank you, Madam President. So today um at our public hearing, we'll we'll be discussing the um request to amend uh
the general ordinance uh the general ordinance amendments regarding short-term rentals as well as the uh zoning ordinance amendments regarding short-term rentals as well. Um you should have copies of both of those in the agenda packet. Um, I think the
majority of discussion will be around the general ordinance amendment as that lays out most of the um, rules and regulations that the city um, is enacting. So, just to start, I figure I would read out the purpose and intent that's listed out at the top of the ordinance and then I will give just sort
of a general overview of the different restrictions and then I'm happy to answer questions um, before we turn it over to the public. So, the purpose and intent is um this is to recognize the critical need for affordable housing by balancing the
benefits of short-term rentals with access to long-term housing for our residents. B. Continue to make the city accessible and welcoming to visitors. C. Ensure that short-term rentals have a positive impact on quality of life for residents by appropriately managing noise levels, parking, and safety. D.
Support the local economy and promote access to city amenities. E. provide for local regist provide for a local registration process. F. Establish clear guidelines for short-term rental operators and their neighbors regarding complaint procedures and expectations for compliance to ensure there are fair
and consistent enforcement mechanisms in place. So, those are the overall purpose and intent. We wanted to try to balance the needs that we see the the real demand that we see for short-term rentals in town with the other um priorities regarding uh affordability um
and preserving our long-term housing stock. So to start um the biggest piece of this is just the uh requirement to register. Um so no dwelling unit the according to this ordinance no dwelling unit may be offered as a short-term rental without
being registered annually with the city. um that would happen through an application filed with the board of health um and approved by the board of health. Um and they would also have to register with the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, which is already the requirement. Um important to note is that the way that this ordinance is
written is intentionally so STR registration will not be transferable. Um once you get a license for one property, it stays with that property and with that person. Um otherwise, it's uh forfeited and there's a waiting list involved. Um, so that's a good segue to
um the waiting list piece of this. Um, we decided that or the committee decided that uh there would be a cap of 50 short-term rental dwelling units in the city. Um, an important piece of that is for the first 30 days of the ordinance. The initial applications will be
reserved for owners that were already operating short-term rentals prior to this process starting. And then if that 50 unit cap is reached, uh first-time applicants will then be placed on a waiting list and processed in order. Um another important piece of this uh
part is the idea of a or the provisional registration piece which uh could be applied for by an owner of a property and it's only valid for one year. This is sort of uh to allow an option for someone who let's say inherits a property and doesn't want to sell it
immediately or just um wants to keep it for a short period of time. So that allows for that and then um that cannot be renewed or extended. So then if that person wants to continue short-term renting um they would have to go back and apply for a full license. There are some some limitations on um
the number and the types of units that uh can be rented as short-term rental. So, an owner might register up to two dwelling units for a short-term rental um if they are also living on the same uh location or the same property as uh
work. Yes, sorry, let me say this differently. So, an owner may have two dwelling units of short-term rentals provided that one is registered to the same property as their principal residence. Otherwise, uh an owner shall only be permitted to register one short-term rental dwelling unit. Um
they're also prohibited in dwelling units designated as affordable or incomerestricted. So, the license and inspection process, like I mentioned, the registration must be filed in uh approved by the board of health. um that involves a mandatory joint joint inspection um with the
building, fire and health departments and that's required prior prior to the initial rental offering and then annually thereafter um to continue the uh renewal of the registration and uh like I mentioned the annual registration renewal is required and it
must be submitted 30 days prior to the expiration of the license. There are also some specific uh rules and operational safety requirements that we've uh clarified here. Um there's requirements for on-site
posting. So, the owners must post their certificate certificate of registration as well as a 24-hour contact that lives within a certain uh I think it's 20 mile radius of the city. Um there's also fire safety requirements. So uh the fire
department wanted to require approved fire extinguishers and they must uh installed throughout the units and maintain in accordance to fire code. And then in addition there are uh is a requirement for floor plans, evacuation plans and an emergency response plan including locations of exits and utility
shut offs. Um that gets submitted to the fire department. And then um part of that is also submitted uh or shown for guest safety as well. Alo emergency preparedness, evacuation floor plan, and contact information must be posted prominently within the unit um for guest
safety. There's also a requirement for for an approved first aid kit readily accessible. Um additional general rules that we established are uh quiet hours between uh 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. And that's defined more um specifically in the ordinance.
There is a minimum of one off- streetet parking space for each STR unit and one additional off- streetet parking space per dwelling unit on the parcel. Um we wanted to make sure that there is a waiver um available that's dependent on location if there already street parking
in an area the board of health can um wave that requirement. And then the final rule here listed on the advisory here is a short-term dwelling unit may only be rented at one uh to one booking party at a time. So that's one party that is attached to one
like reservation on Airbnb or or VBO. Then um as part of this ordinance uh we wanted to confirm um or create sort of a a pathway for building and fire department to enforce and establish sort
of reasonable rules and regulations about um what type of required fire protection system uh would be required uh to get a license. So, a lot of this is completely within the purview of the building department um regarding the
enforcement of fire and building code. Um but I tried to as part of this uh advisory sort of lay out what that looks like. Um and I worked with the building commissioner to sort of get what his interpretation of the building and fire codes are and just sort of notate it
here. Um what is I think the critical piece of this is the threshold for when a whole house automatic sprinkler system is required um versus just a whole house smoke alarm system that includes carbon monoxide detection monitored 24/7 by a
third party which is the baseline uh requirement. So, I won't get into all the details of the state law and everything, but essentially um if you are in an existing owner occupied single family home or
condo or an existing owner occupied duplex, that is considered a residential use and you are um you potentially qualify for the approved compliance um of the whole house smoke alarm system. if it is a new
detached ADU or a new structure that requires um sprinkler system. So there's a lot of complexity here and I don't think I can like explain it in words in a clear of a way as it shows here in the matrix. Um so I definitely think if um there are any questions we can dig into
that. Uh but yeah, uh I also wanted to list on this ordinance or on this advisory all the applicable codes and statutes just so short-term rental owners can go and do their own research as well. Um but ultimately the goal with this was just to find a balance between
all the different interests and concerns and then also communicate it in a way that the community can really understand. >> Um but that's all I have. questions, comments. >> I guess I will start. >> Council Schmidt.
>> So, first of all, I want to express my gratitude for uh the continued work on this. I know it's been uh a long time coming and and complicated to to parse and balance all the the different um needs uh that the various stakeholders
have uh in this particular um ordinance. Um the one question that I just wanted to check in about today um I noticed uh in I believe it's uh 4-50.6
reference 2 uh essentially reasonable fees um which are uh the authority to set um those has been uh laid out as uh under the perview of the board of health building commissioner and fire department. And so, um, I just wanted to
double check first that, um, it's not that each of those will be coming with a separate fee. It is a fee that they are all kind of contributing to coming up with. Um um but uh I also wanted to confirm my understanding of reading this
which is um there's nothing there's no say that say you know city council or any other authority besides the ones listed here would have to weigh in on what is reasonable and I guess um I was just curious to hear a little bit about
um kind of the thinking uh behind what a what a reasonable fee is and and how you imagine those being set um in practice. Does that make sense? Just to clarify, which section were you referring to? I I heard 4-50.6, but what letter number?
>> Uh, letter A. >> Letter A. >> Okay. >> Sorry. >> All right. Um, I will say that this section was the one that was rewritten by the solicitor, just to make it very legally clear. Um, I think your question
about reasonable fees is a good one, but I'm not sure if I feel comfortable answering that just in terms of like the legal status of the city. >> Um, >> yep. Uh so if you could state your name and
kind of your role in the city and >> of course uh Ryan Griffin, director of public health. Generally in regards to fees when I can't speak for the building or fire department, but when we do a joint inspection such as mobile food trucks, um the health department would
charge the fee and the fire department would not double dip and also charge a fee. But the health department is going to be charging a fee. I think the proposed fee was $75, which is right in line with our um our normal housing inspection fees we already do.
>> Okay, >> gotcha. Thank you. >> No problem. >> State your name and role. >> Hi everyone, Allison Manuel. I'm the planning director. I just want to address the reasonleness. Uh the state has set forth a three-prong test for
establishing what is reasonable. Basically uh a fee has to be um for a particular service that benefits the party paying the fee in a manner not shared by other members of society. The fee must be paid by choice. That is the person paying the fee must have the option of not using the service and
thereby thereby avoiding the charge and the fee cannot be used to raise revenues per se but to compensate the governmental entity for its expenses in providing the service. Um so basically whatever fee is established has to be
reasonably backed by the hourly rate of the person doing the inspections for example or or the um you know the cost of the staff time involved in permitting and inspecting the property. >> Thank you. Mhm.
>> Other questions? Councelor Peak. >> Yeah. Uh, so first of all, just thank you so much for all your hard work on this to everyone on ordinance. Um I very much realize that we are in a precarious
situation where right now there is an absence of guidance on how a lot of this should um go forward. And so just as a broad thing I' I'd say that like I I'm not against the idea of of voting for
something that I might have some um just hang-ups about if it because I think we need we do need something. Um that's said I I just um the one thing here that I that I do think kind of has continued to give me a little bit of pause is
um is the capacity issue and and it's one that I have to say I have sort of mixed feelings about because on one hand I do think that I don't want to see our community overrun with short-term rentals in the way that some communities have and a capacity is a very simple way
to address that and so um I appreciate that um I do at the same time though see that like with with these short-term rentals when people talk about short-term rentals and the various examples that people bring
up some of those examples seem much let's just say higher impact than others, right? There's some people who are purchasing a single family home and making it a short short-term rental. There's other people who have an in-law apartment that they use for their visiting in-laws half the year and the other half of the year they're trying to
get uh some revenue off of it. The first one you can see a real housing market implication for it. The other one I feel is not necessarily the same level of of risk because you're what do if you have your mother-in-law comes in to visit for
four months out of the year like you can't realistically rent that as a residential unit to somebody else. So, um I guess what I am worried about is is a situation where a day comes where there's somebody who's in a situation
like scenario B where they've got a property that could not re realistically ever like be a full year round rental, but they're not able to use it as a year- round rental because,
you know, because because basically somebody else got there first. That to me just from an economic point of view is a a a device that always gives me a little bit of uh concern because it is going to mean that the the people who
are allowed to do that kind of commerce in town are not necessarily the ones who are providing the lowest impact services. They're not necessarily the ones who are providing the services that are the most appreciated or valued by customers. It's just the people who got there first. Um, and so I don't have
necessarily a fantastic solution to this, but I'm just curious about your response to that because it is something that I we've done this in other places too and I always see it as I mean 50 is a relatively high number, but I I generally just see that practice as a
little bit oligopolistic and um not necessarily uh conducive to uh making sure that you know the people who are actually you know purchasing these services are are getting the best ones.
>> Yeah. No, I think that's a good question. And sorry, just point of order. Is is this do I usually just directly respond? >> You can respond to that if there's information that you have regarding the >> Okay. Yeah. I mean, I I think it really is just the balance of like you mentioned like not wanting our like
creating a guard rail so our housing market isn't just getting eroded by short-term rentals. But I also I think that that's a valid concern. Um I will note that as part of this policy um this has to be reviewed by city council again
at least every two years. So if the waiting list becomes an issue um based on what we've heard in terms of numbers I don't foresee it becoming an issue at least in the near future. But if it does become an issue, um we have a mechanism in the policy that requires us to
revisit this um but also gives us the opportunity to revisit it sooner than two years if we see a problem coming up. >> Okay. >> Um and I'll also say like the the cap was discussed and debated at length before I was on the committee. So I will defer to councelor Smith and councelor
Denim or President Denim that uh they'll have more information on that. >> Councelor Smith, do you want to respond or do you have another comment? Um yes, I'd like to respond. There are a few different things that I want to make sure um get captured in our rationale
for doing this. And one of it was the capacity of our um health department, fire department, and police. Um particularly when we're looking at the whole licensing process and the amount of inspections that it would take and how long these inspections would take.
um these uh the three inspections were really saying you know we couldn't really do feasibly do more than 50 very comfortably in a given year. We'd really need to look at our resources. So it was the first one and also when we first started this conversation
because it has been several months um we were also looking at the overall amount of housing stock period in East Hampton and how much of that stock that is going up for sale um should be available for
only a short-term rental versus the possibility of having a long-term rental. All of that was factored into that number. And so I just wanted to add that to the conversation because it is a pretty long conversation that we've been having.
>> I think another point uh to just acknowledge and it's really just semantics. Um, you know, you you had made comment of being able to use it year round as a rental, but um, unless they want to put sprinklers in, um,
they're really only allowed half the year, right? Otherwise, that would change and they would have to spend thousands of dollars to put a sprinkler system in. So, that's a choice that they would have to make in terms of whether or not they wanted to continue to to rent. Um but also the 50 is um the 50
cap is above the number that we have right now and has that has been kind of in place for several years of people who have served as hosts etc. And some of that included people having a a few different um um short-term rental I'm not going to say rentaling uh short-term
rental um kind of spaces. So we tried to think about that in within the context as well. >> Okay. Thank you. Qu Vice President Jik. >> Thank you. Um I was curious about the provisional registration and this might
just be a really quick clarification, but with the provisional registrations, are those included in that 50 cap? Is there a cap for the provisional registrations? >> Not that I'm aware. I think that the only cap is just the year, the fact that it's only um valid for a year and cannot
be renewed or extended. Okay. The provisional is outside of the cap. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, >> Councelor Kuisinski. I want to first say that this is a tremendous effort that has gone on for a long time and has
required lots of effort both on impatience on the behalf of the public and the counselors and several counselors who've been on ordinance and to bring it to this point and balance the interests as best we can has
been quite the task. So, getting to this point, thank you. Kudos to everyone who participated in that. Uh, I did have some questions, uh, and some some some concerns. Um, and
basically I think they had to do followed up on on on Council Peak's questioning and thinking process about how do we best limit the number of short-term rentals? How do we have a cap
and yet be definitely respectful of the number of of of people who want to come to town to be part and parcel and participate in the economic activity within the town when they visit when they partake take in the short-term
rentals and make sure that there's some room for expansion of that number. I know at one time the uh ordinance proposal had allowed for up to 10% increase per year in the number
of actual uh short-term rentals. So that would be if you had 50 in the first year, in the second year you could have up to 55 in this in the second year and and so on go
going up. that left some flexibility and was built in and indicated that there there was an opportunity. The reason I mention this is that I believe there was numbers put out that either 43 or 47 was the number of
current short-term rentals in the city. Well, if everyone who has a is doing business now comes in and and and asks for a short-term rental and applies to the system, that would leave somewhere between three and seven
the number of new folks who could come in. That gives me a bit of pause because what if what if you go to a neighborhood and they say, "Geez, you know, I I I'm really not in favor of any short-term rentals. Why don't we get together and apply for the licenses, apply for the
the short-term rentals and then turn around and say we won't put them into use. So they have now taken a license take taken a rental and not used it. That ties up the 50.
How do you monitor that? How do you begin to have control over it? So that gives me some pause. I don't I would hope that wouldn't happen, but I could foresee it happen. Uh, and that would I think
I I I would hope that wouldn't happen. Beyond that, the number of uh short-term rentals who are on the provisional list, do they go to the to the automatically to the top of the list
for being a new one after the 50 has been reached and hope that somebody drops out or doesn't apply in the in in a given year? or does a new person who found that they had a new person wanting
to do this have to and they they do they compete with the provisional or not? That's a question about this. though I don't would like to be able to establish that and I would be inclined to have there be a different number or a
floating amount amount that we could establish that would increase that. >> Do you want to respond? I mean I think just initially um the number that you cited between 43 and 47 I think that
that is cumulative if I'm um remembering correctly how the do data works is that it's there have been that many ever that have registered in the city but not necessarily active operating. Um so that's one piece. Another piece that I
think is important to mention is that I do expect these regulations and based on some feedback that we've gotten from the community that there may be hosts that decide that they do not want to continue. So that also I feel like will build in some extra space on the list.
um to respond to some of um your comments about the provisional I if I'm remembering correctly or if I understand correctly um the provisional registration is sort of separate and entire entirely from the weight list whereas the weight list is you get on
there in order and then you get picked in that order if a slot becomes available >> just so I can clarify so if you were to >> you would first apply on the wait list and then you would go and apply for the
provisional because you'd already secured a position on the wait list. >> If you were if like let's say you just you just inherited, you know, your greatgrandparents home or whatever and you don't know what to do with it for a year, but you're planning on keeping it as a short-term rental in the long term.
Yes, I think it the best strategy would be get on the waiting list and then apply for a provisional registration in the meantime um because that's what the ordinance allows for. Thank you. >> Also just uh quickly to answer your
question about the cap um you know again I think it's trying to balance everything that's happening around rents and whatnot. Uh so trying to be really thoughtful and intentional about um making sure that we're meeting the needs
of a variety of different members of the community um including people who are hosts right who are using that as supplemental income right we want to acknowledge that as well um in terms of
the numbers as as uh councelor or as chair jam mcuade said you know some people are dropping off. And the reality is is some people um unfortunately won't continue won't be allowed to continue to be a short-term rental because of codes,
right? Because of fire codes, right? So, if I have a um uh an ADU that I built in 2021, right, I have to have sprinklers in that in that um structure, right? And so
while before because we didn't have this ordinance they were able to do that but since finding out and going through all of the ordinance and things like that just because of building code etc they would have to have they would have to have sprinklers right so some of those numbers are going
to be impacted as well councelor Pete >> do we have a number on or even an estimate of the number of currently operating short-term rentals in East Hampton I think that has ve
>> I mean I would defer to the planning department. I mean I don't know I mean I know that like Donahghue has those numbers but I don't have them like as the city. >> So they haven't been required to register with the city >> until now or until this passes. So we
don't have our own records. the Department of Revenue. Um I'm not sure if it's cumulative like you like you mentioned, but it is 43 uh that are registered with the Department of Revenue in East Hampton, >> right? >> Um >> Yep.
>> Uh just to comment on the floating number piece of this, like I am not necessarily against that idea. I think for me, I would want to tie it to something else that addresses some of those affordability concerns. Like if if
we said, you know, one additional short-term rental unit for every 10 normal housing units that are permitted in the city in any given year. Like I would be open to something like that where we're setting sort of a ratio of
more housing equals more allowed STRs. um that felt like a little too complex for what we were writing here initially and I feel like this would make sense for just like the first couple years while we're reviewing
it and figuring out how this works. But I think in the future and I mean if it becomes something that we really want to open that can of worms on tonight like I think something like that I would definitely be open to. >> Do you want to give a follow-up? >> Uh yes, if you don't mind. Um it it's
just I I understand that you make a great point, Madam President, that the the introduction of this will affect this number, but just that estimate and its proximity to the cap does give me a
little bit of pause just because like I mean again I have all sorts of hang-ups about this industry, but if you just imagined auto shops or restaurants or any other thing, say that there were 20 restaurants in East Hampton and we said we're going to set a cap on 21 restaurants operating in East Hampton
going forward like the there's sort of a feeling of like so basically the incumbents can do it and no one else is ever allowed to compete against them. Now obviously that's not exactly how that would actually work out in reality because of the compliance points the president Denham just made. It's still I
worry about just this the proximity there between the estimate and the cap just makes me nervous is all >> fair point. Um councelor Marquee and then councelor Smith.
>> Um first of all I want to thank um you chair Jamar Mcuade. It looks like um and the rest of the committee. It looks like there was a lot of thought and time put into this and I would be comfortable voting on it as written, but I do have a
question specifically to section 450.5D. Um, stating between the hours of 10 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., excessive noise shall not shall be prohibited. Excessive noise may include bay is not limited to loud
music, boisterous parties or sounds emanating within the rental which are audible outside the dwelling unit. Um, correct me if I'm wrong. I don't believe that the city of East Hampton has a
noise ordinance. And I just am wondering since the city of East Hampton does not have a noise ordinance, I'm just wondering how um that would actually be enforceable or um what is the logic behind that
particular section? Yeah, I mean I could try to explain this, but I feel like maybe Ryan or Allison would be able to explain it better. counc. >> Um would either the director of planning or the director
of want to >> So when we first started working on this, we inquired of um the various departments in the city, what concerns they would have. The police department was particularly concerned about noise.
Uh there is at least one short-term rental that operates in in the city that has been um problematic from that standpoint. Um so the idea is we don't have a citywide ordinance. I feel like that's a much larger conversation that will maybe
be had in the future. But while we're writing this, it it seems wise to um heed the police department's concerns and and include something in our regulations that they can use to site problem um properties that are that are
being used for short-term rentals. Um from our last conversation at the ordinance committee, my understanding is it it would be sort of like a two-part process. The police would respond to the complaint of noise and then the health department would follow up subsequently
with a notice of um violation that the uh property owner would be able to appeal. So there would have to be like I said a two-part a response. So the police would actually witness and um validate the concern about the noise and
then the health department um would follow up with with the citation. Director Griffin, do you want to respond as well? >> Thank you. And just to reiterate on that, there is no city >> Sorry. Sorry. Could you state your name and my apologies? Ryan Griffin, um,
health director. >> There's no city um noise ordinance, but there is a state noise ordinance that health departments, fire departments, and police departments can enforce. It's um a certain number of decibb over
the ambient noise would be considered excessive noise. >> Thank you, councelor. Wait, actually, councelor Smith or any other questions about does that answer your question? >> Good enough.
>> Councelor Smith, >> uh I just wanted to clarify a few things. Um, councelor Peak and what I heard you saying, um, I I just want to make sure that you're not under the impression that a potential homeowner
wouldn't have knowledge of this until after they bought their home and suddenly was like, "Wow, I wasn't sure of this ordinance and I wouldn't have bought the home if I hadn't been if I had been aware of that." And so that's
just my first um my first concern is that is that what am I interpreting what you said correctly? >> No, I don't want to respond. >> Um I mean no I don't think I mentioned anything about about home buyers.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Okay. I just then I apologize. Um cuz I was just going to say I'm I'm concerned about that if that if that was the case. But the other part um if we're talking about the possibility of sliding
how many we're having to more than 50 then I really caution us to not be overworking the department that would be having to do the followup on those 50 plus licenses and the inspections that would come with that. I think that would
warrant a larger conversation um about how much labor that would be for each of the departments and that was one of the reasons why we also capped it at 50. So I just wanted to reiterate that again. >> Councelor Klasinski
>> uh to respond to the question about the number in the first year. I don't think anyone sitting here would want to overburden the department who's willing to take on this task. uh by having the number be higher than 50 in the first year. Uh the
question that I was bringing up was should we have some number in the second year that would not be impacted by the labor required for the first year's work. So, and that that I heard
councelor Jamar McUade talk about tying to some something tying to the number of new permit whatever tying to something that made that made sense. If we're talking about the ordinance in part because of its impact on rental housing
and really we're talking about the most vulnerable in our society and we're talking about affordable housing units. Could we in consider tying it to in some way to the number of new affordable housing units uh to say that yes we
could understand that the impact would be ameliated in many ways by x number of units being new units being uh brought online. So let's say we you would say today we have
a 100 units and tomorrow or next year we would have 25 say 25 more units uh of affordable housing than we did in the previous year. Well, maybe that could be adjusted and and we could move the bar
up from 50 to something 50 plus something as a result of having an additional 25 units or an additional 50 units or an additional some number would make sense. And then that would seem to tie it to the housing market and those who are
vulnerable. uh you don't have any additional affordable housing. Well, you there's no more room to to expand this. You do have more affordable housing. A percentage of that could be in the increase. So, I
would see an increase in the second year tied to the number of new affordable housing units. Would how would that >> Yeah, I mean, I think that's exactly the sort of thing that I was trying to express. Like I think that that if we
were to set up a mechanism for the units to increase, I would want it pegged to something like that that um that embodies the intent that we set forward in the beginning of the uh ordinance to really balance that, you know, units for people who want to come here and visit
the city versus affordable housing. What I will say um regarding this is I think a lot of this discussion is predicated on the fact that we have a really broken housing market as it is and we haven't been building enough and
inventory is really tight. If that weren't the case, I don't think that we really would have to worry about this at all. We're in comparison to other communities across the state and like I know this because I study this at work like the amount of housing in our
community that is being taken up by short-term rentals is infantestimally small compared to on the Cape in the Birkers where they're seeing significant section or portions of their housing being scooped up and taken off the rolls
permanently. That is not the case in East Hampton. It's like4% of our housing. So, it's really this cap. It's sort of I think a can of worms that ultimately doesn't won't have a huge bearing on
the things like I I don't think that there's going to be 50 people that are going to like I I really just don't see the weight list being very long and I just um I think that the number was established just to set that balance of priorities but how it actually like I
don't think it's going to be a real barrier is what I'm trying to communicate I think. Mhm. >> Right. What what I hear you saying is it's similar to the restaurant. Well, there's only so many people who are going to eat out. So, a 21st restaurant >> as opposed to and capping at 20 may or
may not have an effect. But if the market change, I mean, if things change, if people eat out all the time, sure that that that that'll it will have an effect. So, so it's like okay if if we make it tied it say for example said okay we'll start at 50 in the first year
and in the second year it'll be uh 50 plus one for every 25 new units of affordable housing that have come online. It wouldn't matter anyway if we did that because you're saying the 50
may be too high. >> Not too high. I just think that >> but it may it may be >> yeah not reached. >> Yeah. >> So I want to also just respond. So um it's an annual right registration. So if
I'm if I remember correctly that's an annual inspection that has to happen right so that's police, fire um and um health department building right? They're they're doing these annual inspections right? And so, um, that's a
90-day process to be able to get through all of those, right? And I think if we start adding on more, right, that's going to continue to to add on to their to their work. Um, so that's kind of one point. The other point is I, you know, I
I hear you, um, Councelor Kazinski, and I know I recognize that you were advocating for this. This isn't set in stone, right? we have the ability to go back and to review this, to think about it. If we say, "Hey, okay, this
isn't having the impact that we thought it was going to have," then then we would feel more comfortable adding those things on. But that also gives us an opportunity to check in with our departments to make sure that, yeah, this is okay and they went through it their first year and that makes sense.
they might come back and say, you know what, actually like this is the right number for us and we we we're realizing that it took more time than we were anticipating or it took less time. So, yeah, we can um add more um uh rental units onto the to the registration so
that we can, you know, have that inspection. But, um for now, I think we're just trying to get a baseline of what's going to be the most comfortable for everybody. this number is above what has been for the last I think 2015 was maybe the first time that we had
short-term rentals in the city 2016 um and so this is we haven't reached 50 yet in the last 10 years right and so I think this is just an opportunity for us to set a baseline uh but also to be cognizant and supportive of our
departments and the the what this work is going to add to their work in addition to all the services that they provide for the city. >> Councelor P, you had your hand up. >> Thank you, Madam President. Um, I am
cautiously convinced that what you're saying is I I agree that this is an okay, we can set this as a baseline. If it's obvious that this baseline is a problem, we can readress it. Um, so I'm I'm okay. Uh, I mean, I have some concerns, but I'm I'm generally I that's
not going to stop me from voting yes. Um, I do want to talk about the noise issue a little bit and just sort of follow up on some of that. Um, yes. I so as part of my other life outside of here, I've recently had to
deal quite a bit with the um the the sort of how you handle that that state um uh environmental uh law that details noise pollution and the idea of noise pollution being 10 dB over the ambient
level. Um, I'm very concerned or let me actually back that up. I'm very curious to figure out how our city government would come up with the resources to meaningfully enforce that.
And I'm worried that in lie of those resources, uh, you could either have enforcement that is perhaps not 100% fair or you could have enforcement that is routinely thrown out. Um, just to
I'll give a little personal story to to help this better. as part of for the music venue that I'm on the board of for part of our zoning board of uh appeals uh special permit, we had to go through this process to certify that when we are
operating with live music that we're not violating state noise pollution laws because we don't have a local noise ordinance, nor do I personally think we should have one as a community that welcomes the arts. Um but uh to do that
cost us $7,000. We had to hire an acoustician uh who came in and did a bunch of readings, set up microphones around the property. Um they were going to come in a second time and we were going to bring a live band in to show that our soundproofing worked. Only
problem was it was raining that day, right? So, and for us to get a band and for us to get a a full we wanted to make it a an authentic experience, we wanted a full group of people in the room because that's going to make it sound different than an empty room. Um, so for us to get those that number of people,
we really needed to do this on a Friday. Well, it was raining that Friday. Next Friday, they couldn't make it. Friday after that, it was raining again. By the time we were able to get them back in there, the weather had changed and the presence of crickets that were not there
before had shifted that baseline to the point that we almost had to go through this again. Like the the whole idea is like surely we're not going to be are we is the the idea that we're going to be asking each of these short-term rental
owners to establish this sort of baseline and if you even you are doing that how in New England do you establish that baseline and account for seasonal variation in the baseline? Like I I just I do we even as as like as the police
does the police department have the tools to even go about like do we have decibel readers that are properly calibrated and people are are trained on like and if not then what's going to like then is it just whoever's responding on the spot making their
determination on what's boisterous or what's loud uh and then what if some I appeal and say I actually think my party was quite civil and not boisterous at like is it like who how does any of this work? I'm I'm just this is sort of why
one of the reasons that a lot of people are opposed to noise ordinances in general. It's not just because we want to be loud, boisterous, annoying party people, although some people are. It's that actually enforcing these things can be a nightmare in the communities where they have them. You can look in
Northampton, you know, with their licensing board and see all all sorts of examples of these sorts of things where someone says, "Oh, I measured you over the approved decibel limit." Okay. Well, right as they measured them, a tractor trailer truck was flying by and hit a puddle and like was the noise that even
was me registered on the outside coming from the inside of the building or from passing traffic? Like there's just these sorts of things are very difficult and I'm I I do worry when we set these things up. like I I want to make sure if we are giving this as the
guidance to our code enforcement officials that they are properly equipped and trained and ready to actually do this. And I worry that the the actual language here might be insufficiently specific about how you would go about doing that in a way that
wouldn't just get appealed every single time. But maybe there's something I'm missing. So I I think in the spirit and I'll if um director Manuel wants to speak um I think the the spirit of this right is is really
was as was previously mentioned there's really one short-term rental that I think 36 times the police have come to that particular location. >> Sure. >> Right. And I think what this allows is for neighbors to have some sort of say
for a business that is now in their neighborhood essentially. And if people are outside being rambunctious or loud or whatnot, it just gives the the police department the the the opportunity to come and to to give warning, right?
um is that and then they would have that process and then it would go to the health board. But it also gives our hosts, right, some safety as well in terms of the fact that
they can also they are friendly with a lot of their neighbors etc. So their neighbors could also inform them of like hey your crowd is really loud this evening. It gives them the opportunity to reach out to those folks and say, "Hey, I'm understanding that you guys are being allowed. Can you
turn it down?" If they were then cited by the health department, then they have recourse in terms of, "Hey, we contacted them, etc." But I think the idea is that people who are living in the neighborhood where that is happening that they have the ability to also say,
"This is really loud. It's 11:00. Can someone just come and give them a heads up that they need to start being quiet?" Right? So, I don't think it's I don't know that anyone's going to come with a meter and things like that. I think the likelihood is they're going to show up and say, "Hey, can you keep it down?" Like, it's getting late. But, Director
Manuel, did you want to say something? I see you were moving in that direction. >> Yeah. No, I don't I don't really have anything to add. I just would have said more or less the same. There just has to be sort of a a human element to it. um that isn't that wasn't really brought up
in in that last um in in the question from councelor Peak. There won't be decibel meters. It will it will be very much a human to human kind of conversation. >> I'm completely sympathetic to the idea. I mean, frankly, I sympathetic to the
idea like I something that had been said by some of the folks who came to this originally is that, you know, these are in many cases functionally businesses that are opening up in residential neighborhoods and there's perhaps a larger zoning challenge there.
My concern is simply like what's the difference like if the police have responded 36 times in, you know, to a particular household and said, "Hey, you guys have got to keep it down." What's the actual difference between that and like is there a new is there new in
because it sounds like the idea is that the health department would then issue a citation but it doesn't sound like there's actually the grounds to collect the data that would be used to figure out that state law had actually been violated with what director Griffin had said earlier. And so that I guess is
it's a tech like I have I absolutely have no problem with the idea of the police showing up at a loud short-term rental and saying you guys have to keep it down. My question is like how if if somebody ma made the choice to issue such a citation, do they even have the
grounds to do so in a way that is actually in line with >> anything? Yeah. So >> Jam and then >> Yeah. I mean, it's my understanding that because we're setting a standard in the ordinance and the ordinance is
is specifically targeting or allowing for a license that the recourse as long as we're setting a standard and then we set the requirements like we can revoke that license given certain um provisions that we set and that
provision that we set is the the standard about excessive noise. So, it's not about necessarily proving state law has been broken. It's more so just proving that they're breaking this ordinance and that they're going to lose the privilege of having a license that the ordinance gives them.
>> Right. Just to be clear, it's a registration, not a license. >> Oh, yeah. Sorry. Registration. >> Uh, sure. I have some follow-ups, but I'm fine to step away from >> Okay. Vice President Jedzik. And then, >> um, thank you, President Denim. Um, I was going to go back a little bit. Um,
well, first of all, I just want to say I appreciate all the discussion and I really appreciate the discussion just now because I also had some similar concerns and it's it's been helpful to hear this discussion playing out. Um, I want to talk really quickly about the review period as outlined in 4-50.9.
Um, and I know I've been hearing uh, Chair Jade and others have been saying that we can review this at any point, but given what we're discussing tonight and what has been discussed previously, I'm wondering if it might behoove us to build in a shorter time period as a
matter of fact as opposed to an option so that we start this this ordinance if it gets approved tonight. Um, and then within the first year or the first year and one month or two months, whatever that time period, something that's a bit
shorter than two years, we say we're going to do a review within that first year. Let's just say for matters of simplicity. And then after that, we can do a two-year review as needed or we can update it at that point just because then we'll have that automatically built in so that we know we're going to be
looking at all this. Um, so I can actually answer that because that was something that we had discussed and that was the the the way that this is written. This general ordinance shall this general ordinance oh my god this general ordinance shall
be reviewed at least every two years by city council. So we could pass this and with this particular language you could say actually I think we need to review this next week. Right? And so I think the language as it is written is that it is any time up to those two years if we
feel that we need to do that. So it's not a a set two years but it gives us the flexibility to say actually we need to review this and we need to do it in the first six months. >> Yes. >> Followup. >> Yes. And and thank you for that. And I and I do think the language as as is
covers us. And my my thought was because a two-year period um you know may we may not be the same council in two years. So my thought was while this does cover us just to ensure that we have a guaranteed
review before that 2-year period >> because it sounds like there may be concerns coming up. So it's just sort of more of a making it a definitive as opposed to a possibility. >> Good. I'm good. >> Good.
Councelor Kuisinski >> to speak to Councelor Jadzek's comments, I would say I would agree and could vote for the measure if there was a review built in
less than two years. Obviously, because what we're saying is any of our or what we're not saying is that every any of our ordinances, all of them, those on the books, those under consideration can be brought forth at any time and changed by it. Doesn't require language that
says you will review it within the 2-year period. It can be reviewed by a process. So, we're really not doing anything new here. Unless we sunset the ordinance. >> Mhm. >> Unless we say it expires
in two years. >> Mhm. >> Unless reviewed and then that builds in. We don't want it to expire. We will review it. We will review it in a year. Whatever that I would be comfortable
with something like that. uh because that builds in especially if it if it were tied to a year it's that the review would be start at the end of the first year uh because that would be the time period where the the uh health department would be up and running
gotten through a process and now there could be I don't know 5 10 15 more people looking to be in there could be another 75 units that have come online for affordable housing ing. The balance is there, but
we're not going to we don't we don't review it unless it's going to sunset. So, >> councelor or chair jamquy >> just to respond to that. I mean, I hear I hear you with the sunset piece. I what
brings me pause about that is returning like the risk of returning to the Wild West. Like I think that there are certain pieces of this that I I'm more comfortable with like letting suns set than others like the cap or what like those are less important but I know that there are real concerns from the
building and health department and fire department about enforcability of the building and fire codes and having sort of an ordinance that sets that in place. Um so I I would be really hesitant to set a sunset on that kind of stuff. Um,
you know, I think to um, councelor Jadzac's point about changing the shall be reviewed at least every two years to one year, like I'm not against that. Um, especially if it's like one year from the date that the ordinance takes effect
rather than the date of passage. Um, just because that would be like the June after this June. And I think you know that we'll be starting the process of thinking about who's on the council the next like so yeah I think that that would make sense but >> Mhm.
>> Um yeah I don't know about the sun setting stuff >> follow council orderinski >> uh it would sound so it sounds like there would you would be amanable. I agree with you. I would like certain segments of this in place because it
defines things for anyone who is interested or has been in the short-term rentals business and that sets a baseline for that to sunset the number of units and to say well it we're going
to that that will expire in two years if not dealt with. Okay, >> that I could live with. I think that would make sense. because it would put us to the table, evaluate the new affordable housing
units, evaluate the marketplace, and evaluate the demand. I mean, the one concern I have with that is the potential incentives that that sets up. like would would it then be worthwhile for
you know if a group of counselors wanted to just not pass something within a reasonable deadline in order to like have the the cap raised. Um not saying that that's something that this group would plan to do. I just I think that that creates an a risk there.
>> Maybe it's too big councilinski. >> May maybe it's too big a risk. Maybe you say then the the cap would be moved to 10%. It' be 55 in the absence of So I agree with you to have it be open-ended.
>> I I I would I would agree to that. >> Councelor Peak. >> So whatever concerns I have about the cap, I I do think that we're probably not going to effectively come up with like a complex technocratic solution to
that tonight. Um, but I think that I I I I do like the idea of us just committing to a review of this sooner than sooner than two years. And I don't necessarily think that that needs to come with some sunset provision to just
say we're going to check in. If there's things here that we're widely hearing or not working, then I think I mean I don't think anyone in this body is like uh has some alternative agenda here. Like I think we're all trying to figure out how
to make things work best for our constituents. So I think if we hear that, you know, there's a lot of there's something that's not working, I think that we will probably be responsive to that. That's been my experience for most of my time on the council. Um, so I'd be
fine with just my understanding of what councelor Judek was proposing, which is a, you know, to to do some sort of uh to just commit to a sooner review. >> Um, I'm really sorry. I I do need to follow up about the sound thing. I know
you're sick of me talking about it. Um, I guess I'm just looking at this and it seems like the language here that that sort of bothers me is that it says excess excessive noise may include but
is not limited to loud music, boisterous parties, or any sound emanating from within the rental which is audible outside of the dwelling unit. The only thing there that is like cuz like a boisterous party, right? Like my
definition of boisterous is almost definitely different than somebody else's definition of boisterous. So that that that just bothers me because I it just feels like I I just worry there's a right to appeal here and I just I'm maybe I'm overthinking this, but I'm
concerned about the idea of an appeal process where someone says, "Oh, I actually talked to my tenants and they said they weren't boisterous at all." You know, they said that they were having a very tame and quiet party. And the only thing here that seems actually
objectively clear is noise that's audible outside the dwelling unit. And that to me feels like a really really high bar. I mean like if I'm gardening outside my window,
I can hear my wife playing an acoustic guitar through my window. Like that's noise outside of my dwelling in it. None of my neighbors have any awareness that my wife's playing anything, you know, through their windows and, you know, 20
to 50 feet away from the house. But just directly outside, like saying that any if there's any noise beyond 1000 p.m. directly outside of a dwelling unit, that's something that somebody could lose their license over to me feels like
a very strict uh and difficult to enforce standard. I think that's I so that's my concern. >> Yeah, I I appreciate that. I think that we spoke about this issue at Nauseium,
right? Like we talked about it a lot. What's fair, what's reasonable, um, etc. Again, I think if I I think that the police department because they would be the individuals who would be responding
to this. Um, and I think for the board of health, right, I think that they recognize that in fact that may have been a one-off situation, right? So, I don't think anyone would lose their license over that, but I
think it's the people who in encourage, don't intervene, etc., who have 36 complaints against their one particular residence, right? I think that there are in fact a lot of people who have had no complaints etc. Right.
And I think again that this is really about neighbors being able to have a opportunity, right? If they have a short-term rental in their neighborhood and that is operating, etc. for them to
be able to say, "Hey, this is really excessive right now and I can't get to sleep because of what's happening." Right? And again, I think it's the police showing up and saying, "Hey, can you keep it down? You have neighbors who are complaining about this particular situation." So, I think in that
particular instance, that individual is not going to or that host, right, is not going to lose their license over an incident. I think it's the people who and again there was just one right to be able to intervene and say hey this is
actually a problem and it's it's a recurring problem and we've addressed this before etc. But again this is also an opportunity to make sure that hosts are also protected in terms of the fact that this was something that this
particular guest had done. We asked them to hold it down and they didn't and were not, you know, hopefully they would not then be fined by the board of health because they would have be able to document that they reached out to them, etc. So again, it's not a a one-time
situation where, you know, Maddie has a short-term rental and one time they are allowed. You know, I don't think our departments are going to be so unreasonable if they're going to revoke their registration. >> But yeah,
>> but they could, right? >> But like I'm and I just say this because when it's not to say that they would, but when you have standards that are vague, I feel I worry that that opens the door for uneven enforcement. That's
just it just not putting that on anyone in particular. That's just a a global statement about how I feel about rules. >> Sure. >> Is that when you have rules that allow for that allow people to either be very lenient or very harsh
that you worry that some people are going to get treated differently than others? >> So, Dr. Griffin, may I call you to the podium? So what what would be the likelihood that someone was having a particular party
and it was loud and we went through this particular process, the police showed up, you know, what is what is the likelihood that you would revoke their registration after one incident of kind of a noise complaint by neighbors? >> Very slim. Um, it's it's looking for a
ongoing pattern, a repeat pattern. Um but generally the board health's goal is always to educate. Um similar if we had a food establishment who um was unpermitted and operating, we wouldn't shut them down immediately even though technically we could. The goal is always
to educate and work on compliance. >> So the the goal is to be lenient. It's looking for the repeat habitual offenders where the police are going out every every single time there's a new a new renter there and um the owner of the
short-term rental isn't enforcing their house rules or anything like that if that makes more sense. >> Mhm. >> Followup question. >> Not at this time. >> Okay. Chief Alexander, may I ask you a question since I notice you're sitting
back there? >> If you could just state your name and and position. >> Chad Alexander, chief of police in town. >> Yeah. So, you know, you've come to us and you let you were the first one who let us know that there were it was a particular location that was repeatedly
having noise. Um, you know, it's a it's a one-time kind of situation. you know what is the like how would you handle that particular situation in terms of noise etc that you're getting from neighbors who it's after what is their
bedtime which for me could be 5:00 right um like how how would help us understand how you would navigate that >> so noise complaints handled within our department uh as with the health department is about leniency and education uh we're slowly but surely
eventually going to see warmer weather where people are going to be sleeping with their uh bedroom windows open. And with noise complaints, it's all about reasonleness. So, if we're called to a house, the noise is loud. Officers make contact with who's in charge of the property, ask them to quiet down. 99% of
the time, they do. Um if we're called back an hour later, we say, "All right, now you have to quiet down. If we come back, you could face a criminal citation or a summon to court or arrest." If it comes to that, that's when we
would face those criminal charges. But as far as our job, it's all about uh reasonleness. So, um take take uh noise out of it or or music or partying. If somebody's mowing their lawn at 10:00 in the morning, somebody's disturbed by it
cuz they're it's bothering them with the noise, we would go and that's reasonable. That's when you'd mow your lawn. If somebody's mowing their lawn at 3 in the morning, >> a reasonable and prudent person would say that's not very reasonable. >> Um, so it's a case by case. Uh, if it
was an ongoing thing, a lot of times too, um, with the one, um, property that you're referencing, it was advertised as a place to come and party. It had a hot tub, it had a sound system, had great entertainment. um and it was built
towards college-aged kids to here's your getaway, this is everything we have to offer, reasonably priced. That's where we ran into that issue. Um we worked pretty diligently with the homeowner. Um and eventually it came to cease, but
there were criminal charges that came out of that. But a lot of times from the police department standpoint, it's all about suppressing the noise at that time. Um so it's the it would fall back on the renter. Um, as far as the immediate, we would turn our findings in
our records and if we show a pattern, that's when the health department would get involved. But if it's a a one-off, it's all about reasonleness and just trying to quell the the noise disturbance for that night. >> Great. Other questions for Do you have a
question for you? Councelor Kisinski, >> Chief Alexander, uh, if the officer were to go to the site, would they be working with the renter at that point? The person who's the short-term rental visitor
because they're going to be gone soon, >> correct? >> Uh, and and then, okay, hopefully next weekend or or next week or this week, the situation's going to change. or would you be working with the landlord to
do their own education and enforcement? How does that all work? And how does it translate to assure the neighbors that there's a reasonable solution in in process here? There's reasonable enforcement to go to criminal. I'm surprised to hear criminal
charges brought in this in this situation. Uh, so and I'm so I'm I'm concerned about how we make it fair and even and whether or not another part to the question would be
is is there any reason to consider the possibility of investing in uh DB readings prior to as part of the process of having the short-term rental say well here's the ambulant ambient today. One
of the thing we take it, we do the reading and it's I don't know. I don't know how the scale goes. Let's say it's a 10. All right. If it's Oh, and then you say you have a standard and then now all of a sudden you come in and it's 25 or 30. Now you have something to
>> So um kind of touch on both of those. So, when we receive a call from a neighbor, no matter what, if it's an apartment, a house, a condo unit, our officers respond. We talk to who's in charge, and it's always about
reasonableness and trying to make find common ground, explain the reason why we were called. It's we don't just show up. If if if we go by a crazy house party, there's nothing that we we're jealous we're not there, right? But if we get a call that they're disturbing somebody's
peace, we go and we try to reason with them. Hey, please quiet down. Some neighbors have called. Let's call it a night. You can still have your party. Quiet down. It's the ongoing ongoing. And trust me, an arrest for disturbing the ple peace is the absolute last thing
my officers want to be dealing with at any hour of any shift. Um, >> it's just, I guess you'd say, a tool in the toolbox. Um, as far as your second part of your question, when we're called to a scene, we would ask for who's in
charge of the apartment, house, condo, and we'd speak with them. Um, as far as further action, it's the rules that you're proposing um that I hope that all your registered uh hosts would
realize is that they could face these penalties. So, they would be a little more invested. One thing the police department can do is we can offer follow-up. So, if we have in our uh records management system, if we have an address that has a flag that says that it's a registered Airbnb with the city
and we get a noise complaint, whether it resolves, it's a simple, hey, we went because the neighbor thought they were being noisy, they quieted right down, no further disturbances, we can call the next day and let them know. or if hey we were there five times and then the last time there they tried fighting our
officers they can know that too. At the end of the day from the police standpoint our job is to quell the disturbance and make sure everybody can go about their life peacefully. We can report that to the board of health. We can report it to the host. Um as far as
further action aside from whatever the court does, that's pretty much where the police end for for a noise disturbance. Mhm. >> Was your question answered? Well, I was just wondering would it help to have some standard and that it would I think
make councelor Pete more amanable to the to the measure if there was some standard that could be objectively created >> um >> at the beginning of the short term at the at the application process that in the office you say well geez here was
the reading here and today it's this >> so that give them extra extra ability to say, "Hey, you guys are you're too loud." It's it's it's le it's it's it's not only coming out outside the house, but it's going into the N this is what it registers at at the
street or at the neighbor's yard. >> Sure. So, we don't just to be clear, we don't register like noise. We don't have anything that can decide. Um, I I believe unless the uh ordinance has changed since I last read it, there were pretty clear-cut rules about noise and
times of gatherings and stuff like that. Um, I would strongly encourage that should be spelled out that, you know, any amount of responses could result in it. Um, however, from a policing standpoint, our only goal and objective,
like I said, would be quelling the disturbance that night. And I don't think there's any set number that you could put that would say if you if you have three guests that break this rule, then we're going to suspend or revoke your registration. Um because at
the end of the day too, how well are the people vetted that are renting your your host property? >> I I was referring to an actual measuring decel level. >> So we don't have the ability >> have the equipment or the correct but
let's say you did >> would an objective measurement help you in this regard? >> I would have to say no. I mean, uh, that just thinking off the top of my head, it'd be unfair if if I was renting my building that is thickly settled
downtown with neighbors one on top of another another, my neighbors pieces disturbed a lot easier than somebody that is on a 4 acre piece of property that's bothering somebody next door to them. So, so I don't think setting a number would just
just me personally. I I I don't know if that's a fair way to go about it. >> Councelor Peak. Yeah, just to be clear and councelor Kinski, I do appreciate you trying to work with me on this, but um I am not in favor of of because the
the problem with decibel readers is that they're just going to measure how noisy things are at that moment in time, at that point, but they're not actually going to tell you where that noise is emanating from. Just to like give you a sense like when we when we did our sound
test at the venue, the sounds of the crickets that were outside in the grass where the microphones were were louder than the sounds of the music which was inside behind behind a whole lot of things. But if you played that same music during the dead of winter, you know, the crickets
wouldn't be there. So, it's like and and this this is a problem that has happened in Northampton where they do use the decibel readers for that kind of stuff is that like if a loud truck goes by, oh well, I just caught the decibb at this. Well, was that thing that registered the
alleged disturbance or was it some other noisy thing going on? So, I'm I'm not in favor of that. Um I Yeah. Uh >> I I guess if if there's if if there was Well, I have maybe some suggestions, but
it's it's fine. >> Yeah. I mean, I guess along those lines, I'd be curious if there were any like word modifications or like hedging that we could add into the ordinance. Like I I think your comment about audible
outside the dwelling unit from the perspective that you're laying out I I hear that and I take that point like that um language was written when I was sort of thinking um we had just taken out the provision about any sort of
apartments being rented because we assumed that we would we decided that we would let a lease determine that relationship. a landlord and a tenant if they were allowed to sublet as a short-term rental. That led to me being like, "Oking
dwelling units or or something that's a little bit less strict." >> Um because I I hear you like it it is a little bit unreasonable if you're like playing guitar. Like I relate very much. Max plays the piano very loudly in our house and then outside getting the mail, I can hear it, but I know it's not
disturbing our neighbors. So yeah, I could see something potentially about uh the using like excessively loud at the property line or something like that might be enough for me to say something. I just I want to make sure that we're not like leading to a
standard that is actually stricter than what you know is reasonable. Mhm. I I think also just in response and and vice president Jud you can respond. So I think this is something that is an issue that we could collect data on right like
when we review this in a year or 6 months or whenever our first review is we can review how many noise complaints were there what was the situation were they unreasonable you know etc etc and so I think that those are um questions that
we can ask once we have more information and more data to be able to understand is this the right is this the right ordinance? Is this the right thing that we should be looking at? Um I think right now we don't know, right? All we have is an instance of someone having 36
calls, right? Um and I understand your point, right? Like your personal experience with noise and whatnot is is very different than someone in a neighborhood who's, you know, trying to go to sleep, you know, etc. And so I think that this is
just a starting point that we can review and whenever we decide to review it to make sure that it's meeting its its intended need or an intended desired outcome. >> Vice President Judik. >> Um thank you. I just wanted to to sort
of plus one a little bit of this conversation because I do think that while um I guess similarly to councelor Peak, I I could think of ways to massage the language and things, you know, I I think this particular section D has room
for some concern. I don't think I I think we need to be careful because, for example, if we were to say, you know, noise um audible within neighboring units, for example, anyone who's ever lived in a rental apartment building knows that you
almost can never tell where sound comes from. And I know personally as a longtime renter before I became a homeowner that people would be knocking on my door sometimes yelling at me for making noise and it actually came from a different apartment unit because sound
travels in wildly different ways. And so I think we really want to just be like I think the spirit of this which I think Chief Alexander spoke well to is the reasonleness of it. And you know I love a good spreadsheet and I love to clarify things as much as possible. So for me, I
think it's a bit of us having to trust the reasonleness with the board of health and the police and other people, but at the same time, that's where the review comes into play. And I do think that, you know, we want to make sure that we're not being overly prescriptive because this is a new ter this is new
territory for, you know, all of us here with this this approach. And I think that um I am a little concerned about I I think maybe Councilwinsky spoke to this earlier about um folks leveraging some of this language and and these um
these things that we're putting into place to sort of use it uh against their neighbors. Um I think that's part of what the review process I I think will sort of show us how this is used. But, uh, I guess just one to say, you know, I think we have to we're striking a really
delicate balance between, um, laying out what we do want to control and also not having it be controlling every last little thing out there because we just like I don't want our police to be riding around with decibel meters. They don't want that. It's impossible. Like, we don't I don't even want us to create
a new position just to do this. like we need to be able to allow for people to have short-term rentals but also to live their lives in a way that feels good for everybody. So, >> other comments, questions.
Um, so I'm going to open it up to the Did you want to So, I'm going to open up to the public. Anyone in the room who h would like to speak to um the general ordinance? So, please come to the podium. Uh, you have three minutes. Uh, please state
your name and, uh, address for the record. >> Uh, John Lceto, short-term rental owner, 63 Strong Street. Um, I just wanted to add a quick story. I'm trying to keep this brief. Um, in regard
to my other life, uh, I I have a short-term rental here in East Hampton, but I also run the Bombic Center for Arts and Equity in Northampton. And we've had this similar I've stood up at these meetings during this ordinance process in regards to this noise
ordinance with concern thinking that East Hampton should have a noise ordinance and then I was happy to find out about the state ordinance. Um but so we had the same kind of thing come up with Bombix where we had um a concerned
neighbor that just you know it's subjective and they didn't like the noise. They wanted their the noise to cease at 9:00. And so, um, what we did was we set up a
microphone at the property line and we set that up and we put a microphone inside and a microphone outside and did a sound reading for a whole year. And we they actually have a noise ordinance in Northampton and they sent their weights
and measures person who has a meter and they went to the property line and they measured it during a really loud blues show. They knew that it was going to be a loud show. They purposely came for that and it was under the ordinance.
And so I'm just saying it's subjective and I think we just need to be aware that there might be a cranky neighbor who might have several complaints and if you were to send someone with a meter it would might be under but to them they just want to go to bed at 9:00. So this
is the what I was trying to get across in the in the previous meetings about the slippery slope of this thing and dialing it in this way. So, thank you Tom for bringing it up because it it can be a slippery slope in regard to sub the
subjectiveness of people and the neighbors and the way they read it and you know come across the way it reads for them. Um so yeah just trying to give you some more information about that from experience.
>> Thank you. >> Great. Thank you John. Anyone else in the room have comment? So, please state your name and address for the record. >> Carl Prawl, 22 Gaston. Um, I suppose because we've been talking about sound
for a while. Want to mirror Justice Potter Stewart's comments about pornography. We'll know it when we see it. You'll know it when you hear it when it's not reasonable. And I think we can hopefully trust the people enforcing this to be reasonable. Um, I do want to
go back a ways though and talk about the equity in holding these registrations and with the cap of 50. Um, wasn't able to make as many of these meetings as I wanted to. There's a lot of Tuesday meetings, but I guess I am very worried about
incumbency when it comes to these registrations and the dwelling cap. I been trying to pay attention to the short-term rentals and it feels like no one has an issue when it comes to owner
occupied units. It's a house that's already being lived in if that person wants to open up to others, especially in short-term rentals. It feels like I mean that that's the old school boarding house. We've had them in this country for a really long time. And it's a way of
fully utilizing a property while offering, you know, supplemental income, having a way of aging in place, etc., etc. And I think that describes some of our short-term properties in town. I feel, at least for me and others I've
talked to, the hang-up is when a family home is taken off the market. And if we're saying only the people who have equity now, who have the resources now to purchase those properties have a means of leveraging that as supplemental
income. And that if somebody comes down future, they'll have to be on a waiting list. And that just it it feels very unfair. It reminds me of medallions in New York City with taxi cabs. It reminds me of, you know, people who get licenses to have car lots. reminds me of liquor
licenses. It's, you know, choosing winners in something that has, you know, there's there's real money involved. There's real downstream effects of that. So, I don't know what the right cap is, but if it comes to stipulating who can do this,
why have limits if somebody's opening their home and owner occupied short-term rentals? And maybe we really have to look at the standalone properties. Who is running these? Are they a member of our community? And how do we make sure
that somebody who comes to East Hampton in 10 years, 20 years, has the same opportunity to have a short-term rental? So, thank you. >> Thank you, Carl. Anyone else in the room
for comments? >> Anyone online would like to speak to this item? Seeing none, um would I make the amendment to change it to the one-year review period before
moving >> so we can uh make a motion for this and then once we do that and then we'll make the amendment inside. >> Okay. in the form um or I would like to move to approve general ordinance um article six short-term rental of
residential properties. Um >> yeah, as a motion. Sorry. >> Second. >> So we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Councelor Peak,
>> I would like to propose an amendment if that's okay. >> Yes. Um, so when it comes to uh the section about noise, I just happened. I'm awfully sorry. That's uh H yes or D. Uh
>> 4-50.5 number D. >> Yeah, number D. Yep. Um I would just propose changing sounds um emanating from within the rental which are audible outside of the dwelling unit. I'd just like to replace audible outside of the
dwelling unit with excessively loud at the property line. Um, that's just a suggestion. I need a second on that. >> Can you read that? Could you read it as you would like it written? >> Sure. So, it would say between 8:00 p.m. and 10 a.m. Excessive noise shall be
prohibited. Excessive noise may include but is not limited to loud music, boisterous parties or and or sound emanating from within the rental which is excessively loud at the property line. >> Second.
>> So we have a motion and a second to amend um 4-50.5 requirements for short-term rental operations. uh point D uh to read which is
excessively loud at the property line. >> And just a point of clarification because I think councelor Peak misspoke. It's 1000 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. not >> 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. >> Sure. >> Just want to make that clear. >> Thank you. You've heard that clarification as well.
>> Uh any further discussion? >> See, does anyone in the public want to make a comment about this? I just want to make sure that All right. Um, so see >> Yep. All right. Now we're off to you. >> All right.
>> Uh, just point of clarification. >> Yep. >> If we were to amend the review period, do we do that now or do we >> Oh, let's do this and then we'll do that and then we'll do the whole thing. >> Okay. Hold on.
Okay. Uh, Kyle Jamrog Mcclay, >> yes. >> Nathan Marquee, >> hi >> Tamaro Smith. >> Hi, >> Tom Peak.
>> Hi, >> JP Kazinski. >> Hi, >> Felicia Jadzik. >> I >> Connie Denham. >> Hi. >> And Jonathan Schmidt. >> Hi. >> Great. So, motion passes. Thank you
council or vice president Jadzik for >> your clarification. Does that is was that motion for the amendment? >> That was for the amendment. So the sorry the amendment passes. Sorry. >> Yes. I'd like to make a motion to amend
4-50.9 review period to read. Um, this general ordinance shall be reviewed after the first year of this ordinance taking effect, followed by at least every two years by
city council. >> Oh, second. >> Hang on a second. So, this general ordinance shall be reviewed after the first year the ordinance takes effect. >> Yes. and
>> followed by at least every two years thereafter by city council >> followed by every two years. >> Yeah. Okay. Sorry. >> Followed by every two years by the city council. That's yours.
>> By the city council. Right. So that was a motion to amend and you seconded. So that was a motion and a second. Any further discussion? >> Yeah, just um responding because I think uh Carl made a good point earlier that
is sort of related to this. I feel like if we are getting to this review period and we're seeing that we're really coming up against that cap, then I think that might be an interesting avenue for us to explore is differentiating between uh owner occupied and sort of investorowned
um units. I think that that is like a meaningful policy distinction whether or not. So I think I I want to be responsive to that, but I think that right now it's just important that we have something in place. But I do think that that's this would be the time where I that would be something that I would want to give some thought to.
>> Yep. Good. Councelor Kuisinski, >> is is there some requirement the review? How what what's a review? What constitutes we imagine it coming back to us going to committee and it sits in committee doesn't come back
to the council is never voted on I or nay. Is that the way we want to leave it? Or is there something that says, "Yeah, this will be brought before the council after 90 days consideration and a vote
taken something that gives it some we're going to we're going to take affirmative action. We're either going to say this is the we're on the right path. We're doing it well or we need to tweak it and here's how." >> I just was curious what
>> saw what we all saw as the process. So I think if I'm not mistaken right so someone if after a year likely the ordinance committee would bring this back for review it would be an item that
is sent to committee and the committee would review that the way that it reviews any other items and if for some reason that committee decided we're going to stall this and we're not going to bring it back by rules I do believe city
council has the ability to pull it back out of committee. So >> that's correct. >> That's I think how that would happen if anyone wanted to stall the process. Right. Then the council could require a vote of the council to bring it back and it could sit in committee for the entire
period review should no one want to bring it back for a vote. >> Should a majority of counselors not say, "Yeah, we're bringing it back." >> Yeah. Yeah. councelor or chair Jed or Jam Rod McQuade.
>> Yeah. No, and I think also in this situation there I would imagine that there would be specific changes that the council that would be as part of a request. So if it were the cap that you were interested in changing after a year, that would be part of that request. It wouldn't just be an
open-ended like review. it would be >> the whole council would have the opportunity to submit potential changes that then get brought to to ordinance committee. So if there is a specific like I I would agree with um councelor Peak's uh comment about delineating between owner occupied and honor owner
occupied uh I think within any time within a year it could be next week language can be submitted to to make that change and then we have to deal with that as ordinance committee and as city council. Mhm. >> Um, and I I think it's just that process. >> Yeah,
>> I think you understand, >> Councelor Kazinski. >> Yeah, I think you're understanding. Well, uh, >> so as I'm I'm I'm evaluating this, I'm looking at it and saying, well, you could, according to the way it's written, have 25 owner occupants.
>> Wait, hang on a second. I want to stick with the motion. >> I'm sticking >> So the I'm sorry. The the a I'm sticking with the amendment. So the amendments, right, is after the first year. So is that we you're talking about the amendment. I just want to be >> the amendment of this. >> I I don't want to get into specifics of what you would go and review, but we're
we're talking about the amendment. I I just I don't want to get confused about >> we're talking about the amendment. Yeah. >> Let's let's stick to to that. Okay. I'll withdraw. >> All right. Any other comments about the amendment? >> So, we had a motion and a second. Um,
right. And I just want to say the language again. So this general ordinance shall be reviewed after the first year of the ordinance taking effect followed by every two years by the city council. >> I think there was just at least every
two years after >> by followed by at least sorry every two years. Great. Thank you for catching that. Um, Naddie, >> uh, Connie Denham. >> Hi,
>> Delicia Jadzik. >> I >> Tom Peak, >> hi >> JP Kazinski. >> Hi, >> Tamara Smith. >> I >> Nathan Marquee. >> Hi. >> Kim Jro Mcuade.
>> I >> Jonathan Schmidt. >> Hi. >> Okay. So, the amendment passes. Any other amendments? So we're >> Yeah. No other amendments. >> Okay. So we're back to the main motion, right?
Any further discussion? I just wanted to go on record if I may >> uh about the cap in terms of how many I really would like to leave it open that somebody could come into this process and be part of the process and not be
shut out at the at at the gate. They can't they can't they have to let's say sell the house because they really couldn't rent it but they live there and they need to rent it
and I don't want that situation to occur here and by having a cap of 50 and saying well there could be 25 folks who could apply who are owner occupants for example and each one have
a a second residence that they want to bring online. This is a good business I'm bringing up and then they they've applied for another 25 licenses for example and that would tie it up automatically.
>> So registrations. >> Yeah. But >> and so the reason I mentioned that is these kinds of limits that we may or may not consider in the process leaves the whole ordinance subject to
legal challenge. And I want to be just bring that to the forefront. I'm hoping that isn't going to be the case, but I want to be sure we have an ordinance. And that's why I'm pushing so hard for some sort of initial
flexibility or that would allow for some some some possible increase and not restrict them what we're doing such that it couldn't be considered. >> Do you want to respond? >> Yeah. So just initially I mean legally
the I think the solicitor um was comfortable with a a cap. Um, and I'll also just say that this is a um a hard cap is something that other communities have put in place and it so it's not uncommon. Um, but that's I think the
rest of your comment stands. I just wanted to to have that. >> But there's also limits on how many short-term rentals people could have, right? So you can't I can't have 25 short-term rentals, >> right? Council Pete. >> Uh, just something that councelor Kinski said. I just want to make sure I
understand this correctly. It says in um it says that an owner may register up to two dwellings as short-term units, but those two dwellings, say that there was somebody who had a c short-term, say
that we did hit the cap or that we were close to hitting hitting the cap. Um if you had one unit registered and you went to register that second unit, you'd go to the back of the waiting list, right? Like the fact that you had one does not
give you any priority in getting a second one. >> Yeah, the licenses are individual. >> Okay, that was my understanding, but I just wanted to make sure I understood that. >> Thank you, >> Councelor Marquee. From my understanding, um, the amendment that
councelor Jadzik proposed with the review, we would be able to revisit >> any of these items >> in about a year's time and it could happen before then. >> Um, so I'm not too concerned about the
caps and stuff because I think it's really a process that needs to play out before we're going to really know the information around it. So, I think that this can always be changed if you know it can always be amended down the road.
So, I'm not overly concerned about the caps, but I do understand um Mr. Paul's uh point about this and I'm very much I I understand his point around it. That's it. >> Councilor Peak. >> Yeah. And and just adding to this one
thing, I think it's very likely we're going to have to revisit this a number of times because this is an evolving market. Um, and it's and the housing market in the United States is an evolving market and there's a lot of things that are shifting. So there's things that are in this that I think
make a lot of sense and there's things that are in this that I think are a good placeholder for now, but probably at some point we'll want to refine. Um, and there's things that are in this that look good to me now, but I'll probably we'll probably realize are actually uh
there's some sort of externality that comes with them and we're going to need to respond to that. Um, because that's sort of what happens when you start passing law uh regulating um you know, commerce. Uh you don't always these things are are complex and they're evolving and and we don't always
immediately know how that's all going to work out. So, I I I think that I'm I'm comfortable with that as long as we have an understanding that this is a a starting place and that um it's not easy for us ever when you're
talking about regulating a new market to figure out what the right level. I mean, I I remember being here in in 2018 and doing the the cannabis uh regulations, and there's things we argued about for hours about whether we should have a regulation for this thing or another.
There are things that just never happened. >> Um, but we were like, we need to have something in place in case this thing happened. It never happened. And there's other things that we didn't see at all that became problems. So, like it's like, you know, I think that that that is sort of the way I think it's okay for
us to move forward and say this is the start of a conversation as long as we're just being >> um humble about the fact that we don't fully understand this market and where it's going to go and how it's going to affect people and we're going to need to stay on top of that.
>> Great. Thank you. Um I think that those are I mean I agree with everything that has been articulated. Um certainly appreciate all the comments that were made today uh in regards to Mr. PL's comment. You know, that was a lengthy
conversation we had about owner occupied, not owner occupied. Um and it still comes down to the fact that 50 registrations have to be inspected um by the um by our departments. And so I think that's where we kind of drew the
line at 50 um because there was, you know, do we have unlimited for owner occupied? etc. But even those still have to be inspected, right? And so it's really a capacity of what our departments are able to handle right now. But with time, um, you know, laws
change, codes change, right? That was a lengthy conversation we had as well, thinking about the language of this. So I think all of those things are noted were conversations that were had and as uh has been articulated and re
reiterated by councelor Peak this is really a starting point right and this is what we're where we're starting so that we can gather some information. Other comment, councelor Kisinski, >> no further comment. Just to say that with the amendment out requiring a
review after the first 12 months or after the first 12 months. I think that gives us the time to do the inspections and gives us the time to have the required review
to gather some data and I think I will vote in favor. >> Okay. Any other comment? Chair JM Mcuade. Yeah, I mean before we have the vote, I just wanted to express gratitude to all the parties that came and showed
up to these meetings and invested a lot of time into this. Um like uh Mr. Pearl mentioned, there's a lot of Tuesday meetings and there were a lot of especially people in this room that showed up to many of our ordinance committee meetings and gave their input
um and really worked hard to to be heard. Um, so I just want to extend my appreciation to you and also your patience to me as a new counselor figuring things out. Um, I also want to uh thank uh planning director Emanuel. Um, she was she's been great throughout
this entire process and really helping um me navigate the conversation with the city solicitor and and just getting it all um buttoned up. Um, and then I also want to extend gratitude to um the building commissioner David Gardner um fire captain Constantine and Fire Chief
Norris. were all also really helpful in um guiding this process forward. And then last but not least, I also want to thank everyone else on the committee uh President Denim and Councelor uh Smith uh for again their patience and um
persistence on this issue. >> Thank you. want to acknowledge also that you know former counselor Derby was a part of these conversations. Councelor Kisinski was a part of these conversations. Um and so I think it's really important
to to recognize that this was there were a lot of brains in the room at various times on Tuesdays, on Thursdays, on every day in between those days, right? having conversations about this. Um, and so certainly appreciate not just the
patience, um, but also recognizing that this is a this is an a topic, right, that is allowing people to stay in their homes, right? And you know, I take that very seriously because as I've said before, I think over 50% of the people
who are doing this are women who are responsible or doing short-term rentals. Um and additionally um a lot of uh of those individuals are also seniors, right? And so I think it's really important that this isn't it's not the
Cape, it's not the uh the Birkers, right? These are individuals in our community who are really trying to figure out ways of being able to stay in their home, right? And so I think that that's kind of the spirit that I came to this with. Um, and you know, want to
just acknowledge that there's a lot of anxiety that has been represented and and expressed throughout this particular process. I also want to acknowledge Chair Jam Quaid for his um
stepping into this role. Um and you know the amount of work to get up to speed um also the the um materials that were created to to make it easy for you know our departments and also make it digestible. So certainly I appreciate
your leadership um stepping into um this role. Um any other comments? So, we have a motion and a second for the main motion and I will turn it over to Maddie. >> We did. Okay. Um All right. Nathan Marquee.
>> I >> Kai Jame McUade. >> I >> Tamar Smith. >> I >> Tom Peak. >> I >> JP Quisinski. >> Hi. >> Felicia Jadzik. >> Hi.
>> Excuse me. >> Connie Denim. I and Jonathan Schmidt. >> I >> I should have said enthusiastically. I >> I >> motion to close public hearing. >> We're not done yet. >> Oh, sorry.
>> So, that was only the first part of our public hearing. Uh, Chair Jam McQuade, I will turn it over to you for the uh zoning ordinance amendment regarding our definitions and table. >> Uh, thank you, um, President Denim. Uh, so this one should be a lot simpler.
This is just the um corresponding uh table of use modification that uh establishes short-term rentals as a uh permitted use in our zoning ordinance. Um so that is in table 5-1 East Endon
total of use regulations. Um the short-term rentals would appear under retail in service under number 17 bed and breakfast. Uh that would read number 18, short-term rental, subject to registration and limitations set forth in city ordinances permitted only in
conforming and lawful pre-existing non-conforming dwellings and listed as permitted by right in all districts. Any questions, comments? >> Quick question. >> Okay, Councelor Schmidt.
>> Sorry. Um thank you. uh you've noted um you know this taking place in other communities and I just want to double check that this is it was this standard uh something you saw standard in other communities that have done this in terms of the the permitted by right um across
the board I just wanted to check in on that >> yeah so I mean I think the other counselors um that were involved earlier in setting up the policy might be able to elaborate a little bit more um there are communities that decided
to restrict based on certain zones. Um I it was established earlier on in the process that that's not how this ordinance was going to um be written. Um but I'll let uh President Denur or Councelor Smith speak more to that.
>> Um yes. So I think that what we uh did with this is we consulted with our planning director and also we had a uh public hearing with our planning department and or our planning um our planning board.
Um and this was um what we came up with and and felt was reasonable um given what um we had discussed in terms of needs. Um and um
also just within the community what was uh also happening in terms of uh business being in neighborhoods. uh etc. And so also changing um some of the attitude or
perspective or opinion of our neighborhoods also being a place of commerce, right? And in this particular instance um with short-term rental, but we also have obviously we have bed and breakfastes. We have um uh uh
uh farm stands, we have uh uh people who cut hair, you know, etc. And so I think that this was it wasn't anything that was out of line with kind of our approach to kind of engaging in commerce
in our neighborhoods. But I also want to make uh if um Director Manuel would also like to um speak to this, you are welcome to. If not, you don't have to. >> I Yeah, there's a wide variety of how
communities handle it. Um, some do require a special permit. The idea that these are supposed to be treated the same or not treated the same but function the same as a dwelling as a residence within neighborhoods. Um, it
doesn't seem necessary to put them through the special permit process. Um, you know, what discretionary review criteria would you hold them against? Um, we don't do special permits for single families, two families. um largely for three families
either um depending on the zoning district. So, it just it didn't seem it didn't seem it seemed like it would be discriminatory to require that in this case. >> Thank you for that context. >> Great. Other questions, comments? Um anyone from the public in the room?
Would you like to speak to anything? Anyone online have anything to say? Seeing none. Um, Chair Jamard McUade. Thank you, Madam President. Um, I would like to make a motion to amend East
Hampton zoning ordinances, uh, table 5-1, table of use regulations, to add number 18, short-term rental, uh, subject to registration and limitations set forth in city ordinances permitted only in conforming and lawful pre-existing non-conforming dwellings.
Um, permitted by right and all zoning districts. >> Second. Before you second, do you want to add in adoption of the definition? >> Oh, yes. I don't have that in front of me, though. Um,
>> does anyone have that in front of them? >> Yes. Is that not >> there was another sheet that had the definition? Do we have the definition? >> Oh, >> sorry. >> Thank you. >> All right. Um, so would I add add that onto my motion?
So, to add on to my motion, um I would also amend uh section 2 definitions uh number 2-1 um short-term rental, the rental of a whole or a portion of a primary or accessory dwelling unit in exchange for consideration as overnight
accommodations for no more than 28 consecutive calendar days. A properly licensed bed and breakfast, hotel, motel, or lodging house, as those uses are defined and permitted under the East Hampton zoning ordinance, shall not be considered a short-term rental. stock.
>> So, I have a motion and a second to um amend the to amend uh table 5-1 East Hampton table of use regulations and uh amend the um definitions
to include short-term rental. Any further discussion? None. 90. Um, Fullish Chadzik. >> I >> JP Kuisinski. >> Hi,
>> Tom Peak. >> Hi, >> Tamara Smith. >> Hi, >> Nathan Marquee. >> Hi, >> Jonathan Schmidt. >> Hi, >> Connie. Denim. >> Hi, >> Ka. Jam Raguade. >> Hi. >> Great. Motion
passes. Well done. Well done. All right. Um, I will take a motion to close the public hearing. Second, >> I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Any further discussion? Seeing none, uh, Maddie,
>> I'm going to read your name so slow. Jonathan Schmid, >> hi. >> Connie Denim, >> hi. Uh, Felicia Jadzik, >> hi. >> JP Kazinski, >> hi. >> Tom Peak, >> hi. >> Tamara Smith, >> hi. >> Nathan Marquee, >> hi.
>> And Kim Jr. McQueen. >> Hi. >> Great. Motion passes. Um, coming back to the public comment. Does anyone else have anything that they would like to say for the to to city council that is
not already on our um agenda? I see Ava online. >> Hi counselors. Um, excellent work this evening on uh some ordinances. I'm here to speak about another ordinance that's coming your way. Um, it will be
announced tonight. But specifically, I'd like to call your attention to the fact that the conservation commission will be holding information sessions, opportunities to ask questions about the proposed wetlands ordinance um at our regularly scheduled meetings on Monday, March 23rd and Monday, April 13th. So,
it's a great opportunity for counselors and for the public to come learn about the wetlands ordinance um amongst the conservation commissioners. the comm uh the public and the council will also have opportunities to learn about it at the ordinance committee and of course at the full council. But I'd like to invite
everyone to our ordinance uh discussions at the conservation commission meetings on March 23rd and April 13th. >> Great. Thank you. Anyone else for public
speak? Anyone else? Seeing none. Uh so we have no items for communication from uh correspondence. Uh I'd like to invite uh Dan Wrist uh to discuss the
senior center building committee um updates. >> No, thank you. >> Thank you. I am the uh I'm Dan Rrist. I'm a former city councelor and I am the chair of the senior center building committee. I'm
here to update you on what's been going on because there's been a lot of talk mostly on social media which I ignore but a lot of people don't. Thank you, President Denim, for allowing me to inform the council regarding the work of two committees for over two years to
build a new senior center. I also want to defend these committees against misinformation out there and misconceptions about the project. They are resolute and diligent volunteers of all ages. To be clear, we are only at the beginning of debating where to put
what. First, some history. The COA has been in existence, as far as I know, since 1986, having many places of residence. An office in the community center, an old mill building, another old building
on Main Street, and then their present location at the old post office. The common denominator is old buildings. In 2018, the COA board decided that planning was needed for programs, services, and space. After a UMass study
was done, they thought they could move the center to a new rental property, but decided that would be impractical. In 2022, an architectural firm EDM was hired to evaluate the current location and concluded the building could not accommodate the center long term because
of quote unquote serious building deficiencies. The COA at the old post office does not have enough space to accommodate the seniors that went want their programs. In 2023, Mayor Lashappelle appointed an ad hoc committee to begin serious study
and research for a new building with the goal of reporting back by the end of December of 24. The committee studied local facilities, other communities, programs, and sites to build in East Hampton. They were tasked to do the research, the leg work if you will. I
was on the subcommittee to visit local sites including Lello, Hadley, Wilberham, and South Hadley, which is my personal gold standard. These facilities are modern with enough space to manage programs, which East Hampton has but does not have the space to provide for.
In fact, many of our programs are weight listed. While visiting South Hadley, an 80 person yoga class was in their multi-purpose room. When I commented to the director that I it had great attendance, she said, and I quote, "Yes,
with many East Hampton residents." This is in South Hadley. I shouldn't go off my things. That hit home to me. Our seniors have to travel to other local centers to get what they need, want, and need. The parking lot was over full with parking on adjacent
streets because they did not build enough parking, and seniors do drive to where they want to go. South Hadley had many rooms for crafts, exercise, games, pool tables, conference rooms, and a kitchen for lunches served. A nice reception area, a library, and a coffee
shop. Damn, it was beautiful. Why can't East Hampton build one? The ad hoc committee also examined local sites to place a new senior center, listing pros and cons for each that had criteria that included 5 acres, traffic capability, and PVTA access.
They came up with six potential sites listing a Highland Avenue parcel the city owns as their number one. The ad hoc report concluded that with the senior population expected to rise over 40% of the East Hampton population, a new center was needed to offer the
program seniors need and want. In the spring of 2025, Mayor Lashappelle appointed a building committee with 12 members with many from the community and several ad hoc committee members. as its chaired. As its chair, I asked the committee to start with using the ad hoc
report to inform their decisions. In se, excuse me, in September of last year, they started with site review because until we decide where to build it, we could not hire an architect to do a feasibility study of said site. We began
with determining that 392 Main Street, although a good site for the center, it was privately owned with the owner not wanting to sell. And even if we decided to proceed with an eminent domain taking, it would cost over a million dollars. I am personally opposed to
taking someone's property unless there is overwhelming need. We have other potential sites. So, the committee concluded that using city property was a priority to save that million dollars. Also, we were offered a space at Riverside, but it was rejected as having
no parking, would require a lease for the city for the foreseeable future, had accessibility difficulty, and would need extensive renovation. Another old building, Highland Avenue was found. Now, I'm sorry. Now, enter our planner,
Allison Manuel, who did a deep dive into the city-owned property. Highland Avenue was found by her to be recreational land having been donated by the Boy Scouts for trails and recreation. To change a recreational designation would require a
twothirds vote of the legislature of both houses. We could get a judge to determine that the senior center is a recreational facility, but that's also a long and drawn out process. Daily Field was one of the sites that was considered, but it was also park
property and the school building authority designated it as a field for school sports. There is beautiful land off of Holio Street at the base of the mountain. But Allison and public safety determined that emptying seniors onto a heavily traveled corridor would be terribly
difficult and dangerous. That left the committee with Park Street. Planning did not find any visible difficulty with the site. The following were determining factors. The parcel is 54 acres and we would only need five. The site would be on the north side of
Whitebrook with 7 acres available beyond the necessary buffer zone and wetlands. There would be plenty of land left for wildlife and trails that seniors could use. It could be built on the lower end near the tree near Treehouse with possible road access to that community.
It is accessible to Park Street through a 50-ft quarter, plenty wide, enough for a road. Transportation is not an issue. PBT PBTA already goes to Treehouse. COA has buses to shuttle seniors from the center of town and many seniors drive
anyway. It is as far away from the center of town as many other sites, and the M Mountain View Rotary is an advantage for traffic. So the committee chose this site for an architect to study a feasibility review which includes engineering, land, topography,
conservation, wetlands, and of course cost. The study would not have a use. This study would not have a use by date and would be still relevant whenever we decide to build. Nothing is set in stone. My personal goal is to keep the
cost to taxpayers as low as possible. Certainly nothing like the $60 million needed for the Mountain View School, which seniors voted overwhelmingly for. We are far away from recommending anything to the council and to the taxpayers. The process moving forward is
to have that architect give us design ideas and estimated costs. We will have forms for citizen review and involve the public any way we can. We may have to wait until the economy is better, but I remind you that waiting also increases cost. something City Space knows all too
well. My conclusion, we need to give back to the seniors. They need a onef flooror accessible building. Our current space is managed well by our director, Cynthia Terrell, and her professional, dedicated staff. But they need space for the programs other communities can
offer. Why should seniors have to drive to other centers to get those programs? The senior building committee is committed, hardworking committee that will bring you and the residents the best possible recommendation. I say to others who are naysayers, you
can criticize where it is, what it is, and how big it is, or of course the cost, but I will fervently debate you if you say we don't need it. A new senior center. I say to anyone and new counselors, go to the current COA
building and see its deficiencies for yourself. And if you can go to South Alley and see what they have to offer. I will dedicate whatever time I have left for public service to the goal of providing East Hampton with a
modern senior center. I will take any questions. It was only eight minutes. I timed it. I appreciate the questions. >> Nobody. Okay. Uh, director Terrell is here as well.
>> I don't know. Uh, actually, um, >> hi. >> Smith has a question. >> Our gerontology expert. >> Hi. Yes, thank you. Um, I wanted to mention I know there's been a lot of discussion about the social activities
that take place at the senior center and I completely agree with that, but there's also a lot of public health that goes on at the senior center. We have shine volunteers that um are able to help our seniors with Medicare options
and there are a lot of different um just really important tasks that take place there. in addition to offering socializing and um activities. And so I just wanted to underscore what you were
saying with in addition to everything that you said, there are also these other really important parts. And if anyone wants to think about what 40% of our city population over the age of 55
would look like, well, if you could imagine Florida right now, they're at about 33%. So add an additional 7 percentage points to that and that's what we are looking at in East Hampton in as close as 2030, which is pretty
sobering to not have a plan in place. So, I just really wanted to um commend the entire committee for putting the work forth in that this is really a very quickly moving field and the competitiveness of other senior centers
to draw our seniors to them rather than our own facilities is really um something that's really shocking and also something that I think we're losing out on on that really essential voice within East Hampton. So, I just wanted
to mention all of that. In addition, uh thank you, Dan. I really appreciate your leadership on this. >> I want to say that your comments on public health and the advice that the senior center gives when I retired, that's where I went to get advice on
Medicare and supplemental health care. So, they do a great job and they have a great director and great uh staff. So try to go over try to see South Hadley try to see why we're doing what we're doing. >> Just one second
question. >> Hello. Good to see you again and glad that you're involved in this task because as well well noted this is important to lots of people in East Hampton and a growing number and a huge
segment of our society downtown. I wish there was a spot downtown that could accommodate everything that we need and we could incorporate it with business that would be uh continued to be generated by
people going to the downtown area. It doesn't appear to be any sites that work for that. So I commend you in looking for something and for drawing out the distinctions among the various
possibilities that are available at this time. I did have a question about I I heard that Southampton was very much involved in wanting to do something and I don't know if they had the resources to have their own senior center but that may be
something that isn't over the horizon, something that's on the horizon, some possibility uh because it to reach the level of South Hadley and Hadley and Wilberham, which are the
types of le leading cutting edge senior centers that really we deserve to have here with a population as large as we have of seniors. um is going to be a a challenge I
imagine when once the architect puts pen to paper and comes up with some numbers. But have you heard anything? And >> uh yes, the select board I believe rejected building a senior center and I'll tell you what I heard. It's a rumor, not not necessarily factual, but
why should we build it? East Hampton's going to have one. That's disappointing because a combination Southampton East Hampton Senior Center might be more coste effective. But
did did anybody else have a question? >> Uh any other comment? No. >> Uh just want to make a quick comment. Um Chairman Wrist, um certainly appreciate all the work that you and your committee have done towards this. Um, and I think
you're absolutely right, and I think it should be noted again that our seniors took a big financial hit when they voted for the schools. I remember knocking on doors. um the first time I ran for uh this uh seat and uh there were a number
of seniors who who commented on uh the the limited um not limited offerings but just the the um the challenges of the current Council
on Aging um building basically. But they also noted that they took a they took a financial hit to support the children of East Hampton in part because they they could see that the schools that we had were
older. Um, and the fact that they were willing to to take that on, I think speaks volume to their um their interest in making sure that that kids have a a good education in place. And I think that
it's incumbent upon us to also recognize that our seniors uh need a space where they can also um participate in programs, participate in activities, but also more importantly build community. Right? I think that
that's really essential and important. So, I want to personally thank you for your continued leadership and you know hopefully uh you know we can make sure that um this isn't the last thing that you ever work on, right? Uh but uh
there's lots more that we can do as a community, but certainly want to appreciate you for everything that you've done and given to this community. So, thank you. >> Your comments are well taken. That's why I want to keep whatever tax increase we
need to do very low. Certainly not the $60 million. >> But we won't do that until we're sure of what we're getting. And the public is well aware of what this is. >> But it's not just the cost, it's what we're offering.
>> So they have to weigh that against that. And it's the seniors who deserve it because they helped us with the schools. >> Thank you very much everybody. >> Thank you. Appreciate you. Next on our agenda, Director of Public Health Ryan Griffin um is going to chat
with us or talk to us about the nicotine-free uh generational tobacco ban >> briefly. >> Are you sure? >> I'm hoping it's I I can tell you it's going to be briefer than the short-term rental uh discussion. Oh,
>> but good evening. Ryan Griffin from the health department. I'm here on behalf of East Hampton Board of Health to share that we have been discussing proposed updates to our current tobacco regulations, including a proposed nicotine-free generation or NFG regulation. Simmer policies have already
been implemented in more than 20 municipalities across Massachusetts, including neighboring communities such as Beluretown, Ammerst, South Hadley, and Leverett with Northampton Board of Health also deciding on a nicotine free generation ban at their board health meeting tomorrow night.
The nicotine free generation policy is a public health strategy designed to gradually phase out the sale of nicotine products to future generations by establishing a birthy year cutoff for legal sales. Under the proposed regulation, individuals born on or after
January 1st um 200 2006 would not be able to purchase tobacco or nicotine products in East Hampton even after they turn 21. So the best way to think about it is start
anyone born the the the age for purchasing tobacco products would jump one year every single year. So it would be 21 and then the minimum legal age would be 22, 23, so on and so on. This approach does not impact current
adult consumers of tobacco nicotine products. So this wouldn't affect anyone who already legally is able to purchase nicotine products in East Hampton. The goal is to reduce nicotine addiction over time by preventing initiation among younger generations while avoiding instruction for those who already legally use these legally use these
products. We know that nearly all lifelong nicotine addiction begins during adolescence when the brain is especially vulnerable. Nic nicotine is a highly addictive is highly addictive and can impact brain development making prevention of early exposure one of the most effective public health strategies.
While youth while youth cigarette smoking has declined, tobacco companies continue to introduce and heavily market new products such as high nicotine, ecigarettes, and oral nicotine pouches, which to my recollection didn't even exist when our last tobacco regulations were updated in 2017.
The appeal to young people, the nicotine free generation approach allows communities to respond proactively to these evolving products rather than reacting after addiction has already taken hold. Tobacco nicotine use also remain a leading cause of preventable death in the United States, accounting for nearly
500 deaths annually and more than 9,000 deaths yearly in Massachusetts alone. From an e economic standpoint, East Hampton currently has 13 businesses that sell tobacco products as only a portion of their overall sales. Because this pos because this policy is a gradual phase
over time, the overall impact is expected to be minimal and allow businesses time to adapt. After reviewing background information, experiences from other Massachusetts communities, and implementation considerations, the board of health is seeking direct public input before making any decisions. The goal of the
board right now is to invite residents and business owners to learn more about the proposal and to provide feedback as a part of a public review process. Anyone can review the current regulation our current tobaca regulations and prop proposed tobacco regulations on the city
of East Hampton website under on the health department page in the section titled proposed nicotine free generation policy. So once you're on the health department page top left corner it's the first link on your left. The board of health will be holding a public forum Monday, April 13th in this very room
from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. and strongly encourage anyone interested to attend and share their thoughts in front of the board. No decision will be made at this hearing. >> It is just put for the public to provide their input on these proposed regulation
updates. Thank you. >> Any questions or not? >> Yep. Any questions? Uh, councelor Marquee. >> So, here's here's our omission. I um I was a heavy smoker for many years and
now I am addicted to nicotine lossenes. Um, I have a severe nicotine addiction. I'm I'm not I'm not putting any comment one way or another towards this particular um proposal law, but I just want to say I've been addicted to
nicotine for over 30 years now. And I could shake everything else in my life, but nicotine is a very, very, very powerful addictive substance. And yeah, that's it.
Other comments, questions? >> I Okay, councelor Kinski, >> I appreciate your sharing the story and it is a horrible, awful, dirty, rotten, smelly, can't say anything good.
And yet sometimes people just want to do it. And that's where I get into I would love to hear what your thoughts are about the difference between any between nicotine
and this what essentially will be a ban for anyone at reaching a certain age. Anyone underneath that age, that's it. It's over. And I like the idea that I think you said 21 was the the age of someone. Yes, currently it's 21 and then
each year it would bump up, >> but but 21 right now. So there would be a time period for someone to put input into it for those 18 year olds, 16 year olds, 19 I'm thinking of those who just voted. You know, when we think of the
draft, we think of, well, maybe maybe you're too young to vote and you're too but you're okay to go to war. Uh that's not the case here. There is a period where folks could vote on it could could have input into the process
as you formulate your regulations. >> Oh, exactly. Yeah. Any any community members, business members can >> So that that that doesn't I'm happy with that. How is this different than anything that we call a crime? Taking
having cannabis is a crime. Uh and now we we find out you really can't regulate it. Now you can't what all the other things that we have that we say we try to outlaw it. >> Can you speak to that just for for two
minutes and I'm sure you're going to talk more about it at the >> Oh, of course. Yeah. Um because we're we're not labeling it as a crime. We're preventing businesses from from being able to sell the product. So we would we would never um if there was someone who
was under the age of 21 smoking a cigarette on the street that wouldn't be against the regulation. It would just be the sale of the product would be against would be a violation of the tobacco permit that they would hold. >> So essentially they have to go somewhere
else to purchase the product >> anywhere outside of East Hampton that that doesn't have a nicotine-free generation ban in place yet. That's why it's also important to have your regulations similar to your surrounding uh your surrounding municipalities such
as Northampton, East Ham, East Hampton, Northampton, Ammerst, South Hadley. So, you don't have those people um city hopping because, you know, I can't I can't get my nicotine products in Ammerst. So, I'm going to go to East Hampton and get them where I know they don't have this regulation.
>> So, the more cities that do implement this regulation, the more effective it is. Mhm. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions, comments? >> Great. Uh, thank you, Director Griffin.
Um, again, that's uh a hearing will be on not hearing, but um a discussion will be on April 13th, 6:30 to 8:30. >> Monday, April 13th in this room 6:30 to 8:30. >> Great. Great. Thank you so much. >> Thank you.
mayor's communication. Acting mayor Labau, do you have any comments? >> No. Great. Uh, communication from president, vice president. Do you have anything? >> Uh, yes. I just have one quick item. Um, just a quick reminder for council
members to be using the updated versions of our newly approved uh agenda and meeting minutes templates. Um, also everyone at this point on council should have been invited to the shared folder that has these templates available. And if you're having any issues with that, please feel free to reach out to myself
or the clerk's office. >> Great. Uh, a couple of things just uh um for the public again um there will be a few of us who will be uh participating in the training of the new the training
for new school committee members which will happen this weekend. So I just think that's important to uh acknowledge our ongoing commitment to support schools committee the school committee u and so very much looking forward to that um also I had the opportunity last week
to uh attend a FEMA training right so thinking about um how to address crisis um you know etc. So that was a a really important um thing for that I was fortunate to attend and I think that that goes on uh to my commitment to our
police and fire uh to support them in moments of crisis. also want to acknowledge that today um we received not I received notification that the state investigation uh regarding our uh East Hampton public
schools um that investigation cleared East Hampton uh public schools of wrongdoing in its handling of anti-semitic the anti-semit of anti-semitic incidences in 2024. So I know that that was an ongoing um uh conversation and issue. So, I just want
to uh acknowledge that that our uh public schools were were cleared of that. Um, with that in particular, I want to thank our um uh principal Evans who um worked diligent diligently to uh address that issue. Certainly, our
former uh superintendent uh Moren uh Benign and our >> Benetta. >> Bana, right? >> Banana. Yeah. and our current superintendent uh uh Balch. So I think that that is uh just important to
acknowledge the their work on that to address that but also want to acknowledge their ongoing commitment to um uh Jewish students uh in addressing any form of anti-semitism that they may be experiencing and their their
commitment to doing so as well as their commitments to uh addressing any um incidences of discrimination, hate speech, you know, etc. So, I think that this speaks to their um their commitment to to our students. So,
just want to um acknowledge that. Which also um want to remind folks speaking of uh April 8th uh and April 22nd will be our uh city council meetings uh for the
month of April. Uh normally we meet on the 1st and third uh Wednesday, but we are meeting on the 8th and the 22nd, which is the third uh 2nd and 4th. Uh in honor of uh April 1st is the beginning
of um of um passover. Thank you. Um so just want to everyone to to know that. So um council communications announcements, standing committee reports. Um, councelor Marque.
>> Yes. I have two announce Thank you, uh, President Denham. I have two announcements. Um, the first one is East Hampton We the People is holding a fundraiser tomorrow. It's the spaghetti supper. It will be held at the high school from 5:30 to 900 p.m. The tickets
are $10 for adults and $7 for children under 10. Um there will be tons of items up for auction. So uh join us. And the second one is the CPA visionary meeting
will be held here tomorrow, March 19th in city council chambers right here at 6 pm. That concludes. >> Great. Uh councelor Jamro Mcuade. >> Thank you, Madam President. Just reminding everyone again that the Eastampton Tenants Union meets weekly on
Thursdays. um now at 5:30 to 7 in these chambers. They moved it back a little bit to give people more time to get there. Um I also want to call out the website um that they've been working on really diligently. It has a ton of resources and information that would be good for anyone in the community just to
get a better understanding of um what rights they have and even if you're a landlord um anything like that. So just want to call that out. >> Great. Thank you so much. Uh so moving on to standing committees uh finance. Chair Peak. Thank you, Madam President. Um, we met last week as usual. Uh, when
we met, we realized something. Uh, for those who were here two weeks ago, you might remember that there was a little AV glitch that was giving us a lot of feedback. Uh, so that was pretty distracting for a lot of people, including myself. So distracting, in fact, that I did not move forward an
item that I had fully intended to move forward at that meeting. Um that being the uh mayoral request to create a healthc care stabilization fund. Um so I would like to do that tonight. Uh just a brief summary of what that is. We have a
series of stabilization funds uh that we can accept money from various sources or sometimes when we have you surplus money and free cash we put money into these stabilization funds and then when these
specific things uh might occur we have like little they're rainy day funds for these various events. So given how disruptive uh and challenging uh health care and providing health care to all of our amazing municipal workers has been uh
recently uh the mayor and his finance team was recommended that we do uh just that and create a healthc care cost stabilization fund. Uh so I have the motion ready to do that. But is there any questions or
>> questions comments? Seeing none. >> All right. I'll make a motion. Pursuant to Mass General Law, Chapter 40, Section 5B, this uh I move that the city of East Hampton establish establishes a healthc care cost
stabilization fund for the purpose of creating an alternative funding source to assist with offsetting the city of East Hampton's potential future increases to the cost of employee health insurance. uh funding sources will be identified and allocated as necessary to
maintain financial uh stability. >> Second. >> So we have a motion and a second to establish a healthcare cost stabilization fund. Any further discussion? >> Seeing none, Maddie.
>> Uh Jonathan Schmidt. >> Hi. >> Connie Denim. >> Hi. >> Delicia Jatzik. >> Hi. >> JP Kisenski. I >> Tom Peak. >> Hi >> Tamar Smith. >> I >> Nathan Marquy. >> Hi
>> Kim. Jim Roblay. >> Hi. >> Great. Motion passes. >> Uh beyond that, we just received a uh report from our auditor about the uh most recent uh finances that that she
had. and we're going to be receiving those uh as we're getting through a lot of the sort of financial chaos of the recent uh past. We're going to be receiving those at a more recent uh cadence and with so we discussed a little bit about what information would be helpful uh for us and getting some
clarification about what some things meant. So that was an interesting conversation and uh I don't even know where I'd begin to summarize it all but it's available you know if anyone wanted to watch it and get caught up on that. Um, and that concludes. >> Thank you, Chair Peak. Uh, public
safety, Chair Dupton is out. Councelor Schmidt, would you like to >> Yeah, thank you, Madam President. Um, so you may recall our meeting on March 3rd. Needed to be postponed due to weather. So, we met on March 10th. Um, we had uh
we welcomed in uh Director Nettleman from DPW uh and covered um many topics relevant to public safety um including ongoing safety concerns for pedestrians on Cottage Street, upcoming work um around Northampton and Main Streets,
improvements to water treatment and um other infrastructure priorities. Uh so similarly if anybody wants uh the full details I would absolutely welcome you to uh encourage you to um check out the meeting um recording for that. There's a
lot of um a lot of interesting updates about uh kind of what's coming down the pipeline. Um we also uh followed up on um one of our agenda items with Director Nuttleman um regarding uh improvements
on West Street. Um the specific item is uh the fourth one on the list here, traffic and pedestrian safety on West Street. Um and so we were able to confirm with director Nelman that uh the projects that um sort of um brought
forth um that item uh have been completed. Uh so that includes um the addition of fog lines to visually narrow um the the lanes uh and mitigate speed. Um there was a portable speed
feedback sign that was temporarily deployed um by the police department. Um and uh the DPW and police department uh collaborated uh to apply for a grant from Mass DOT for a permanent sign uh
which uh we have since received word um that uh the city has been awarded that grant um and that that sign uh the that sign and an additional uh portable trailer for for a similar purpose um will be arriving in four to six weeks
time. uh and that the uh permanent sign will be installed in the area of 26 uh to30 West Street. Um and so uh with the progress that has been made on that matter, uh the committee voted
unanimously to remove this item from our agenda without prejudice. Uh, and so, uh, if it's all right with you, I would, um, be interested in bringing that motion to the full council, um, so that this item can be removed from the agenda. >> Do you want to make a motion?
>> Yeah. Um, I would like to move to remove without prejudice, uh, the public safety committee item, uh, traffic and pedestrian safety on West Street. >> Second. So, I have a motion and a second to remove the traffic and pedestrian
safety on West Street item without prejudice. Um, any further discussion? >> Seeing none. >> Maddie. >> Um, Kaum Jamro Mcuade. >> Ian Marque. >> Hi,
>> Tamara Smith. >> I >> Tom Peak. >> Hi, >> JP Quisenski. >> Hi, >> Felicia Jadzik. I >> Connie Denham. >> Hi. >> And Jonathan Schmidt. >> Hi. >> Uh well, thank you for that. Um besides
that, we just spent some time beginning to uh review our traffic rules and orders as is also on our agenda. Um I anticipate uh that that will be a lengthy process. Um we have a couple of uh it seems enthusiastic editors on the
committee. Uh and so uh we're going to be kind of really taking a deep dive into um that particular item. Um and we'll have more in the future. Um next meeting uh will be scheduled Tuesday, April 7th. Um we've been meeting at 6.
Um and the thus concludes. >> Great. Thank you, Councelor Schmidt. Uh appointments. Uh Vice President Chadzik. >> Yes. Thank you, President Denim. Um, I'm speaking on behalf of appointments tonight since councelor Smith was not
able to attend. Um, and thank you for keeping your germs to yourself, Council Smith. We hope you get well soon. Um, Council Marquee and myself met yesterday, as I mentioned earlier today. Um, and in addition to the two appointees that we were able to swear in earlier, we also discussed three other
uh, mayoral appointees. Um, I'll start with Steven Linsky, who we were able to interview in person. um he is up for or he has um put himself forward for uh an appointment to the energy advisory committee with the term expiration date of December 31st, 2026. Um he was
informed of this opening uh by a current member on the committee. Um and he has had a number of years of experience in municipal and state government. He was actually on the original auditing group put together by Mass Save. He also has a legal background and has extensive
personal experience with energy efficiency um and is really interested in this topic in general including climate change. He's already been attending a couple of these meetings and so um definitely was is very interested in connecting in this topic. Um
additionally is very involved with we the people and is interested in engaging more young people into these these types of um discussions. We voted unanimously, myself and council marquee with a vote of 200 to forward his um to recommend
his uh approval to the full council. Uh briefly before I continue, should we do each one in turn or shall I do all three of them? >> Let's do all of them. Okay, great. >> Otherwise, we're going to have to >> Yes. Um so hold on that. So Stephen Linsky is the first person we chatted with. The second or second person I'll
talk about is Alexander Baron who is also being nominated for the energy advisory committee with the same expiration date of December 31st, 2026. Um he was not able to come in in person to meet with us but has corresponded with councelor Smith um over email I
believe. His experience is quite extensive um is honestly very impressive. He has experience working for the US Senate, the US House of Representatives Committee on the Energy and Commerce. He's worked for the EPA. He's worked for um multiple different agencies that are directly related to
this work and he currently works as a an associate professor at Smith College on environmental science and policy programs. So we unanimously voted to recommend him to full counsel as well. And then the final person I'll discuss tonight is Lydia Barry who is also
someone who is being nominated for the energy advisory committee with the same expiration date of December 31st, 2026. and um just pull up her information really briefly. She um has also been interested in sustainability, community
engagement. She's really interested in renewable energy and we also unanimously approved her to recommend to full counsel with vote of two. So, in the form of a motion, I'd like to recommend that we approve Alexander Baron, Steven Linsky, and Lydia Barry, all to the
Energy Advisory Committee, all with a term expiration date of December 31st, 2026. >> Second. >> So, I have a motion and a second to approve three meal appointments. Any further discussion?
>> Seeing none, Maddie. Oh, we're on sheet number two, it looks like. Um, sorry. Yes. Um, Jonathan Schmidt, >> hi. >> Connie Denham, >> hi. >> Felicia Jadzik, >> hi. >> JP Kazinski. >> Hi, >> Tom P. >> Hi,
>> Tamara Smith. >> Hi, >> Nathan Marquee. >> Hi. >> And Kim Jim Rag McQuade. >> Hi. >> Great. Motion passes. >> Um, great. We also briefly discussed we are um just so the public knows we're in the process of reviewing all of our
existing um boards, commissions, and committees here at the city level just to make sure that we're in alignment with um what's advertised online with our application forms on the website and what we have internally with our own documentation and our ordinances and resolutions. So that's an ongoing
project. We hope to have more updates on that in the next few months. Um, and I'd like to request an extension for that first agenda item, request for board committee vacancy review and recruitment. Um, I guess I'd like to request a 90-day extension for that first one.
>> Second. >> So, we have a motion and a second to extend the ongoing agenda. The request for board committee vacancy review recruitment item for 90 days. >> And I'd also like to request the 90-day extension for the second item, which is the proposal for mayor and clerk to
create an appointment committee handbook for 90 days. Second. >> So, we have a motion and a second uh to uh create an appointments committee handbook for 90 days. Um any further discussion on those two items? Either of
them. Seeing none, Maddie. >> Sure. >> Um Kai, I'm Jam McQuade. >> Hi, >> Nathan Marque. >> Hi, >> Tamara Smith. >> I >> Tom Peak. Hi
>> JPenski. >> Hi >> Felicia. >> Jazz. >> Hi. >> Hi. >> You have a last name. Felicia Jazz. >> Hi. >> Connie Den. >> I >> Jonathan Schmid. >> Hi. >> Great. Motion passes.
>> Thank you. That concludes. >> Great. Ordinance. Uh, Chair Jam McGuade. >> Thank you, Madam President. I'll keep this brief. Um, so the committee last met on March 12th where we finalized the language of the general ordinance amendments regarding short-term rentals that we passed tonight. Um,
our I don't have much else to say. We didn't talk about much else. Um, I'll probably have a more detailed report during the next city council meeting. Um, our next meeting is Monday, April 6th at 6 PM. Uh, where we will continue discussion on a number of the other items on our agenda as well as accepting
a couple new business items that um are moving forward to council today. Uh, this concludes >> we did that. >> You did? Is that what we just did? >> That was a public hearing. >> Sorry. You're good. You're good. >> Right. uh property. Chair Kuzinski,
>> I'll be brief. We'll be meeting on Monday uh March 23rd at 6 PM to uh put some final touches on the uh matter of the Oldtown Lodging House and
bringing that to fruition. >> Okay, let's conclude. >> That's it. All right. And Chair Kisinski, right back at you with rules and government relations. I'll try to be brief, but we did have a meeting on March March 11th and there were a few issues that we discussed and we're
continuing our discussion on and some others that uh we brought to the table tonight. Uh and that is let's start with the Eastampton Housing Task Force if we might. And that matter was brought
forward to establish a a committee. Uh that would be to request the estab we we would amended it to be a request to establish a committee that which would meet at least which would meet annually uh uh to
discuss the situation of housing crisis in our communities. Uh I will ask the person who brought it forward to present it motion. >> Uh council mu.
>> Uh thank you chairwisinski. Um so many of you have probably already uh we've discussed this um but just to give an overview of the underlying motivation the impetus for the resolution. Um the main reason uh was because I felt like
we have been doing a lot of great things in the city. Um I wanted to name those successes. I also uh wanted to name the housing affordability crisis as a crisis and recognize um as a city that this has become a top priority at the state and local level. Um, like I mentioned, I
also wanted to recognize the work we've already done as a community to help address the housing crisis, including our housing production plan, the master plan, financial support for housing projects, um, and our current work to explore zoning reform. Um, a big piece of this was also to encourage a whole of government approach to addressing the
housing crisis um, through cross- departmental and intergovernmental communication and collaboration uh, both with public input from key stakeholders across the housing ecosystem in the city. Um, I also wanted this to be an opportunity to highlight opportunities and ideas for the future that the community could work on, um, and that
have been suggested by advocates and members of the different advisory committees already. And then I also wanted through this ordinate or through this resolution to recognize the dedicated advocates and organizers like those in East Hampton Tenants Union um, who are building community solidarity and um, making all this work possible.
Um what this resolution does is it calls on the mayor to form what's called the housing crisis task force. Um that would be inviting the chairs of the housing partnership, the rent study committee, the planning board, the uh city housing authority, the state legislative delegation for our district, um and the
directors of the planning and public health departments uh as well as a representative from the east tenants union uh to meet at least once annually to discuss housing policy goals and priorities across the different groups and committees. Um besides that um which I think would
mainly be the secondary purpose of the uh task force the main function is to create a a communications channel in the form of a city redirect email similar to like the leadership email. Um it's named in the uh resolution as housing crisis
eastm.gov. Um that would allow notices to come from committee chairs and community advocates to everyone on this crisis task force so they're aware. um obviously with no replies allowed so we make sure we're not running a foul of any open meeting law uh issues. Um and yeah, I think the
main things that would go through to that board would be any relevant agendas of committee meetings that uh we think the task force would be interested in. Um potential ordinances uh conversations between the mayor and uh state housing leaders or other u members of uh
governments um around these housing issues. Um and that's just to encourage uh and enable sort of broader understanding. We're all on the same page and we can work towards addressing the crisis together. >> Okay. Any questions?
>> The committee recommended 30 that the council approved the measure. >> All right. Great. Um so I will take a motion. >> Okay. Um, I will move uh to resolve the east or to accept the East Hampton City
Council resolution in support of establish establishing the Eastampton Housing Crisis Task Force. >> Second. >> Oh, >> do I have to read the whole thing as the motion? >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Um, buckle in.
Uh, the housing crisis is a central issue facing residents and families in East Hampton, throughout the Commonwealth, and across the nation. The lack of adequate housing construction, often driven by burdensome and inconsistent regulations across the state, has created a severe housing shortage across all price ranges, leaving many in housing insecurity and
financial procarity as rents and other expenses rise much faster than household incomes. US Census ACS estimates indicate that over 40% of Eastampton renters were housing cost burdened as of 2023, spending more than a third of their income on housing. Several East Hampton tenants have
written to and spoken before the Eastampton City Council, recounting experiences with predatory rental market practices enabled by the housing shortage, including unfair rental agreements, abrupt and unreasonable rent hikes, neglect of repairs, and unfair evicting eviction tactics. The number of affected tenants has increased in recent
years, prompting the formation of the Eastampton Tenants Union. The city of East Hampton has taken a number of actions in recent years to increase housing production and protect housing affordability, including the creation of the Eastampton housing production plan, backing affordable housing developments, developing the Eastampton affordable and
fair housing partnership zoning recommendations, and the forming of the Eastampton Rent Study Committee to explore local rent control and tenant protection policy through the recent passage of the Affordable Homes Act in 2024, the release of the 2025 comprehensive statewide housing plan, a home for everyone, as well as the 2025
Unlocking Housing Production Commission. report building for tomorrow. State leaders, policy makers, and stakeholders across the housing ecosystem have also identified housing as a top priority and articulated clear strategies to increase housing production. These strategies closely align with the work already
underway in Eastampton, particularly the current efforts to reduce excessive barriers to housing production in our zoning ordinance. To sustain momentum on this work and explore additional local tools to address the housing crisis is critical to employ a whole of government approach by collaborating across city leadership, staff, relevant boards and
committees and housing advocates in the community. Whereas, the city of East Hampton has a number of appointed boards, committees, and resident advocacy groups working locally to address the housing crisis, including the Eastampton Affordable and Fair Housing Partnership, known as Housing Partnership, uh the East Hampton Planning Board, the Eastampton Rent
Study Committee, the Eastampton Housing Coalition, and the newly formed Eastampton Tenants Union, as well as hardworking city staff with within the Eastampton Planning and Health Departments. Whereas in 2025, the Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities uh released a home for everyone, the first statewide comprehensive housing needs
assessment and housing production plan outlining the critical need for 220,000 additional housing units across the Commonwealth. Whereas in 2025, the Massachusetts Unlocking Housing Production Commission, including former Eastampton Mayor uh Lash Chappelle, released a report identifying several
barriers to housing production, many of which municipalities can address locally through zoning and permitting reform. This report unequivoc unequivocally affirms the goals underlying the Eastampton housing production plan and the proposals in the housing partnership zoning recommend recommendations report. Whereas the city of East Hampton has
made progress in the construction of both affordable and market rate rental units in the community through the support of projects such as the elementary school reuse one fairy street cottage square and parson Parson's village developments as well as the early adoption of measure measures to encourage the construction of accessory
dwelling units. Whereas there are a number of efforts that the city could pursue in the near future, including but not limited to the addition uh the additional zoning reforms to increase residential density where appropriate, a rent stabilization home rule petition to protect tenants and prevent displacement, creating a community land
trust or affordable housing trust, and exploring expanding public or social housing options in the city. Whereas East Hampton is a local leader in housing policy and advocacy and has opportunities to work with state leadership and community stakeholders to meet the need for increased housing production in East Hampton. Whereas to
further address the housing crisis using the tools available to municipalities, East Hampton would benefit greatly from whole of government coordination, including collaboration between the mayor's office, city council, our legislative delegation, the planning department, health department, and re relevant advisory boards and committees.
Whereas the city of Eastampton also recognizes the vital role of community housing advocates, including the Eastampton Tenants Union, in ensuring that housing policies are informed by the lived experience of renters in the current housing market and those who may be facing housing insecurity. Therefore, be it resolved that the Eastampton City
Council calls on the mayor's office to form the Eastampton Housing Crisis Task Force task force um and requests this the mayor invite the following individuals and representatives to serve as members. the city council president, the state representative for our district or designate, a state senator
for our district or designate, the chair of the housing partnership, the chair of the rent study committee, the chair of the planning board, chair of the housing authority, a representative from the East Indies Union, the planning director and the public health director to meet at least once annually in a public meeting to discuss statewide and local
housing policy goals and priorities as well as current efforts underway in Eastampton to address the housing crisis. Therefore, be it further resolved that f that to fulfill the primary goal of creating an easy and transparent mechanism for information sharing related to the housing crisis. The Eastampton City Council calls on the
mayor's office to establish a dedicated public-f facing group email such as housing crisis at eastamptonm.gov that redirects all incoming messages to every member of the Eastampton housing crisis task force and does not allow for direct replies. Be it further resolved, the council further requests that the task
force be notified and updated through this communications channel and routine notices from the mayor's office, state legislative delegation, city council, planning board, and the planning department of any items reasonably related to housing policy, housing affordability, or increasing housing production, including communications
with federal, state, and local leaders, details on local and state administrative efforts, proposed ordinance amendments, and legislative changes, grant applications, and housing developments in the city. Be it further resolved that any deliberation on these items will be directed to the relevant public meeting held by the relevant
boards or committees within the task force utilizing joint meetings when appropriate to allow for full public transparency and community participation in solving the housing crisis. Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution will be sent to all named parties including the office of state representative Omar Gomez, state senator
John Visas, as well as the secretary um of exe of the executive office of housing livable communities Matias, the office of lieutenant governor uh Kim Driscoll and the office of Governor Mora Healey. >> So we have a motion and a second uh to
adopt the resolution uh in support of establishing the East Hampton Housing Crisis Task Force. Um any further discussion? Seeing none. >> Um Jonathan Schmidt. >> Hi. >> Conam.
>> Hi. >> Felicia Jadik. >> Hi. >> JP Kazinski. >> Hi. >> Tom Peak. >> Hi. >> Tamar Smith. >> Hi. >> Nathan Marquy. >> Hi. >> Kai and Jim McQuade. >> I.
Motion passes. Thanks guys. >> Thank you. >> Awesome. >> We went on to discuss the business of the liquor licenses and reviewed the history of the eight
licenses that were special requested through special legislation uh and tied them to not being implemented fully across the city because of COVID coming in in the middle of us getting the licenses. So it has
been recommended by the mayor and the committee had voted 3 to zero to go ahead and make the additional request to the uh legislature but this process uh required further discussion
uh and we were concerned about having a hearing or not having a hearing. the C representative councelor Gomez representative former president Gomez suggested that this wasn't required but it turns out that is required so we
would think at this time to give you information >> y so just real quick so we got some information from our clerk's office today regarding >> Oh yes okay um yeah so if we look back
at what was done in 2015 and also what was done uh in 2019. Um they did send the uh this matter to rules in one instance and I think ordinance maybe in another.
Um but in both of those instances um it was listed as not applicable or uh no date listed for um a public hearing. So that is to say that it was not done in
the past. Obviously it's your um discretion what you choose to do. But in neither of those instances previously when we um were asking the legislature for these overcoded licenses was there a public hearing um held. There was public
notice of course but no public hearing. >> Chair Guisinski, what would you like to do? >> I would like I think it's important that every we we hold a public hearing on the matter >> as part of the process. And what would be the earliest we could do so?
>> At the next city council meeting. >> That wouldn't give us time to do all the publications for a public hearing. >> Barely barely. >> I believe that yes, that we could get an ad into the gazette um and enough time
to allow for that to be um yeah, within the regulations for for notice. Um, >> yeah, >> it has to be submitted tomorrow, so it can be in the paper for >> for the >> Saturday the and because we're meeting on the
second >> second >> uh Wednesday, >> Wednesday, that gives an additional time to be able to get >> I would then schedule like to schedule a public hearing for uh April 8th at 6:15
p.m. on these chambers for this matter. And that's a in the form of a motion. >> That's in the form of a motion. >> Second. >> Right. So, we have a motion and a second to hold a public hearing on
uh March 8th at 6:15 in these April I'm looking at the word April today. >> April 8th. >> April 8th uh at 6:15 in these chambers. Um uh yeah to address the eight additional
liquor licenses. Any further discussion? Seeing none. >> Maddie. >> Uh Connie Denim. >> I. >> Felicia Jadzik. >> I. >> Jonathan Schmidt. >> Hi. >> JP Quisenski.
>> Tom Peak. >> Abstain. >> Tammer Smith. Hi >> Nathan Marquee. >> Hi. >> And Kai Jim Rob McQuade. >> Hi. >> Great. So motion passes.
We did have a matter of old business that was the water ape water operator retirement reclassification resolution which was a uh endorsement of a bill before the legislature to lower the
age of retirement from 65 to 60 for those individuals who work in the business of water departments. And this would be for the purposes of a variety of reasons of a more danger dangerous
position being out in the roadways all the time in the hole. Cars are going by fumes your kind of chemicals that you're exposed to. I would turn this over to those who have brought the matter before council. I don't know if councelor Denim
I believe you were on it and councelor Janzik. >> I I can take over. Thank you councelor Kisinski. So, um, as was stated, this, um, is a matter of old business. So, this, uh, resolution was proposed in July of last year by myself, councilors
Denim, and Councelor Smith, um, to support, uh, two bills that were making their way through the House and Senate. Um, since then, the bills have been bundled up into one, which is Senate Bill 2786. Um, and as councelor Krinski noted, this is essentially to allow
eligible water operators to qualify for the maximum retirement benefits at age 60, placing them into group two versus age 65, which is group one and what they're currently in. So, this is essentially just supporting those that Senate bill. Um, and so
we did have a vote of two uh in favor of moving this forward to the council with a recommendation for approving the resolution. and I had ab had abstained and I would like to explain that abstension if I may. >> Councelor Krinski.
>> Uh I think I I agree that it's a dangerous position. I also agree that uh there should be consideration for that. However, I felt that we weren't in a position to make the final determination about the actuarial impact of this
matter on the on the Commonwealth. How many people would do this be this affect retirement wise? What would the cost be to the retire various retirement systems throughout the entire commonwealth? Those matters really are beyond our
purview in my opinion. So although I would endorse for purposes of emotionally connecting with people who have done the work in these positions uh I don't feel able to be able to judge
that matter for uh the actual aerial implications that and the fact that this bill or this resolution does not speak to the sewage treatment workers and I felt that they also
would be in the same kind of position and we should speak to that matter at the same time if we were going to bring this forward with an approval. So that was my reasons to abstain in this matter but it did pass two to two to one abstension.
>> Great. Thank you councelor Kazinski. Any other questions, comments? Councelor Peak. >> Yeah, I really appreciate your logic there, Councelor Kisinski. And I guess the only thing that I would just say is that if there is in fact some extremely
dire, you know, actuarial consequence of this, I would assume that the legislature, who never, I'd think, particularly cared what we to say in the first place anyway, would um would take that into account and and act accordingly. But I think it's fine for
us to I I I would feel comfortable showing support for for these workers with the understanding that many things that we have said we support to the legislature. the legislature has seen otherwise for one reason or another
and uh you know that just is many things that people have spoken to us about we've said well that's a nice sentiment but here's where the reality so you know I think that that's >> but I appreciate the the thought that went into your your process there
>> yeah and just to point out this is non-binding in any way so if there if this was to pass at the state level uh then it would or the that it would come back to the city council to have to take a vote anyway to adopt that. So, um I
think that this is acknowledging our water operator um employees uh as well as initially when this was done in exploring it, water operators was thought to include also our um water
treatment plants um operators. So that is an oversight that that does need to be remedied and and they should be um acknowledged as well. These jobs are incredibly dangerous and they are exposed to really harmful chemicals. Um
which impacts their um longevity, their length of life. Um and I think that this is done in a spirit that when people dedicate their lives um for so long to the municipality, right, we should offer them um opportunity to
enjoy their retirement, right? So and and as many years as they can they can um have um through that. So that was the spirit in which this was really brought forward. up. Um, Vice President Jadik, do you have do you want
to read this? Do you want to >> Yes, I'll go ahead and and read the resolution. So, it's titled East Hampton City Council resolution in support of retirement reclassification for drinking water operators. The East Hampton City Council recognizes the critical role that drinking water operators play in
safeguarding East Hampton's public health by ensuring the delivery of safe and reliable drinking water and the proper management of wastewater. Their attentiveness to their work prevents waterborne diseases, minimizes exposure to harmful contaminants, and maintains the integrity of the city's in critical
infrastructure. Without proper operation and maintenance, our water system could become a breeding ground for pathogens and sources of various health risks. As a community, we recognize the sacrifices our water operators have made to their physical health and well-being. Whereas during the CO9 pandemic, the
Department of Homeland Security, Cyber Security, and Infrastructure Security Agency classified water operators as essential critical infrastructure workers. And whereas like police officers and firefighters, water operators play a crucial role in public safety and infrastructure resilience,
ensuring communities like East Hampton have access to water for drinking, hygiene, and sanitation. And whereas lensure requires extensive training education passing up to four levels of exams in treatment and/or distribution, minimum years of on the job training
experience for full lensure and ongoing continuing education. And whereas certified operators do not have the ability to easily move out of hazardous working conditions to desk jobs, particularly in their later years of employment, which increases the risk of on the job injury and workers
compensation costs for municipalities. And whereas this council recognizes the service and dedication that water operators have willingly provided to residents of East Hampton as per mass D regulations, primary and secondary operators must be available to respond in person to water emergencies within 1
hour at all times when not present in the distribution system or treatment facility. There is added stress to this 247 365 responsibility. And whereas due the to the high-risisk and physically demanding nature of water operations, workplace injuries are a serious
concern, historic OSHA data indicates that excavation work core to water operations has a fatality rate 112% higher than general construction. As operators age, the likelihood of injury and inability to perform physically strenuous tasks increases significantly
after age 60. Whereas licensed water operators represent a small percentage of the state workforce. This legislation would impact only those licensed operators working for systems affiliated with state and county retirement boards, not private sector employees. And
therefore, be it resolved that the East Hampton City Council supports passage of House Bill 3000, Senate Bill 1834, sponsored by Representative Stephen Sher House, and Senator Peter Durant, will allow eligible water operators to
qualify for maximum retirement benefits at age 60, group two, rather than age 65, group one. And therefore, be it further resolved, the East Hampton City Council clerk will send a copy of this resolution to state representative Omar Gomez and State Senator John Vis.
>> Second. >> So, we have a motion, a second to um adopt the resolution in support of water operator retirement reclassification. Um any further questions say none. Um >> sorry, can I make you just one?
>> Yes, councelor Peak. I've said this a bunch of times here, but I say it every time it comes up. I once hung out with a wastewater engineer, and she told me that that there's like a good deal of evidence that wastewater engineers in the last century have saved more human lives than doctors.
>> Mhm. >> Which I it's just a statistic that every time it comes up, I feel like I need to share because that's crazy, but it's probably true. Um, so yeah, there it is. Thanks. >> Thank you, Maddie. water.
>> Um, Cam Jamar McQuade. >> Hi, >> Nathan Marque. >> Hi, >> Tamar Smith. >> I >> Tom Peak. >> I >> JP Kazuinski. >> Abstain.
>> Felicia Jadzer. >> I >> Connie Denim. >> I Schmidt. Hi, >> council. >> We did have the matter of the ad hoc com committee uh the council president's appointment process and there was a
request submitted by councelor Denim to clarify the appointment process. Uh it would change and clarify hopefully a rule 11A and adds one line to that rule that would be read as follows. the president of the
council with the approval of the council may designate uh uh ad hoc committees as is deemed necessary. The additional line that we're talking about here is all appointments made by the president should be approved
by the council through the appointment process. This matter was voted three to zero in favor of adopting this new addition to the rule. Any questions? No. Great. Um,
I will take a motion. >> I move to uh change the language uh to rule 11A by uh adding the following line. All appointments made by the president should be approved by the council through the appointments process. >> Second. So, we have a motion and a
second to amend rule 11A uh to include the language that uh was just discussed. Um any further discussion? Great. Uh you know, I brought this
forward uh specifically um to ensure that there's transparency in the work of city council president. Um I believe that uh it's transpar transparency is paramount in our work with the public um etc. So I wanted to
make sure that um for any future um appointments that are made by the the city council president for ad hoc committee members that the rest of the council has a right and to chime in on those appointments. So
um any other comments? Seeing none, I'm >> okay. Uh JP Quisenski, >> I >> Felicia Jadzik, >> hi >> Connie Denham. >> Hi >> Jonathan Schmidt. >> Hi >> Tom Peak. >> Hi
>> Tamara Smith. >> Hi >> Nathan Marquee. >> Hi. >> And Kai Jim Rob McQuade. >> Hi. >> Great. Motion passes. Excellent. Yes, it's uh the other item that we discussed at the March 11th meeting was the code
of conduct. We had further discussion on that. Uh essentially the subject matter had to do with councelor Riley's proposal to have a conduct code of conduct policy throughout the city. We did reach out to the department heads
and we had received some responses and uh we are anticipating some additional ones. So that is further under further discussion. Uh councelor Janzi had surerveyed uh I believe three communities in the area regarding the matter and there didn't appear to be
anything significant that these communities had for codes of conduct that we could rely on at this point but we will be discussing that matter again in the future. Uh we will have we did at the time schedule a meeting
for April 2nd I believe it was at 6 pm to continue our rules discussions and that concludes the business as far as the meeting is concerned. I will address another subject when it comes to new business.
>> Okay, great. Thank you. Uh, old business. We have the resolution in support of establishing Eastan Housing Crisis Task Force, which we addressed. Um, and I will turn it over to Vice President Jadzik for new business. Uh,
thank you, President Denim. Our first item is a request for the immediate adoption of MGL 32B section 21-23 regarding a health insurance plan modification. Um, I would like to set a public hearing
for this item for March 25th. >> I have a motion. >> Second. >> Second. >> I have a motion and a second to set a public hearing for uh March 25th in these chambers at 6:00 p.m.
>> At 6 p.m. >> Any further discussion? >> 6:15. It's 6 pm because it's a a special meeting. >> Okay. >> So, we're announcing a special meeting tonight. >> We probably should do that. >> Yep.
>> Just to be sure that everyone knows. >> Yep. >> So, that that public hearing will happen at a special meeting on March 25th at 6 PM um in these chambers uh to discuss the
uh MGL chapter 32B sections 21 through 23 regarding health insurance plan modification. Okay. >> So, >> so we have a motion and a second to
establish a public hearing. Any further discussion? Seeing none. >> Maddie. >> Okay. Uh Cam Jam Rang. >> Hi >> Nathan Marque. Hi >> Tamara Smith.
>> Hi >> Tom Peak. >> Hi >> JP Quisenski. >> Hi >> Felicia Jadzik. >> I >> Connie Denham. >> I >> Jonathan Schmidt. >> Hi. >> Right. Um what's next? >> All right. So, with that public hearing
set, I'd like to also move this request to rules for discussion before March 25th at a meeting which will be held on March 24th at 6 p.m. >> Second.
So, we have a motion and a second to uh move the item to request an immediate adoption of MGL chapter 32B sections 21 through 23 to uh rules. Any further discussion?
Say none. Maddie. >> Yes. Uh Jonathan Schmidt. Hi. >> Connie Denim. Hi. >> Fish Jadzik. Hi. >> JP Kazinski. Hi. >> Tom Peak. Hi. >> Tamara Smith. Hi, >> Nathan Marque. >> Hi, >> Kim. Jim Ramquy,
>> I motion passes. >> Our second item in um new business is to add a new pay plan position of the recreation coordinator. Uh and I'd like to make a motion to move this item to the ordinance committee. >> Second.
>> So, we have a motion and a second to um send the new pay plan position of recreation coordinator to the ordinance committee. Uh, any further discussion? Seeing none, Maddie. >> Jonathan Schmidt. >> Hi. >> Connie Denim. >> Hi.
>> Felicia Jadzik. >> Hi. >> JP Kazinski. >> Hi. >> Tom P. >> Hi. >> Tammer Smith. >> Hi. >> Nathan Marque. >> Hi. >> Kim Jam Rangquay. >> Hi. >> Great. Um, next I we have a item for
approval of proposed city council budget for the fiscal year 2027. And I'd like to make a motion to move this item to the finance committee. >> Second. >> Have a motion and a second to send the proposed city council budget for fiscal
year 2027 to finance. Any further discussion? I'm seeing none. Maddie. Okay. Tom Peak. >> Hi. >> Tamara Smith. >> Hi. >> Nathan Marque. >> Hi.
>> K. Jamro Mcuade. >> Hi. JP Quisenski, >> Felicia Jadzik, >> I >> Connie Denim, >> hi. >> And Jonathan Schmidt. >> Hi. >> Um, next we have a city council action request for a general ordinance
amendment proposing a wetlands protection ordinance. And I'd like to make a motion to move this to the ordinance committee. >> Second. >> So, we have a motion and a second to send the general ordinance amendment proposing a wetlands protection ordinance to the ordinance committee.
Um, any further discussion? Seeing none, Maddie. >> Okay. Uh, Cam Jamro McQuade. >> Hi, >> Nathan Marque. >> Hi, >> Tamara Smith. >> Hi, >> Tom Peak. >> Hi, >> JP. >> Hi, >> Felicia Jodig.
>> Hi, >> Connie. Denim. >> Hi. >> And Jonathan Schmidt. >> Hi. >> All right, last but not least, we're almost there. Um, city council action request for a general ordinance amendment regarding the bees committee membership structure including a change from 7 to 11 members or regarding
ordinance section 2-76.1 and I'd like to refer make a motion to refer this to the ordinance committee. >> Second. So, we have a motion and a second to for the general ordinance amendment regarding B's committee membership structure including change from 7 to 11 members ordinance section
2-76.1 to the ordinance committee. Any further discussion? Seeing none, Maddie for discussion. Do I have discussion? >> I'm sorry. I saw no discussion. So, >> I know I'm just
>> If you want to talk, >> I'm being a jerk now. All right. Uh, Jonathan Schmid, >> hi. >> Felicia Jadik, >> hi >> JP Quisinski. Tom Peak, >> hi >> Tamara Smith, >> I >> Connie Denham,
>> I >> Nathan Marquee, >> I >> Jimro Mcuade, >> hi. >> Motion passes. Great. Thank you. Uh this is a reminder again that our next meeting will be held on April oh our next city council meeting will be held
on April 8th but we will be having a special city council uh meeting on uh March 25th in these chambers at 6 p.m. to address MJL chapter 32B sections 21 through 23 regarding health insurance
plan modification. Um that being said I will take a motion to adjurnn. Madam President, >> I just may take quick >> Yes. >> acknowledgement to councelor Smith. Thank you for staying with us throughout the entire process and not bringing your germs to the council. Hope you get
better. Hope you get better soon. >> Thank you. I don't wish this RSB on anyone. >> Oh, thank you, Councelor Smith. So, we have a motion to >> Are we going to have a public comment at all? Because we cut the public comment short. Sorry. You reop >> uh I reopened it but no one did
anything. >> Oh, I didn't hear that. >> But you know what? So, we've already suspended the rules. If you'd like to >> Sorry to hold everyone up. >> Sorry, but we've already suspended the rules and we So, you have three minutes.
>> I had a 30 minute presentation with visual aid. Carl Prawl, 22 Gaston. I've talked to some people quickly and I'll make this really brief, but I really wanted to highlight uh pedestrian safety in town. I've talked to Chief Alexander.
I've talked to Mayor Derby. And as eloquently as I can make this, at 9:40 at night, we want people in East Hampton to walk. When you walk, you're healthier. Our merchants want people walking past their doors because they might stop in and buy
something. Walking is pretty cheap, too. It's not as expensive as owning a car, but we need to make sure that people feel safe when they're walking and that walking is convenient. And while I can certainly nitpick and point out individual things that are wrong, this
much like our housing crisis really feels like it needs a holistic approach. Um, so I don't want to, you know, making my recommendations on where we should have a grass strip or where we should have parking, etc. But more I would really want to impress and ask that all
of the city council get out and walk in their precincts and see where it feels good to walk and where it's like, hey, this kind of sucks. There's no protection from traffic. There's no protection from the elements. It might
also really highlight, we're kind of past it now, but where snow removal is an issue or where trash cans on sidewalks would limit somebody who was mobility impaired getting past. If it's not wide enough for a wheelchair, this
is not an accessible part of town. And if you're not accessible to walkers, what are we doing? So, I just really wanted to raise more awareness. I will get this a little earlier next time, maybe at 610 or so, and let you know.
But I I feel this is something that's really going to benefit a lot of people moving forward, especially as driving gets more expensive, as gas gets more expensive, as car insurance continues to go up. If people have the option and we have a community that really embraces
pedestrians, bikers, etc., it's going to be a more affordable, more sustainable community across the board. Thank you very much. Great. Thank you, Carl. I have a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> I have a motion and a second to adjurnn.
>> Um, Maddie. >> Yes. Um, okay. Uh, Jonathan Schmidt. >> Hi. >> Connie Denner. >> Hi. >> Felicia Judy. Hi. >> JP Kazinski. Hi. Tom P. >> Hi. >> Cameron Smith. >> Hi. >> Nathan Marque. >> Hi. >> I am Jamro McQuade.
>> Hi. >> Dear God. >> Motion passes. This government meeting is brought to you by Eastworks and our local cable subscribers.