Good evening and welcome to the first meeting of fiscal year 2027 for the Milton Planning Board. Um, at this time I would like to now call the meeting to order uh and begin by introducing the members of the board and our staff. Um,
>> Cheryl Tagayas, secretary. >> Sean Batty, member. >> Magu Field member. >> Hel Mer member >> and Meredith Hall serving as chair. Um, with us this evening we have our staff Vonte >> Avante Grady assistant planning director. >> Liz Liz Manning planning director.
Great. Thank you. Um, and for administrative items, uh, we don't currently have new minutes, um, to approve. So, we can move to future meeting dates, which will be on July 23rd and August 6th will be the next
regular scheduled meetings. We will have um, staff update. >> Yeah. Um, just briefly about the minutes. I do have some minutes for you to sign, Cheryl. Um, so those can be posted on the website. I have 10
actually, some for May, March, November, and October. >> Great. >> We have some in the folder, too. Just um so we don't make it look as if Avanti is not keeping up with >> Yeah, >> we have some that were put in the folder
this week. So hopefully I can review those next week and get out to you. And by the way, that looks like we're right up to speed, right? This 423 514 611 625 >> right? >> Yes. >> Thank you.
>> Of course. Um yeah, next I'll provide an update about the open space plan. So couple of focus groups did take place this month. one on the first um with the Council on Aging and then there was one a couple days ago with West Mil
residents um yeah at town hall and so I attended the second one and yeah I thought it was a great meeting um residents were passionate had a lot of great ideas and just kind of shared their kind needs and recommendations just
terms of that part of town you think kind of echo kind of some of the things that you shared, Cheryl, just how um they kind of feel like there's been a little bit uh less attention in that area and just kind of the need for various amenities like in that area of
town. So, it's just nice to hear what the specific ideas are. So, >> I know Craig's going to put a summary of those two focus groups together and so I'll make sure to share that with the board. Um and then >> so on that just um because in the folder
there's a letter um to the planning board and planning department from the West Milton Neighborhood Association and they do identify um one of the things that we've talked about before. So I just want to uh well a couple of things we've talked about before. So not just
the kind of the open space nature but the uh abandoned building behind the food mark you know um Brook Road. that has an overlay, but that overlay contemplated some site assemblage. Um, so that parcel that's vacant can't
utilize that zone. It can utilize the MBTA blue subdisting, >> but I know Liz, I'd like to keep this on the our agenda, our radar because enough residents have talked about it and Al and I both when we were out talking to
voters, you know, in the spring, it was something in that part that was >> um pretty consistently brought up and so I know you had said that there was some outreach with the owner or that you could do some and I just want to make sure that we continue to follow up on that. I don't know if you have any updates. >> Um
>> I don't I don't have Yeah, I don't have any updates on that on that particular site. Although I did I did get an inquiry from the Florida Health because I know there have been concerns about um the you know the status of the building itself or the safety and the concerns with the with you know and what have
you. So um so I am I am in communication with them. Um, I'm happy to to reach out to the owner again if to see I know when we had a conversation with them a couple of months ago, they came in to talk about what their options could be with the MBTA zoning. Um, you know, it was
sort of like, well, maybe you could bring it back with, you know, a different, you know, sort of concept that gets you closer to what's to what's in under the zoning. >> Um, and so, um, what I would say to that
also is maybe ing a concept to us and if it doesn't meet the zone and see what we think of it >> because if that's what it takes to kind of get it to a redevelopment >> then we should have a neighborhood meeting about it and see what residents think
>> you know rather than just say revise it and it might be that >> it doesn't pencil out and so it just continues to sit there which is why >> what I suspect has happened and why it sat there for so many years it is Um,
>> it's deep. It's narrow, but it's it's fairly deep. >> More than one parcel, too. >> Just while you look up, from a safety perspective, though, um, can't the board of health just condemn it and then have
it come down so at least it's not an eyesore? So, it's just a clean slate. >> There's a I mean, there's a there's a threshold you have to reach to be able to property. I mean, it's it's a it's a
pretty strong move for property because what it means, whatever the property own try as as hard as possible to work to work with the owner, to sort of just continue to try to come to some, you know, maybe can it be prepared? Can it
be, you know, sort of short? I don't know. But I I I think that's the I think that's probably what's been going on is trying trying to help the owners, you know, with their property interests. >> But it might be reaching a point where,
you know, it's just it's just gone gone to too far, you know, with with it being too too dangerous. I mean, that that happens, too. Stop there for the Let's talk there for >> So the parcel is 16,655 square ft
38 acres. >> So um you know it several multifamilies on Blue Hills Parkway and the church that's >> yeah the park for the church.
>> Yeah. And then there's one single family on Laurel Road. So that's the one at the time the zoning overlay was done was also in really bad shape. >> And it was contemplated that that would be combined and that would give this other parcel um front more frontage.
>> Um and >> since that's sold separately um you know it's not possible and that zoning was kind drafted with that kind of parcel in mind. So it doesn't really work.
>> Um, so I'd rather see us work with the owner on something that we think makes sense and the neighborhood think makes sense. >> Um, so if you could convey that message, Liz. >> Yeah.
>> Others agree. Well, I guess first I'm asking Liz to do that, but others >> No. Yeah, I totally agree. That's just been, you know, sort of light on the town. How long has it been in that state? >> Oh gosh. 10 years. >> 10 years.
Maybe >> more >> when they closed down Knights of Columbus. >> And they I don't know why they started demolition and then without a project approval in hand. I'm not sure what happened there.
>> So they they did some demolition. >> Well, that building is the way you see it. It was occupied. Uh we had used to have in sync dance studio in there. >> I remember when they when they moved to Quincy was the time that the building was went vacant. >> Um but
>> I have my daughter going to dance studio there. There was definitely mold in that building. So it wasn't in >> great shape then but it was was it the next they sold it. >> So >> yeah. So I think that's good to have a
followup. So, Avanti, why don't you finish with your um >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Um I was just going to transition to just a brief update about the um Adam Street improvement project, Mass Works Grant. Um yeah, I just wanted to
mention just because I know Kyle reached out to me about the um schedule for the project. So, I just wanted to share there is kind of like a high level schedule that's available. Um I'll make sure to share that with the board, too. But um based off of this schedule looks
like in September there will be a listening session and then December public meeting and then like June of next year the second public meeting. So kind of where that's at right now. So >> So Avante, one thing on that I appreciate all the the back and forth
that you've been putting up with and and relaying the information. I appreciate that. Um, so I've been speaking with the East Milton Neighborhood Associ association and they one comment they had was uh with the timing that you shared. Um, their question was will the turning movement counts be done um when
when will that be done? And their concern is if it's done over the summer there'll be less um impact shown than it would be if it was in the fall. I understand that these things have timelines and uh schedules to keep. Um, but just to point that out that uh,
right, obviously the traffic will be less in the summer than it' be in the fall. So if if there's a way that it could be tailored or or followed up with to kind of uh, balance those two, it'd be it'd be appreciated for the neighborhood. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, I can look into that. Okay. Um,
yeah, I just had this scheduled because there was like a resident on Mechanic Street who had reached out and they're like, "Oh, like how can I be involved like you know, when is engagement gonna happen? I was just like, well, that's a great question. And so, >> yeah, I got the schedule from from
engineering and so followed up. I was like, oh, well, let's look into your question now. >> Okay. >> And they're out there surveying, right? Did I see that? I was I was >> Yeah, that's what some neighbors said that they saw people out there surveying.
>> Yeah. So, I'm sure that that'll get people that'll get people checking in. >> Yeah. you know, wanting to wanting to make sure they keep tabs. So, >> y >> So, that's great. We'll stay on top. >> All right. >> All right. And then I just had a couple
of quick things. I was gone most of the last two weeks. The um the housing production plan advisory committee is um is meeting next week, next Wednesday. We'll be discussing the um the schedule moving forward for the public meetings
and and um having a phone call tomorrow with Karen Sunboard consultant about agenda for that to see if she's got some other things that she wants to try to cover. Uh get that agenda posted tomorrow and out to the committee members. I had a quick check in with uh
Nick Milano today about the economic development plan. I'm going to be perfectly honest. I need to go back and relisten to or or review the minutes from the joint meeting to make sure that I've kind of got the the full scope of the conversation and sort of what what
the expectations are moving forward. Um my quick recollection is that we are, you know, looking back to MAPC to to give us some more current pricing and to and to try to um address some of those additional scope items. That's sort of
my my quick recollection, but I need to go back and look at those minutes again, but the two of us are going to meet most likely either tomorrow or next week and get that get that ball rolling for that project. Um, so that was all I had for those two things.
Thank you. Um, okay. Then we can um now move to uh public comment. Um, we don't have anyone here in person. Um, so if there's anyone on Zoom who has any um, public comment that they would like to
make, they can raise their hand on Zoom and we will let you in. >> I'm not seeing anyone. >> Okay. All right. And let's move on to the discussion of our short-term rental
um, the draft bylaw. And um Liz um the goal tonight um going to this was sort of to clean up some of the things you know that we the unanswered questions that we were needing to finalize and discuss. Um Carolyn is not
with us. She couldn't make this evening which is fine. Um Liz actually had some discussion with staff and maybe Liz if you want to just sort of tee that up. >> Sure. >> Um and
Yes, absolutely. Um, so, so you you folks saw a a third version of the bylaw in your in your packets, I think yesterday in the folder yesterday. Um, that was the result of actually it might have been this morning. I apologize. It
was this morning. I had some ideas up there yesterday. >> Um, and um, that was the result of a conversation that I had with um, Avanti and I had with um, the assistant town administrator and Carol on Tuesday to look at these different um you know to review the edits and what have you in
preparation of tonight. So the changes from the version that you received last week and and the one that came in just you know in the last 24 hours um pretty minor. I had wanted her to um add back anything that was struck out just for
consistency purposes because some of the language was clearly struck as a as a strike through some of the definitions and what have you. Um that we decided at the at the last meeting that we didn't want to keep. But then there were other sections that were also struck but were
just sort of struck not they were just sort of removed from the document. So I just so so it was really a little nitpicky in that sense, but I just wanted to be I just wanted it to be really clean like this is where we started and this is this is the discussion and this is sort of exactly what was struck. So there were probably
like a half a dozen items that were that were struck. Um so that's clear in this in this draft dated um 7826. You're going to see all those strikeouts. Um and so we had a bit of a conversation about um the um you know sort of like
how this how this is going to relate to the you know sort of if there's any conflicts potential conflicts with the zoning bylaw. So, she added some of that language in here around um you know um being very clear about um under section
three that you know not withstanding any contrary provision to the tone town zoning bylaws. So, so we had some conversations around that. That's this is sort of you know kind of leading up to to the larger issue which is I had a
um a good really good meeting. We had a really good meeting today with um the uh the board of health director Caroline Canella. Um and I feel like the and I have not been able to um get the consultation I need with with
the building department. I think it's just a combination of of resources and timing and what have you. My sense from my conversations today with Caroline is that this needs a longer runaway than Falltown meeting. Um she's she is
seeking a more intensive consultation. The building department consultation is yet to happen. I think we have kind of the beginnings of of a working group that could that and one of the things I heard at the last meeting was the potential need for
some type of like a public some type of like more public process where we're getting feedback from the public a wider wider feedback from the public. Um so those were some of the things that you know sort of and some of the things some
of the items that um Caroline had Carol and Murray has had shared out of the Tuesday meeting was um you know the experience experiences in other communities and she shared the you know the town of Brewster had you know had put this working group together um and
you know did a pretty comprehensive um dive like into you know what's actually happening with these in in in the town. Now clearly booster is a is a very different community has a much much much larger pool of these. I think it was
something around thousand or something was the number that I that I saw in this in that report. I just quickly skimmed it today. Um 20page report from networking group. Um so you know some of the things that Brewster
wanted it to happen in advance were um you know the regulations are drafted. You've got your application in place for your permitting software. Um the um you know your fee schedule has has been
really kind of has has really been kind of contemplated right in terms of keeping consistency or what have you. I I think I think the feedback that I'm the feed what I'm sensing is that the implementation of this is going to be is
going to be a heavy lift. Um and and having it having having more of these questions answered before it goes to town meeting I think is I think will be really important. So that's so that's that I mean I and but I also think it
would be super helpful to to have the conversations about all the things that that Caroline had flagged and the things that are still outstanding for the planning board. I mean certainly those are things that that should be discussed as well. But but that's the feedback that's where the sort of staff level feedback is right now.
>> So I think Caroline um is very much in favor of having some sort of zoning around this or regulations around this. And the question is, and it's really I think for town staff to try to I think they I think we've teed this up to sort
of hand it over and say, okay, how is this in reality going to work? Um, and and Caroline definitely thinks, you know, it goes back to the argument, should we just ban them and just say no? And I think we all agree that they're
going to happen anyway. So at least we need to regulate the ones that that exist and sort of control um what what's happening in those on those those properties. So she Caroline is very much in favor of this, but it was just how um
how it was actually. >> So she's looking I mean specifically her her quote was she's looking for a a much more intensive consultation. >> What does What are some of the concerns that she has? Because we we looked at bylaws from probably a dozen
communities. We we looked at um a cross-section of them. >> I honestly don't want to speak for her. >> You know, I I I and I'm and I'm just I'm just being perfectly honest because because part part of it as well is there's a lot of conversation in here
about sort of like the interplay between the different codes, right? this the building code, the state sanitary code, the zoning bylaw. Um I I need more consultation on that. I mean, if I have to if I've got a fall in the sword, I'll say I need more consultation on that,
right? Um and so and so having the experts, right, the the folks that are, you know, working every day in terms of, you know, you know, investigating, you know, illegal rentals and and you know, having to go out and sort of, you know,
respond to to the I'm not I'm not saying that these are all, you know, unfortunately there'll be a small percentage of of these that will not be following the rules and won't be sort of, you know, what we what we what we're looking for, But but they're responding to, you know, to the the inspections and
sort of the complaints and the and the different issues and and I feel like having them at the table and really really understanding kind of like what the what this is going to look like for them. I I don't have I don't I don't have enough information to be able to I
couldn't even answer your question intelligently like what exactly are the issues because I don't want to start pulling state sanitary code and occupancy limits and etc. when I don't really know as well. >> These are not um challenges that other
communities haven't looked into, >> right? >> Um so it's not like this is coming from ours in terms of kind of a bylaw. >> Yeah. Um, >> and I was thinking, you know, Caroline could talk to, you know, the towns that we pretty much drew from were Lexington
and Newton and speaking with their health department, >> but we know that from Hal's research, not all towns impose enforcement on the health department or they don't require the health department to do enforcement. So, >> right. And that's part and that's part
of the conversation because >> unfortunately today and again, you know, timing is not awesome. There's been, you know, it's the end of the fiscal year. There was some vacations and what have you. This was the first day that I was able to be in the building at the same time with with Caroline. Um, and that's
because I was off for 10 days. Um, was unable to get Michael in the room at the same time, which would have been ideal. Um, and so it it just >> So I had a question. Yeah. Town meeting is when?
>> So town meeting is I don't know that they've set the date yet. Um, I'm hearing that there could be um, you know, warrants potential of articles could potentially be coming in as as late as like the third or fourth week of
this month. Don't hold me to that. I don't know that that's 100%. They haven't set the date. >> Yeah. So, if they haven't set the date and let's say it's October and November, >> sorry, I've worked on zoning articles for a number of years now. It's not
wouldn't be unheard of for an article to get pulled back or, you know, just requested to be sent back for further study if it wasn't ready. There's a chance there's a chance that this could be regulation only would not require
town meeting, right? Because if the desire is to get these things regulated, right, and and to have a system that and to have a process and to have a system that's going to that's going to work well, it's going to serve the owners, the neighbors, right? That that was that
was part of the conversation with Carolyn on Tuesday as well. That was that was brand new information to me. I said, "Is that would that have enough teeth?" Right? And actually, it's funny because in the conversation with Caroline today, she was talking about how she had just been advised by town council that they could adopt different
fee schedules, right, for different items as as a regulation and not necessarily have to bring it to town meeting, right, for c for c for certain for certain things, right? So, so anyway, it just it came up as part of but these are sort of like intertwined,
right? like like these different boards and these different departments are all kind of like that it's it's it's intertwined and and it's and it's not just the bylaw language it's the it's the it's it's it's the lift behind it.
So I just so I just want to finish my thought. The >> the reason we're moving forward with the bylaw is that this is an unregulated use that's happening right now and it'll continue to happen while people decide
whether it should be this kind of bylaw or that kind of bylaw. If it's the implementation and the which has to do with an application and an inspector that's not that complicated. It's an application and it's an inspection. I understand it's adding a
burden and maybe the health department doesn't have capacity to take the burden. So maybe it's the building department if they're adding inspections and adding plan reviewers. >> But we started this as a bylaw. >> We're not asking for it to be a regulation from the health department.
We want we want and we told the select board that we're working on this. They seem supportive of it. So, I I don't feel like we're in a position to pull it. I'd like to continue to move it forward and maybe in a further meeting if especially if we're not having to
submit articles for another two or three or four weeks. >> Um, I think we should continue moving it forward and I think we should review all the comments tonight and then that'll give time uh uh for perhaps other conversations that you'd like to have, Liz. And even even
at that point, if we get to a point where we think it's ready, then it should be vetted by more than just the health department. It should be vetted by the select board, should be discussed in a public meeting with like we talked about. So I don't feel like which which will be challenging to which will be
challenging to to line up in the time frame for when for when you know having a having a recommendation from the warrant committee, right? in getting getting it to that getting it to that point. >> One of the things that has come out of warrant committee meetings is good
comments. And so if we wait to submit it to to the warrant committee, those comments are going to not come for months and months because it'll be another town meeting. This is going to get pushed out a year. And I just don't think that's a service to the residents is to push it out like that.
Liz, would it be possible to ask um for what a healthy department would attend one of our meetings and and and give them a chance to talk about what their concerns are? You know, I I I
would be more in favor of creating bylaw that we have the mechanisms for enforcibility instead of creating a bylaw that isn't going to be enforcable because there are limitations and we're not aware of them and and at a minimum, you know, we'll
hear >> what their concerns are. Do you think we have a meeting on the 23rd and a meeting on the 6th? >> Y was the next two meetings. Do you think they'd be able to or be able to prepare to talk to us? I I I I sort of
posited that today at our meeting with Caroline and and and I think she felt that that there would have to be more there'd have to be more conversations before before you know coming to coming to back to the school. Um, so I think
that um possibly early August. Um, and I I I I can I can I we can have another I can have another conversation with her, but I but I but that was yeah, that was that was a thought I had. Um um and again haven't been able to have that
direct direct type of level of conversation with with building. It's really key. It's it's key. >> So So I I Sorry, you >> Oh, yeah. But you can go. >> So I appreciate the that it is a more
burden and it's it's a new thing for town staff to have to to wrap their heads around. >> Um we're all doing the same thing. I think none of us were into this. Uh so this is my newness showing, but so if we have to have a bylaw that's submitted,
>> there's a time frame between when it's submitted and when it's actually printed. And then when it's actually the town meeting, right? So in that time frame, could we not still be working to improve the exact wording with board of health, with the building department to
figure out ex exactly what they want to see out of it and what we want to see out of it so that we're not taking the foot off our foot off the pedal, right? Because I'd hate to, as Cheryl said, right, to wait all the way till next April to do this. Mhm. >> That's a whole another year of of neighbors in in East Milton complaining about the party house and having to deal
with that >> that they're going to have to be put keep putting up with that if we don't >> um stick with what we've we've already started here. >> So, I I I totally appreciate that, but I also think we need to think about the the community in terms of that. You know, people have come here, people have reached out to us. I was at a birthday
party the other day for my uh son's friend and someone came up to me asking about the short-term rental if it was going to be on the agenda tonight. So, it's it's something that's >> people are thinking about >> and I'd hate to miss this opportunity where people are thinking about it and people are are putting their their thoughts into this >> and the work that's here to to delay it.
So, >> yeah. >> So, um I'm wondering how the recent decision um by the court in the Quinsey case >> Yeah. >> um plays into this. Yeah. >> So Quinzy
um my understanding is that their um that their their bylaw is that it's um it's prohibited anything under 30 under 31 days.
And and my interpretation of the decision of the court was um it is in this instance it is not considered a pre-existing non-conforming >> even though they were renting it out
since 2016 and in Quinzy their bylaw um took effect like in 2021 I think. So, um, the judge ruled that, um, that it is not considered a pre-existing non-conforming. So, I was wondering, one
of the reasons we were punting it off to the selectmen were because of the pre-existing non-conforming issue. So, if this decision is is not a concern, >> it do we have to do that? Number one,
>> right? The zoning bylaw would take a twothirds at town meeting. >> Oh, okay. Yeah. >> General bylaw I think is 50. >> It's okay. So that's >> I think I think but I know for sure zoning is 2/3. >> Yeah. >> So I'm I'm trying to think of ways to like like I said like if there's if
there's an avenue that's totally for instance, right? And doesn't need doesn't have to go to town, right? Um and um because you know these this these can be this is this is a hard this is a very complicated topic. So, um I mean I'm not trying to circumvent town
meeting, but I'm just thinking about, you know, like needing to needing to have um if we needed to make changes or >> not understanding what's become so complicated since we've been talking about this over a few meetings. >> Probably just my first conversation with
the staff that are actually impacted >> because >> I I got to I've got to be perfectly honest with you. my very first conversation with the folks that are going to that are that are get that are tasked tasked with this. This this does not live in the planning department at
all. It actually I think it's better suited for the building department. They're the ones who are responsible to make sure that properties meet the building code and the only the time the health department gets called in is if there's some kind of like >> health related issue,
>> health related issue, whether it's some kind of infestation or whatever else. And so >> I guess I'm I'm wondering whether >> um it we we we looked at a bunch of bylaws, none of them were regulations. >> Are there any towns that have this done
by regulation? I don't know and I would like to know that. Second was what >> and second then secondly you know how many towns are just doing this with the building department and it gets kicked to the health department like any other residential unit gets kicked to the health department. So it's no additional work for the health department than it
is currently for them. Um you know most residential properties aren't inspected by the building commissioner unless a problem arises. wants to get a certificate of occupancy, then the building department usually has no reason to go inspect of a a home or
even a multif family building. That's not typically I mean maybe there's some inspection for something like the fire alarm system in a larger building, but you know, I just don't understand where applying for these and maybe we we have
an opportunity to discuss whether there's an annual inspection or not. Mhm. >> Um but I don't see where it's a lot of um effort unless there's some um additional burdens that we're trying to
place on this that we're not that we haven't discussed, you know, uh because if it's something that's working, there's no reason necessarily to have further inspections, right? Like if a home has adequate pl uh bathrooms, has adequate
bedrooms, has adequate parking spaces, there's no complaints. Is is there a reason for you know >> subsequent >> subsequent inspections? Yeah. So that's I I saw that that's something as a discussion point that >> for our draft tonight. So I'm really
hoping we're going to talk about the draft because there's a lot of things that Carolyn >> raised in it. Um and I there is um you know a resident who asked me about the purpose and adding something to the purpose about protecting the character
of residential neighborhoods. Um, and so there's things like I think that we understand what our intent is in trying to do this and we should get the best draft we have available and continue to get the input uh from staff um and we
can then decide at subsequent meetings whether um to uh deposit but like council I don't think we should take our foot off the gas and I do Yeah, I do appreciate
getting more um resident input. I'm I'm not against that because even in Quinsey, they ban short-term rentals in their residential a neighborhood. So then I went online, googled what their
residential a neighborhood was >> and their residential A neighborhood is the most restrictive residential zoning classific class classification in Quinzy >> and it designates neighborhoods strictly
for single family detached homes. So in Quinzy they're they seem to be banning these in in residential neighborhoods. >> Just res >> just Yes. >> Just res. So yeah. >> And so if you remember the um gentleman
who came um from was it Antor Street and we spoke at um >> if you remember what he said was this kind of like stuck with me. He said, "I don't think these belong in residential neighborhoods."
And I thought to myself, well, Milton is 97% residential neighborhoods. So, does he fully understand that statement? Um, and so does the average resident fully understand that statement? So when
I read that Quinzy bans them in their single family neighborhoods or >> just just one just one one one res just residency. >> Yeah. >> So and I don't know what the I'm in residency in Quincy but I don't know
what the percent of the of the total is but it's but it's Quinsey's Caroline Canelo was was referencing Quinsey's Quinsey's ordinance today. Um, and you know, Quinsey's like 50% um, you know, rents renters versus owner occupied or
some some number like that. I think actually I think it might have even flipped down to 50%. That the tenure is more rental than than owner occupied. >> Um, so um, it's just a it's a very different Yeah, >> it's a very and they took the zoning approach and they said we're going to
prohibit them just in residence A, but you can do them as long as they're registered in these other places. So that's a completely different approach than what's being contemplated here. This is this is this is across the board as long as you meet the as long as you meet the the requirements.
>> Describe residency. What's >> I think the minimum lot size is like 7500 um uh 50 foot of frontage or maybe 75tage. It's dense. It's probably probably cons not comparable to you.
Maybe a residency here then residency here minimum lot size is 7500 square feet but I don't I think it's 75 frontage >> but a lot of homes a lot of parcel rather don't don't need that >> residence a is 7650 minimum lot size 25
frontage >> 25 ft of frontage >> res in quy >> in yeah so I don't know if we should be looking at so again I don't think we should be stopping the conversation. I
think there's a lot more conversation to be had. And maybe if Quinzy is prohibiting it in certain neighborhoods, should we be looking at prohibiting it in certain neighborhoods? Um, so the
more time I look at different towns, everybody has it's so different. turned out and I only was started looking at Quinsey just the other day when I saw that article in the the ledger about um
how Quinsey um you know won in court over the resident. >> So to do it in limited areas means it's a zoning bylaw versus a general bylaw. >> Right. Well, I think um it's definitely
something I feel as if if we give the public something to talk about. You know how you just can talk in generalities, but once you have something on paper, it gives people something to read, something to contemplate. Um and you
know, other bylaw, general bylaws like the light trespass, the lighting bylaw, you know, went to town twice and got referred back. Um I um I'd like to >> and it may be that we have Caroline, you
know, we hear what she's saying and maybe don't put her, you know, we take the health department out of it >> and and possibly if because we also want to help our town staff and that we have heard from the building
inspector that it's really challenging. So, some people might not want to hear this, but do we pass a bylaw just to prohibit it for now just to give him a tool and
then until we are able to work this up? Is it better to say no now and then take the time and do >> that provide any measure of of protection for the neighbors? Is there any I think there it's kind of
like a continal illegal >> in a sense. It's a continuation of rights by the environment. >> Yeah. >> A cease and desist. You would get a cease and desist. >> What would they do to any property owner that's in violation? >> But what if they said, "Well, it's just
an unrelated um order here for allowed in." I just think it becomes even if you have a even if you have a functional bylaw, you're going to have those same situations because someone's
going to give you that what if, you know, it'll become whatifs because we say, "Oh, no. This isn't I'm in compliance." I think you're always going to have that risk. What I struggle with is we're going to spend hours, you know, continuing to ponder the
language and phrases, verbiage, and not have a good comprehensive understanding of the issues that are really that are real issues for the building department of the board of health. And we're going to drag the town through this discussion and we'll eventually sit with with them
and we'll hear what they have to say. I mean, that just doesn't make good sense to me. I'd love to know what the concerns of Caroline are and what the concerns of Michael are before we continue to to to do this. So, just >> suggesting that we don't we don't go
through the comments from today. >> We have we have Liz who came in that that effectively, you know, gave us a timeout. We we got issues within the town and concerns with, you know, the people that are responsible
for enforcing it. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> I I think we could do I I think we could go through some of this, but we really we need to hear from our staff and I I feel like we need to support the staff
and hear hear the concerns as well. Um, and I don't know how long Caroline has been really going, you know, if she's been able to, it's a lot to digest. >> She had done some she had definitely done some some homework. She was looking at she had had some conversations with
other communities and and and was looking at some different some different bylaws. She looked at Quinzies. She was talking about Quincy's in particular with her a couple of others. Um and again again this was literally the first the first the first opportunity to to to
even have this have this have this face to face and and try to try to understand the beginning of understanding sort of you know what what it what it potentially involves for them and and and I think like Meredith said I think we I think there's definitely a desire
to be to to be supportive to to work towards a solution um but just you know again look looking for looking for a deeper level of consultation at this at this point. Um, but I but I also I I I could I I could see that, you know,
having some of these policy questions discussed would be helpful as well. If that's going to that's going to move that's going to move the needle, too, because it's not >> some of it >> when stuff comes up in here that that requires further discussion that that is is on point with like what's the code,
what's the inspection requirement, what's the this, what's the that. I'm not gonna have a super intelligent answer right now for anybody, >> you know, that's kind of out of my it's out of my it's out of my um >> it's out of my wheelhouse. So So that so some of that stuff might make sense to
kind of table a little bit, but if there are other sort of policy considerations, right, that that you want to that that makes sense. I mean that will move that will move the that will move the ball, >> right? >> Yeah. My my point about the other inspectors, etc. The building code is
the building code no matter what we do with this bylaw. the health department has regulations no matter what we do with this bylaw and nothing about this bylaw will change that just like other you know zoning articles and bylaws that we worked on >> right >> so u because you know um so I think
that's kind of in general but I agree that we should have consultation obviously >> and we've we've said that prior meetings and um I just feel like we're all here we've had this on our agenda >> um we should talk about as much of this
that makes sense and get this as to a a point where there's more for town staff to react to, you know. Um, >> we all have done um, you know, a fair amount of work on this already and um, >> yeah, I think that makes sense for us to
go through, you know, sort of finalize these things that we have, but here, you know, what do we need to tweak to make it, you know, less of less concerning to staff if there is anything.
Um, >> and if the board wants to go through it, don't go through it. But I will say we could or will be just wasting time not knowing what >> well some of these are sort of low hanging fruit because I think
there's one I said resing to us before um had reached out and said under the purpose um could we add protecting the character of residential neighborhoods
um as one of the purposes. >> So that >> I'm good with that. >> That um seems >> Yeah. >> a good addition. >> Yeah. And I didn't really love the >> in conflict at all with this 64G section 14.
Right. I didn't love under purpose um C enable residents to earn extra income from their properties. I mean that's sort of implied like why is that
>> that I don't know if that's >> that was kind of one of the purposes of the adus too right >> because then I started looking at quinzies and their purpose is just says the purpose is to provide a process through which certain dwelling units
must be registered quinzy for use as a short-term rental unit consistent with the regulatory requirements prescribed in this ordinance and set up a compliant process for violations. So, I don't think we need C. I I prefer
more protecting the neighborhood. I feel like that's what all bylaws are. Um, but >> what is it? >> I I just said protect the character of residential neighborhoods, but >> I think that was similar to what may have had, but
>> I mean that could be tweaked, but it just that's the idea. >> Yeah. And I think that should be the first one. >> Okay. >> Do you just want to kind of go section by section with the changes? And then to Maggie's point, I think we could just flag C.
>> I'm indifferent. I mean, it's I think it's inferred that >> by someone having me be a short-term rental would >> make more income. Do we need to state it? >> I think the idea we hear sometimes is that and maybe it'll come out of the housing protection plan discussion is,
you know, people struggle like everyone's every tax increase, you know, to be able to say, we hear that. And so I I do feel like it's a legitimate purpose, you know, in that situation. If it were to prevent somebody to say be
foreclosed on or something like that, I mean, that's a legitimate purpose in my mind. All right, let's flag it and um decide on that. Um so we have the definitions that were removed that are marked here.
That was all for that page. And then shortterm rental with the dwelling unit or part thereof which got which I think was for clarification purposes that was added. >> Can we pull it up on the screen so we're
all looking at the same version to make sure we're all looking at the same version. >> Yeah. But I think for the who might be watching it would be beneficial to have screen but yes I just had the page. Thanks.
>> Yeah. So, she got rid of that, but in Quinzy they have it. >> So, that was discussed at at our meeting with her that that was redundant. >> Okay. Because in Quinsey, which I liked, it said short-term rentals, um the use
of a residential unit for residential occupancy by a person or persons for a period fewer than 41 consecutive calendar days for a fee. Carolyn Murray said that the state defined this itself
that could see that in conflict the state definition I don't know but seems like having the state definition is the way to go >> because ultimately that that would rule anything anyway right >> and so the state definition doesn't have anything above 31 days
>> I think it does >> doesn't >> so these are the other ones that determined to be stressed occupancy occup. Guess there's that part right there. Short-term mental part thereof.
owner Jason same same minor change or clarification purposes >> and then this is what we already discussed not withstanding any contract provision to the town bylaw so I'll put this in the category of
the conversation I had with Carolyn Murray on Tuesday about if there are contrary provisions in the town zone bylaw like what what is the what is the most efficient sort of method for dealing with that. So I this this is
sort of a this is a a blanket statement to to say that this general bylaw for these types of uses will rule, right? Um but there are going to be contrary provisions in in the zoning in
terms of you know different definitions for occupancy and and the accessory use and and you know things that have come up in other communities that are that have been a subject of the the different you know lawsuits and what have you which I'm quickly getting myself
familiar with. Um so so definitely wanting to have her her you know input on on that on that as well. Um but that's that's the that's the um that's the uh the need for that that provision.
This will this will this will if there's if there's conflict with um and then these two things were added I think the request of the board um to be very clear that ADUs can't be used for that purpose and owner adjacent
as well. >> So I have a question about um what's the difference between the terms primary and principal? So, I've seen that those are used um differently in different bylaws.
So, I um Googled them to get the you know find out the difference. And again, I don't trust Google all the time, but it said primary. The definition of primary has to do with um a mortgage and a it's a mortgage and real estate term
where principal is a tax and legal term. So, I sort of was wondering should we use principal slashpriminary because I don't know what our other um bylaws
um use what term they use. >> Yeah. Um and so we should make it so that it is because we did talk about this that it's the the primary the primary um residence
>> the primary residence of the of the >> of the applicant. Yeah. >> So you're you're saying sorry explain to me what you're trying to >> So no my it's a question. >> Oh okay. >> What what's the difference between the terms primary and principal? Gotcha.
>> And that what's used here. I'm trying to look for the terms. >> So primary it's it's referring to >> and I can't find it. >> Primary residence mean that's your I would assuming that's where you would >> live primary amount of time. The most
amount of time. >> Yeah. So that's what I thought. But when I Googled it, it said primary was the real estate and mortgage term. >> But your questions coming up. >> So are they used interchangeably in this file? >> Where are you? Yeah. So, I don't know.
That was just a um I freincible is >> owner occupied short-term rental blah blah blah. >> Uh it's on page one. It says lawful bedrooms within such dwelling unit that is the principal residence of its operator.
>> That's a good Yeah, >> to to me when I read that sentence, I think the primary. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Right. So I don't know if because then I was reading somebody else's and if primary is not used in this bylaw
elsewhere to to conflict then >> it won't it it it's it should be okay. I don't know whether or not primary gets sort of used anywhere else like in the zoning bylaw and if there's any issues with that >> but again that statement you know
notwithstanding anything to the contrary should should sort of cover it >> it's not it's not perfect both are used by the way >> I can kind of think of a principal residence is your tax like if you have a residence in New Hampshire and one in Florida and one in Milton your you're
one of them is your primary or principal I don't know which one Right. For tax purposes and residency purposes, the other two are not. >> Yes. >> So, that might be what >> this is referring to. It's like it's not just your one of those other homes for
you, but it's it's your primary. >> Yeah. >> I think we should ask Caroline on that. >> Yeah. So, I just wasn't sure which term is correct. >> I think something to look at >> and which is consistent. >> Yeah. >> That we use as a town, >> right? and and and if they're being used
interchangeably, that's probably not not great. >> Um, okay. Scrolling down. >> So, I'm going to add I know we talked about you folks have decided to not have that that um that cap. So, but again for
consistency purposes I just wanted to make sure it was clear what was >> um and then this is the question you know which sort of I guess the question of the night um which department for for
folks to file. Um this next section was struck remembered the side. >> Yeah. You know, I'm not 100%. I think I need to circle back on that one, Cheryl, because it looks very similar to the language under the strike out on I
>> that was a conversation that we had. >> Okay. >> Um that we were >> we were we were considering getting rid of it. Okay. >> But then after discussion, I think we thought it it did make sense to keep it in. >> Okay. Um, but so she probably just wanted to make sure we still wanted it
>> there. >> Oh, that that that was the conversation about uh if you're renting it, could you then >> a longterm renter, can they with the owner's permission, >> can they do a short-term rental? And we sort of thought >> talking about visiting nurses and things like that.
>> And we said, how much how, you know, how much do we want to if the owner feels like it's fine, >> right? who >> I think we felt like this is something that the public should be able to have a conversation about. >> And we didn't we didn't want to take it out.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. >> So, the way that's written right now that allows whoever that short-term rental is to rent to have a secondary, right? But it's I
think if you have >> a long-term tenant for whom it is a primary residence may if allowed by the property owner short subject to the same rules and regulations as
that's like subleting something that right so we're saying you can do that correct >> yeah longterm >> as long as the owner proves it which is what we're saying elsewhere in here. So the owner would have to be able to longterm. What's that definition?
>> A year lease. So if you sign a year lease or even a six, you know, six, nine month lease that you can then but but you would have to register it. So the the person the owner who's doing the
longterm would not do the registration but the which that is the part that I don't understand how somebody can register it if they're not the owner because under our regulations >> it has to it has to be your primary >> if allowed by the property owner. So, so
that so I I would suggest that it's anticipating a process where somehow the you know like when we get a sign permit and it's you know we have to get the owner to you the owner sign off on it. Exactly. >> So if I'm So if I'm renting from Shawn I
can't I could only list that apartment if Shawn approves it. I think that is what that's how we know. >> Yeah. The town would have to have you sign off. >> Right. >> Right. So, do we um in our definitions,
>> we don't have a long-term definition. Where is that? It's >> We do have one. >> No, no, no. I'm agreeing with you. It's Yeah, it's not even these definitions. So, >> it's a state definition, >> is it? >> I don't know. I don't know the answer to that.
>> I'm fairly certain that it is. >> Okay. familiar with 10 to 12 and things like that, but I I don't know that this is maybe maybe there's anything that's not short-term. You know, I honestly I would say, oh, it's just not short it's not
short term. It's it's >> and what and then what's shortterm? >> What's the short term? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I wouldn't be surprised if if the state defines short term if the state doesn't define long term. >> Long term. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Be in
there. that they do or they don't. >> I'd be surprised if they don't if they're defining short-term. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, is there anything wrong with putting the definition in? >> Yeah. I like definitions in it because I think I've said this before and I know it's kind of repetitive, but as a as a
homeowner, I don't like them having to go look something up. I want everything in one document. You know, we we've just had a long long conversation about, you know, notification we're going through so people don't have to look all over the
place for meaningful information. >> Yeah. One of the issues is if the state changes its definition. >> True. >> Right. So, you have to have the reference to the state definition and then you could say what >> and then what it is. >> Yeah. like if the state well we'll have
things out of compliance like we do now on certain state definitions like farming or agriculture sometimes that >> I think you can probably hyperlink to like I can't imagine that you can't hyperlink like even within our own doc you know like where to to make it easier
for folks >> could we not have our could we not have our own long-term definitions >> well then it would then it would again it comes back to that same same question of you know if the state rights change Now we're in a position where we have >> no longterm definition >> as long as it's not in conflict with the
state regul state requirements. We can't be in conflict. >> I don't know how it would be in conflict, but I know keeping it consistent with that is is a good practice. So let's add that to questions for Carol. should we add
>> longterm tenant definition. >> Okay. >> And then going down to um Q renting, this is where we said renting for an hourly rate or rental durations of less than 24 hours, 24 consecutive
hours shall not be permitted. And I think I I don't know if we had consensus, but that people felt more comfortable with not less than seven days or did we think less than seven days?
>> Find >> the new the new I'm sorry. Yeah, >> I I I we did have this conversation. I think at that time we left it to something that we should bring to the public and have public input generally on. I I personally think that if you put
a one week one week minimum, it's kind of a backdoor um uh outlawing it, right? Because I don't think a lot of people will rent any place for a week in Milton. Maybe they will, but I'm just thinking of of the place that I've stayed at. It's not
generally a week. It's a weekend or it's a handful of days. It's not so >> this is my personal experience. You think about let's say somebody's coming for graduation at Milton Academy or Pur College and they're coming for a couple of days. They're probably not coming for a week.
>> If you're bringing family, maybe instead of renting three hotel rooms, they're going to try and do an Airbnb. >> I think we should go public. >> So, I definitely think we should get >> Yeah, because as I think I mentioned last time when I talked to a couple people, they didn't want different
renters every weekend. So, um, that's, >> you know, I'm for a longer rental period. I don't know what that is. I I think it probably should be at least one week,
but it might be even two weeks. >> I'd fall on the longer side, too. I I as we sit here today, as I consider it, I'd be in favor of a one week minimum, >> even 31 days. So I I just think that we the things that seem like public input
are really important we should highlight. I'll come back to I think the opinions will be variable. >> The next one was the she referenced um for one vehicle for
lawful bedroom the short-term rental. >> Yeah. So that to me is a is a way to basically say you can't do it in residency at all because one bedroom parking space per bedroom like two or three or four bedroom place in a residency you're not going to get two or three or four parking spaces.
>> So that makes no sense to me. >> Yeah. And her her recommended language on this one is um not withstanding notwithstanding any contrary provision in the in the zone by law short-term rental shall provide sufficient parking for the owner occupant plus the
occupants of the short-term rental which shall be at least one parking space for bedroom. Yes, that's my issue. >> It'll de facto >> outlawed in in resident C >> probably
some residents B, >> which means it would really be only residents A >> by just by a parking requirement, which is the way Milton's done regulations in business districts is to put in parking requirements that can't be met. But
>> well, we don't allow on street parking >> overnight without without permit, right? >> And I've said this before and I really think our police department needs to be weighing in on this and we need to tell them that they need to enforce this.
>> Yeah. So, it seems to me that just so the adequacy >> of the rental I don't think should be by bedroom. The adequacy of parking shouldn't be by >> and that's why she referenced what we have in our
>> language >> other language >> right >> it should be whatever >> it says it's >> well this is what okay >> yeah what we have is that it must be adequate for the site for the property >> right but it >> but no more than five to be
>> it's no more than right now for a residency you're required one parking space >> so that would be suitable for the owner. So what you could say what is um
>> I'm sorry can for I'm not connecting can you connect it for myself why I would outlaw it and see >> so because what is be able to get a fourbedroom a small little fourbedroom cape >> that has a single wide driveway with a
detached garage at the at the back right >> can you if you rented all four bedrooms could you get four pass could you get cars off the street. >> But it's saying it shall be limited to >> So what it means was you would you wouldn't be able to do it because you wouldn't be able to park it. >> You can't park it.
>> But you can be you can be flexible about, you know, like if someone's got a detached garage that's full of stuff, you know, no one's going to say, "Oh, you couldn't put car in there." You could do tandem. I mean, that's what that's what that's what happens in in tight in tight urban areas, you know.
There's >> Yeah. when I live. >> I mean, I'm not suggesting that I I agree with you about about how the parking will will will restrict. I agree with you on that, but I think I think there's also there's probably also,
but then it comes to the reality of if somebody if if a renter comes with the four cars, where are they actually going? >> Well, they can't rent that one. >> Yeah, that's >> I mean that's that's what it comes down to. It's like you can't bring four cars to that unit. So that would have to be
advertised as there's one parking space, >> right? Or I mean if you I'm sure you've seen them where >> it has to go to their house street parking >> because that's when neighbors would really start getting upset is if all of a sudden there's cars that are all up and down the street and you know
>> and then they're parking in front of people's driveways and then they can't get out. I have a friend who lives on Brook Road and the people at whoever school is always parking in front of her driveway and she can't get out. and then she has to call the school and then you know and then she then it's on her to
>> you know say something to the parents >> and that's uncomfortable >> right >> yeah I mean I'm not if if if there isn't going to be adequate parking I'm not in favor of like loosening loosening the bylaw just allow it to be rented that doesn't make
>> so that's what Carolyn is saying use what we have that >> but she she added a different language >> notwithstanding any contrary provisions in these bylaws So, let's just say you're you're renting your whole house out >> and your house is required one
parking space, which is residency >> now. And your house has three bedrooms. Now, are you required to have three parking spaces for that same house because you're renting your house out as an >> No, you're limited. >> That's what I'm saying. It says limited to. It's not saying required to.
>> It's not required. Okay. >> So, that means that if you live in residency and you have three bedrooms, that means you can only allow for three cars there. >> Let me read this again. >> It's you're limited. >> You're it's it's
>> if it if you have room, you are limit you are limited to that number of bedrooms, >> the number of vehicles >> vehicles based on the bedrooms. But if you don't have the space according to referencing art, so it's not a conflict if you don't have the space in your driveway. So, if you have one parking
space in your driveway, which is what you're required to have for the owner, >> then you can't and you can't provide any other parking spaces, that means you can't do an Airbnb at your place. You need >> Well, I don't know. >> According to this, is that >> No, actually, now that Yeah, now that
now that I'm reading it that way as well. Yeah, I think I think that's correct. So you could you could have in your house rules that you need to call the Milton Police Department to to >> request an a temporary overnight >> parking >> where people just will take a an Uber or
take the trolley. >> Yeah. >> And then if if they might not have a car. >> So >> yeah, you don't have to provide if you have three bedrooms. You don't have to provide three. >> Oh, in her comment. So the original
recommendation I'm sorry I'm looking at her recommendation which >> I know I know and I'm kind of coming back to this limited to this people talking about limited. So notwithstanding any contrary provision in the bylaw zone devel shall provide sufficient parking
which shall be at least one parking space per lawful bedroom. Right. So the original language right I like original language because it limits it. >> Okay. She would probably say notwithstanding any contract provision in the bylaw
>> because of the comment above with the language dealing with temporary apartments. >> Okay. >> Right. >> And and the fact that it I think this is the one that talks about you know renting anything for renting rooms for this language maybe it's subsequent
about renting rooms for um for pet basically. Um and we definitely um the parking would still have to meet the other requirements in the bylaw, right? Like there's we only allow a certain amount >> up percentage of your front yard set
back to be paved for example or to be used for parking, >> right? >> So you don't want the whole front yard paved or used as parking. >> Um I don't know if we have that same requirement on the back. It's see some of them
>> there's a lot of asphalt >> mud. Actually, I'm not sure about that. Actually, I'm very familiar with front because we get the driveway the driveway opening permits all the time that we have to sign off on. Well, when you don't have parking, a lot of parking on the street, you end up with you can when
you walk around or you bicycle around or you maybe when you drive, but you will notice that because the garages are in the back and the driveways go back there, the backyards have a lot of asphalt >> and it's somewhat unfortunate, I think.
>> But that's the way it has worked out. So in Quinzy it says um occupancy shall be limited to three bedrooms and six guests in a home given time. >> Well, we do have two per bedroom
somewhere here, right? >> We didn't two per Sorry. >> But they're capping I think they're capping the total number. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Yeah. And that was a, you know, again conversation today with with Florida
Health around, you know, them inspecting in places where there are seven, eight bedrooms. >> Milton has Milton has those types of structures. >> Like I have a septic. My house is on a septic. >> So you have to be careful about that. >> So we're good with the original language
with the addition of the notwithstanding notwithstanding. Yes. And this I think was also is also kind of on point with implementation right in terms of you know the adoption kinds
when it becomes effective >> registration requirements. Yeah, that was that was really on point how the staff unless >> were was staff okay with these um dates. So again, didn't didn't get didn't get
to that type of much more much more broad um conversation about about needing to needing to understand this better. And >> so it sounds like what we really just need to have them is to focus on number
four, the registration requirements. >> That's the that seems to be the concern for them or inspections. You have to ask the police department about their for the parking. So it it affects the police department as well
and really fire because if the if the um cars are parking on the street then the fire department can't safely get down five and seven issues that need to be >> So did you want to kind of move do you want to kind of table those the the
discussions about the >> that's I feel like else and then the numbers the numbers um you know >> because I think that's why we were reaching out you know does the health department want to be involved and if they don't >> I think I think they probably already
are >> they are yeah because of the sort of the joint nature of how they're how they how they do these inspections and sort of deal with these these these questions um so but but yeah it it
getting table that for our next >> So I guess the question is on a typical residence >> does the health department do inspections for sanitary code with the building department. >> So I mean to me it's like you're not
familiar >> it only requires inspection upon request which is which is Caroline's note. Um and then and then in my opinion the town can impose annual health inspections. So that's sort of again That's sort of
again a a um you know the town has the authority to do so. Is it is it is it um is it appropriate? Is it over regulator? I don't know. You know those are those I guess those would be and and and you
know one of the things that was discussed as well is you know there's an opportunity to get um some excise tax additional excise tax from those uses. Could that be you know dedicated to to the additional staffing that's required for some of these some of these
>> because if I'm looking at D it says initial inspection and then it says building commissioner war health department leaving it open >> um and thereafter by the building commissioner
>> according to the state building code. So to me it seems like it could just fall within the building commissioner in any case in the first instance because it's falling to the building inspector in the second instance.
So if the if the first instance the I guess I don't not I don't remember where this language came from but the state building code and the state sanitary code and then thereafter only the state building code. So, it's saying that the it's allowing
either one to do it in the first sentence, but then splitting them in the end. >> So, why wouldn't you allow both either or to do both? I guess is my question. You see what I mean? And this is only prior to issuing >> the registration because then if you go
down to five under inspections >> then it says special service health department and fire department may conduct inspections >> as may be required to ensure safety. >> So if any neighbor any neighbor could
call the health department at any time and say oh I think that that house has a trash problem. It could be a hoarder problem. It could be rats and mice problem >> that happens now, right? >> Yeah, that happens now. >> Yeah. >> And that's just reiterating that. >> Yes.
>> Yeah. Right. >> But so Cheryl, your point with the call pointing out the D prior to issuing registration certificate, the building commissioner shall inspect applicable requirements of the state
building code and state sanitary code. So right right now the ISD does the building code and the sanitary. >> So >> but that's what I would assume. I don't does the health the health department doesn't come in and inspect the sanitary >> department doesn't inspect a building to
determine that it's compliant with the building code as far as I understand >> or san or sanitary. >> I don't think I don't think so. >> I don't think so either. So it it if if we are >> this is this is the type of stuff where I really I was trying to take really good notes today in our meeting. But,
you know, sort of like questions around um, you know, kind of occupancy, you know, in terms of like how many people are in the bedroom, right? Um, questions around, you know, sort of um the the the sanitary conditions, the the
kitchen, the the bathrooms, like to you, you know what I mean? Like those are those are some of the types of things that that would be would be investigated. I don't know if investigator is right. inspected like especially if there was you know like a complaint or what have you. Um and so um
you know those were a couple of the things that were just sort of like were kind of mentioned today kind of quickly but I couldn't be I couldn't be I couldn't be quoting to you sort of like the the code. >> That's what we can drill into though with the further conversations. >> Yeah. Yeah. and and and again and again
I think you know Caroline's indication here is that the town would have the ability if they so chose right but again you're sort of like balancing is this like way overregulated like you're going to send people out once a year every time they get an annual renewal of their
of their registration you're going to send somebody out once a year to confirm that you know I've been in plenty of Airbnbs where they've got the extra bed the extra bed in the bedroom right you know they've got a they've got a a a full and and a twin, you know. So,
and and and again, I don't know and I don't know enough about, you know, sort of like that occupancy, right? Okay. And I think some of the things that are problematic is have been challenging as well are are, you know, because these aren't really sort of like a really
really clearly defined creature like in the zoning bylaw like kind of across the board, right? So, it's hard to know sort of like how like how do you apply that standard when this is like sort of like an animal that's kind of like not really it's it's not that it's it's anyway and
I think it's still it's still kind of crystallizing sort of like exactly what this animal is. It's not a boarding. It's not a lodging house. It's not a hotel. It's not a regular apartment. It's not you know what I mean? So when you're applying some of those standards, I think that's where some of that's what
I'm that's what I'm kind of that's the sense I'm getting and that's some of the stuff that I'm reading. But again, it's um yeah, so I think for four, five, and seven, I think these are discussions that we
need to have with our building our building department and health department. Well, I think not D should just be consistent. It right now it allows the building commissioner for both building and sanitary in the first sentence and then
in this and in the or in the first inspection and the second inspection if by cates them and I don't understand why that would be so you know whether >> that just I think needs some consistency and yes they should
I'm not trying to carry on a long conversation, but that $250 value is probably going to be too small. >> The reaction that you have from from the
two departments in terms of enforcement and you just see how this is this could be this could be really challenging and financially because what this do
and I can imagine before we hear from either of the health they probably have a sense of anticipated hopeful with their responsibilities.
>> Yes. And I I I thought that we left at the last conversation was that we were going to remove specific dollar values from the bylaw so that it could be covered in rules and regs. >> Okay. >> To your point, Sean, that that might change in the future. So, we don't want to go back to the bylaw. But I also think that >> Carolyn said that
>> we would obviously we would need input from town staff to understand how much time they expect to spend on this and we can't use this as a money maker necessarily, but just to cover the cost. Yeah. >> But I I understand your point, Sean, that 250 is not enough. I think we said 500 collectively with registration and
inspections last time. >> I'm gonna hold my point of view. We have both other departments. >> Y >> and it should be consistent with other um with other application fees. So I think
some of those the whole application fee in the town should be um >> so we just want application fee as established. >> Right. Right. Right. >> Right. Because I think >> that's established in the regulations. >> Separate fee schedule. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. The separate fee schedule is established in the regulations.
>> Yeah. >> Right. And then you and then you'll be able to update those regulations without having to amend. That's >> right. >> Because we talked about 250 for the for the application, another 250 for the inspection. >> Right. But
>> that should be up to them. >> Y H. >> Well, and so you do get inspected then by the fire department. So sometimes when like my diesel tank gets inspected, then I have they have their own fee. >> Then I have their own Yeah. I have to pay for that fees separately. So that
wouldn't be a cap of like 500. It's >> every department has their own. >> They charge $50 for a home inspection. >> Even that's probably not enough. >> Sell a home. It's ridiculous. >> Yeah. Start up one of those engines, drive it to any house in Milton.
>> The fuel is all >> Do they come with the engine? >> No, >> I'm gonna call it tomorrow if they do. >> The kids will love it. >> A lot of places down H. So I did not think this was necessary to
have >> it seems, you know, >> having having somebody have that you have a contact a 24-hour contact is sufficient. I don't need think you need to have a house sitter there.
>> I agree. >> I agree. >> And it's it's it's unlikely to ever happen. >> Yeah. And who's gonna Yeah. So, so the consensus is to is to strike that. >> Yeah. G
>> last sentence of each >> because elsewhere we do have 24 hours with two hours. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> The owner must arrange for onsite owner represent So my my my
investigation into you know sort of this regulation question is is yes I think that I think there should be regulations especially if we're going to try to have fees at a minimum um I think the regulations would be really helpful too
for staff implementing it's sort of a you know gives you a gives you a playbook right because you'll have new staff come on right over time. So, so having those regulations really useful for that purpose. Um, I don't know that there's
really I'm not sure if the soft board is the correct board to issue the regulations or not. I'm not sure. >> There are two options here. Board hel, which is interesting because >> well, I suppose I mean inspection services probably won't issue regulations necessarily. I I don't know.
I don't know that they necessarily would. What do you see being in the regulations? >> Um, I guess I guess about well a fee schedule. Um, you know, maybe some maybe information about
again I'd really really I feel like I would need to have a deeper conversation about like what like have a conversation with some with like Caroline and say what does what do your regulations look like for this particular >> are they like house rules? Do you know
what I mean? Like I I think I think I'd want I think I'd want to have to understand that better. >> I'm just trying to understand how that would be different than what's in the bylaw and if the bylaw has to be voted on um and the regulations don't can who
ensures the regulations are consistent with the bylaw? >> Um you know. >> Yeah. >> Well, is this sort of like our signed bylaw? We've got the bylaw and then we have the design >> design. >> The design handbook. >> Yeah, the handbook. >> So that this is sort of be the same
thing. You have the bylaw and then you have >> are typically for implementing for implementing the law, right? I mean that's sort of that's my very broad understanding of of policy. You know, you typically get regulations get promulgated after after a law goes goes
into effect. >> I'm just kind of thinking about like how the zoning bylaws like like the state, you know, had a very short law and then the regulations were much more detailed whereas this bylaw is detailed. That's why I'm just trying to
>> understand. >> So just looking at the small scope of the research that I did, it looks like towns chose to either either do the bylaw or regulation. Plymouth did regulation, Newberry did
regulation, and Cadam did regulation. The rest are zoning or the rest are general or zoning bylaws. And so the the regulations are through the board of health >> but the bylaw is
obviously through town meeting. >> How many only three regulations do you have a guess of how many? Um well again in my limited it's one two three four five six seven eight nine
nine or 10 out of 10 10 out of 13 were by law and three were regulation and then bylaw for Quinsey which which is not in my in my list. So somewhere around 25% regulations% >> yeah but when you look at them it's
exact it's it's pretty similar language >> and content >> and what were the towns again that did regulation >> Chadam >> Chadam didn't have a bylaw but it had a bylaw and and a regulation
>> correct or just regulation only >> um >> I feel like I feel like all the ones that we looked at were all were all either bylaws Yeah. >> So, and so some of them may also have regulations in addition to >> Oh, no. This isn't screen share.
Which was it? Chadam. Oh, yeah. Regulation. Yep. Yep. I see that. Yep. >> Yeah. Sure. Yeah. Chattam board of health regulation. I'd have to read it. I'd have to read it and see sort of like what it incorporates by reference. And I don't I
just don't know. Um Um >> So there are examples for health. >> Yeah. And it does look like it's typically the board of health that and that could be sort of another piece as well in terms of like who has the regulatory authority to to to adopt the you know what I mean with the
regulations. Um >> what were the other two towns? >> Um Newbury and Plymouth. >> But then Newberry says it's adopted by the town select board. So I'm not really
>> Okay. Some of them are the select board. I I did see I did see another example where it was 100% the the town administrator and the select board >> adop adopting regulations. That's what kind of makes me Wonder if they that those two bodies have the have the
authority to adopt regulations >> in those towns. Uh I wonder if they do have more septic >> than than public sewer. >> Septic. >> Yeah. In Newbury and >> they're smaller than they have. I got you. I got you.
>> I got you. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Right. So that that's more of an impact on those why they're governing it. Yeah. Okay. I bet you if I well Chad is certainly a >> septic is mentioned a lot >> certainly community you know
>> probably as a regibility to change >> you're right septic is mentioned purposes in both of those yeah >> because that was I know um their issues with the BTA zoning was because of their
septics and their um their water infrastructure issues. >> All right. >> So, we're on five inspections. >> Can I go back to H? Just I want to make sure that I
understand this. The way H reads, I think I said this the last time we had this conversation. agreed to me that the owner has to live n out of 12 months. >> Sorry. >> Yeah.
>> So, so the only available time frame for it to be a short-term rental is is three months, 12 weeks. >> No, because again, you you could you could be in the house while you're renting it out. >> Okay. >> Part of it. >> Part of it.
>> Okay. So they have to live in the house if there's somebody renting it. They have to be in the house for at least nine out of those moments. >> Correct. Those other three, they could be in Florida or somewhere else and
still continue to rent it out for short-term rental. >> Thanks for that clarity. >> And that wouldn't be considered lodging because >> So, so that was part A of my question. Part B is this
um determination that the person lived there for nine months. So we're saying they approve in 9 months residency with
utility bills. Chances are they never changed the utility bills or renter ever. Voter registration. I mean who changes their voter registration. Um motor vehicle registration.
I guess but they'll go online. >> I don't think this works. If this is what we're I don't even know how to have somebody prove that they've been n out of 12 months and and if they are required to prove it who in the town is
vetting so yes I hear what you're saying. Is is this is it less important that it's nine months or six months? I'm just I'm just putting this out there. Is it more important that that we're proving that
the person actually lives there? >> I I just I'm what I >> I'm not sure I'm not sure it's so much the nine >> like trying to trying to calculate the actual nine months. I think it's more >> it's more demonstrating that this is your primary residence.
>> Yeah. I'm not at the moment I'm really sweating over 9 months, 10 months, six months, eight months, but I'm saying we're going to write something. >> Yeah. >> We're going to set a requirement. >> I don't know that anything that we put in there who proved that it's your primary record. >> There's really a valid way to prove it. Yeah. You know, I don't even, you know,
and we have yet to hear from the people that were asking to enforce this, but I have no idea how you enforce this and and how much, you know, whose hours are going to be put forth to do it. >> And back to my concern that I've that I'll continue to talk about what does it cost to do that? What does it cost the
town built to make sure that somebody is there for nine months? And and I don't think I'm going to move off my point of view that 250 500 thousand dollars. I mean, are you kidding me? We we we seem to encumber our town employees with all kinds of
responsibilities as a town without recognizing what we're expecting them to do. >> But this doesn't I can't I can't I can't wrap my brain around this. >> They do have to give notification to their neighbors. So, if the neighbors
see that there's tenants in there, >> I know >> it's just it just doesn't seem this doesn't seem like this is >> is going to be feasible for anybody to track or make sure. >> So, you know, back to writing bylaws
that can't be enforced, which is why really anxious to hear what people have to say, people that are asked to enforce it. Doesn't make any sense for us to to write things that can't be enforced. It's not that's not going to the residents or our employees.
>> That's enough on that. >> But that's Yeah, that's a good question for other towns. Um, okay. We are now on we do inspections. Did we answer? Did we answer?
>> I think that's what I was asking about. I thought Yeah. Yeah. Like exactly what exactly are in these regulations and and how they differ from this question. >> Absolutely. >> And can um you provide us um examples of
regulations in other things. >> I think we've got >> do we have we're not forced to write regulations. The way Caroline has it written is if any >> shall be issued issued. Well, one of the again again if
there are items that you want to have some flexibility on and not have to go to town needing to change because this is a bylaw >> then right so you get your fee schedule is one example um I mean I'd probably want to think about you know and and also too it can be it can be a it's the
it's the implementation side of things right this is this is the law this is the legal piece there probably is some process in here there is some process in But it's not all necessarily spelled out. I'd have to think about it. I'm I'm sure there I'm sure there are things
that would make sense to have >> in this what the way this is written though. It says if any right >> so it's leaving it open. It's not >> which I think makes sense to leave it open. >> It's a place as you said not to have to
go back to town meeting. Mhm. >> Um, >> place over placeholder. Makes sense to me. >> Okay. I see. >> And and and maybe you don't if it's a placeholder, you may not even have to specify who's going to issue,
>> right? >> Just leave it. Just just just kick it kick it down down down a little bit. Well, isn't um if the select board is the named body,
the town departments fall under the select board, right? So, so couldn't they delegated to the board of health or the building commissioner or whomever? >> I would I would imagine. >> So, it just seems like if you said select board, it leaves it open to who
they determined to be at the time. We have staff, adequate staff or appropriate staff in terms of of qualifications and skill sets, whatever. Because if we put it in here, well, what if it's what if later in a year they
say, "Well, the building department's really better equipped to do this in the book. We have to go back and amend this." >> Right? So we're saying select >> I I think so but you know we can get a clarification from if I'm reading that correctly or understanding it correctly
that they can delegate it all the way down there >> issue so issued by >> so they would have to do the body issue issue I don't know if that necessarily is terribly important but
>> but they delegate the crafting that had to issue. >> Since this is a general bylaw, it makes sense. >> They would be the one issuing services. I think we should just put it in a miss until we hear from
>> those who would be inspected. >> We did we did reach out on the question for insurance. the the million dollar is the sort of the the floor for the state state registration requirements. So, everyone everyone assuming they're
in compliance with the state requirements needs that $1 million. Um some of the different um communities that's graduated based on the luxury level of property, right? >> Um they might might require like an
umbrella policy. Um so it depends. I didn't I reached out to um to to see the right insurance the town's insurance advisor was on this one to see it made sense to go over one million for the liability general
liability >> and again I don't know that we need to put $1 million in there. I think >> what I was reading Caroline to say is we can say operators shall provide proof of comprehensive liability insurance.
>> But maybe >> will this change? Um >> anything like that? >> Well, this sets the floor. It sets the floor. Yeah. >> You know, so the amount of at least a million and my understanding is is that's a state requirement. Right. >> Okay. >> So, um, so
it open it could be higher. >> Okay. Necessity registration was the next question that she had. >> Do we need is that important to have?
>> I think this is one of those that could be public on >> or at least publicly >> I think so wasn't it because we did talk about this
>> yeah I think we also felt is it something the police department might need you know >> right >> rare in like they wouldn't have to disclose this you know but they should have it available if the police were needed
I agree public >> maybe even police department input like how would they like why would they need this you know like if if they're called to >> somebody's house for some other reason if it's just someone's home they don't have this
>> because those party houses on blue you know the blueville um parkway Okay. For Blue Hill, that one house that became sort of a a drug party situation and the police were involved with that. >> People police were called frequently. So I guess
>> the police should maybe weigh in on this. >> Yeah. So yeah, I think that's right. They should be helpful. >> Doesn't the town have a when you register your vehicle, the town has a list of all of our registrations? Anyway, >> this is the this is the
area. But even if you have borders, they wouldn't have them. >> Yeah. >> Or Yeah. All right. So, I think that was experiment on the two waffle waffle bedroom.
So, this conflicts She's asking she's providing >> this is what I had asked I think for the orders which was just unfair to me. >> Yes. >> The definition of family. >> Yeah. And um
so I guess her remedy would would be a family shall not include I don't know where is she proposing that to be here or somewhere else. >> I think I think that I think that's the
current language. Cheryl's Yeah, I don't think she's so CBL definition, right? >> Okay. >> So, this was this was the language about paying guests because that's the one that kind of gets closest to Airbnb is
this idea of paying guests. Um, so I'm guessing that I think this definition of family was adopted in like because I think it was in the early >> around that long ago like in the early
>> like the zeros, you know, 2002 2003. >> Yeah. But so is she suggesting then in her comment that we that we're lying here with saying this? >> So I think I think the reason it's flagged is it circles back to that notwithstanding anything in those old
biological contrary, >> right? Um and um and you know this this this accessory use question I think is you know has been the subject of some of the court some of the court cases in terms of you know how how are you
classifying these right this is customary to a single family residence what have you so some of the you know again >> is educating herself um the um so she's so that's her recommendation is that
sort of blanket you know, and playing on it because because it will be, you know, and and and like I said with the conversation with board of health, you know, like the the the the sanitary guidelines in terms of, you know, how many persons per bedroom and
sort of what, you know, what's what's safe and what's whatever, you know, they they that sort of is intertwined here as well, >> right? And that would only trigger if somebody called and said, "Hey, that's a three-bedroom house and there's 10
people staying there." >> And that's and that could happen >> at any time, >> right? >> With or with or without this bylaw >> that she would get called. >> True. >> So, >> yeah. >> So, that I think that's my
understanding. I think it's flagged for that purpose and >> you know that they certainly certainly confirm that with Carol. That's good. This one was this is kind of circling back on that same same interrelated conversation and it does and it does
impact sort of like the question on inspections um in terms of you know kind of like how these uses are classified right so um I I'd want to you know I'd want to understand better too you know exactly
the lines between the different the different classifications and sort of what what triggers what type of inspection what have you. But this this was to be to be struck >> um and same with the enforcement
police department. >> Yeah. I mean obviously their input is crucial here but if the commissioner's the one who's issuing the notice of violation do they have to do the in to be the one
who's doing the inspection or other anyway otherwise is the health department calling them and saying can you issue a violation or is the police department calling the commissioner and saying can you issue a violation you know it so that's just a question for me.
>> Yeah. Um, right. >> Um, is this one of the ones or or is that a Oh, I'm sorry. C C had >> I was talking about B. Well, it's the whole grouping, but say commissioner.
>> Gotcha. >> Y >> or designate but still >> A has >> who's the commissioner in that? building. >> Yeah, I think that's a question that like how that would work
>> because let's just say it were a fire alarm problem. >> Um then it might be the fire department that issues the violation. But I I don't know how I don't know. So that's just to clarify. >> Well, I think like in my experience if
um there's an issue with another department like the police department wrote a letter to the building department and, you know, weighed in on um on
something. They weighed in. Um and so that the the commissioner the police the building commissioner would have no idea what was going on like on weekends or after hours because the building commissioner wasn't there. But the police would know.
So, I think the building commissioner requested information. Yeah, I know there's been some tricky some tricky situations recently crowd. So,
and I think multiple multiple departments have been involved. >> Yeah. I don't know who issues the the citation if there's multiple violations or they all issue their own citations in which case B might need to say the
appropriate department or whatever issues >> because here it's very clear it's the building commissioner has to do it. >> Yes. Gotcha. a long comment about enforcement essentially.
>> Okay. So just some different you know being very clear because the maximum was 300 the fines. Um this would be like application fees and things like that. These are fines.
So where did this come? This is just says this bylaw shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed $50 reach offense and that's just a madeup that's not
state law. >> So I think that yeah she's referencing the section by that's I want to say that 2753 um I'd have to look it up >> again. This is like a there's so our
finds are so not consistent in this town and I feel like they just let the building inspector um make up fines and I don't think I think they need to be consistent and I think
um it shouldn't come down to one person just making up a fine. Yeah, this is from our zoning. In the event such an occupation shall continue following the verification and expiration of accuracy prevents
subject to a fine of no more than $50 for each offense within each day that business continues to following such notice being deemed separate offense. Yeah, you're right. >> Yeah. So, it's just a So, that's the zoning. If
>> you're in if you're found in violation of a You have a zoning violation, the NATS >> revocation or expiration of an occupancy permit >> and notice to the resident residents shall be subject to a fine no more than
$50 for each offense. So yeah, >> I wrote that consistent underlined. >> But is that specific to the temporary apartments? >> No. No, I don't think so. It's It's saying um that's in residences A a BC.
>> Okay. >> District uses. >> Okay. That's a zoning by law. >> It's a zoning bylaw, >> right? But that but that might be the thing that you referenced at the beginning and that if we when this goes through there'll be some cleanup that needs to be done. >> Because this isn't a zoning bylaw. This
is now a general bylaw. So what's the fines for general bylaw? >> It says there's not consistent. >> Yeah. Surprise, surprise. Right. >> I I you know, an opinion I have is I I don't really care about fines. I'd give people a reasonable amount of time to
correct um whatever it is. And if they don't revoke the registration, who cares? People don't care about 300. They just don't just revoke the registration if they don't perform. Well, I I would if I were
>> I would if I was a noncorporation that quick. >> You're an esteemed member of >> Avante wouldn't like I mean >> you know why why why be tolerant you know I mean fooling around what's been find today is nothing.
>> So you think one one offense you're done >> give them 60 days to to to correct the >> what's the correction like >> I don't know what the violation is. Yeah, >> we have it here. If there's three violations, 12 month period, you're done. >> Yeah. >> So, you get three violations, you're
done. >> Um, >> three strikes, you're out. >> But I I think there should be something, but I don't think we should say what the amount is. So, I think that should be part of the >> if if there's going to be a bylaw, there should be a set of regulations and all
that stuff should be in the regulations, all that. to have the flexibility to change it, you know, and you don't get encumbered by having to go back to town meeting to change a bylaw. >> You say violates any provision of this >> bylaw and associated regulations shall be subject to a fine period
>> as as but we don't necessarily have regulations quite yet. You know, I think at some point there should be there should be a discussion about okay, that belongs in the bylaw, >> that belongs to the regulations. >> Fine. All right. So, fine, comma,
subject to the regulations. >> Take out the amount >> as defined. >> 300 is the maximum allowed. Is that is that her opinion or is she saying >> state law? >> That's state law. >> State law is 300. >> That's my That's my understanding. That's what she says there
>> in her comment. >> Yeah. >> For a zoning violation is state laws, the max is 300 per offense. >> Interesting. >> Okay. That's it.
>> And question for the planning board down below. Um >> the beginning of the conversation. >> Yeah. So, I still think that's something to Megiey's point earlier for discussion >> for with the public, but with residents
because I I'm one who's inclined not to because somebody might say, "Why is my neighbor allowed to and I'm not allowed to?" But I think this is a conver a bigger conversation. >> Yep. >> I just want to lose track of that as a
>> and whether it's so if there are areas that you don't want to necessarily Not me, but I'm just Maggie raised it earlier >> and I thought that it's a point that should be brought to the public because they should know that you can do it that
way and weigh in on it. >> Yeah. >> I just raise a concern about equity in that case. But that would be my concern about it. Well, I mean that can be said though across the, you know, any any zoning
bylaw and if you look at businesses, some businesses, they all have different rules and regulations and it's frustrating like, you know, it's I've been an advocate of having consistency across um, you know, at least at least in
industries. Um, >> it's why we need to address the pre-existing >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Like so if you have a restaurant, you need the number of parking for the same amount of seats no matter which >> which business district you're in. It
should be consistent. >> Liz, I just I I want I have a question on my mind. I just want to ask um how many how many towns and I think you may have already said this earlier or maybe said it earlier. How many towns in the state have either a bylaw or a
regulation for this? >> No, you don't. Okay. I thought I thought >> it see it seem it seems that it's it's it's more likely than not the towns are regulating them. >> Remember the state just started allowing
it uh regulation of it. Um not that long passed. remember >> the AI AI says there's no >> I think it was was it >> but it's a new >> this is what the the chapter 64G that that where they where they where they
based yeah where they regulated the short-term rentals I want to say like 2017ish >> yeah today somewhere >> uh 20 end of 2018 took effect July 1, 2019.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So, I think like people were looking for a way to regulate them, right? They weren't being regulated right now. >> So, seven years ago, the opportunity to regulate them. >> Uh, yes. Well, to regulate
them. Yes. >> Have that excise tax and >> what have you impact. >> And to private, you can still prohibit. The option is to prohibit too. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. But it gets right back to the very first night in Maryland which was which
was do you really want to go there because they're happening anyway >> and and you balancing that you're balancing that >> and the and the safety and the >> and the you know it's just it's it's a balancing act. >> Remember that the default I think as she
said is yes they are prohibited right. >> Yeah. >> But there's no mechanism to enforce it which is why this there was advocacy. I think the state to pass the law that allows them to to be regulated, right? I think places that have a lot of tourism probably places
that really pushed it and so >> yeah, I I asked because I'm just curious how many towns have have, you know, have their own bylaw, looking at the regulations. To me, it's a meaningful moment. I can't remember 350 towns in
the state. 36 351, right? >> 351. Yeah, >> maybe that's something you could put on the question to the lister. The planners are lister, right? >> Yeah, >> there's a planner lister. So, it's like a big email list like that
the planning departments like I I remember prior directors if there was a question about something. >> Yeah. You could say, can you put that out to your colleagues, you know, and find out what you what those colleagues are doing? >> What the and what the sense is too. I'm sure plenty of them have a pretty have
their finger on the policy and say, "Oh, it's got to be over it's got to be over, you know, 60% or whatever." You know what I mean? Yeah. based on even might know or other state and regional agencies, >> you know, if it's if it's whether it's
meaningful to any one of us or not, it's probably good information for us to have for a resident that might ask. >> Yeah. >> You know, 51 towns and we can say 50% of the towns in the state have have created a regulation. Okay. >> If it ends up being a list of 20,
>> you know, I I just should prompt us to say, well, why only out of 350. >> Why did the other 300 3 decide not to? >> We still may not have any problem or anybody's raised the issue. I mean for us it's not like we sat at the table and
said it's not our number one priority. We heard from residents who said they wanted us to take a look at >> I haven't heard from one but I you know but I'm not sure. So I have heard one resident about this, but >> there were several who came here to the same
>> several out of 28,000. >> Well, I'm just saying you didn't you said not one res. >> I said I haven't heard from one. >> Yeah, you personally haven't heard from >> I personally haven't heard from one. So, I mean, again, AI, it says like towns
like Brookline, Lynfield, Salem have effectively banned short-term rentals in single family homes if the property is not owner occupied. >> Right. Watertown is the only one that's actually prohibited. >> Yeah. >> 351. >> Interesting.
>> That's interesting. >> And Boston, Cambridge, and Secon have completely banned nonowner occupied short-term rentals. >> Well, that's what this is. This is banned. Yeah. So >> than that they don't >> interesting with water.
>> They don't know. >> There's no single statewide count of prohibited towns. >> We're sharing churchy. >> Oh boy. >> Well, this is good. So I don't know if it's too soon to invite the staff to our
in two weeks to our next meeting. >> I can I can I can certainly I can certainly ask. I kind of I kind of broached that >> because maybe there could be like a working group. You know what? You talk like Yeah. >> You, Nick, Caroline, and Michael could
maybe have a meeting. Sort of walk through your thoughts. >> Pre meeting. >> Pre a premeating on on four, five. They don't have to go through the whole bylaw. Four, five, and seven because that's what affects them. >> And unless there's other things that they would like for them to comment. Um,
and maybe the police, the chief of police, >> because they're getting calls, you know, complaints, >> right? >> Oh, on the mass.gov. website, what do we know about seasonal homes and short-term rentals?
>> It says that in fiscal 21, short-term rentals accounted for 43% of total lodging tax revenue. The remainder comes from hotels and conventional lodging. >> This was 21 and then it said
>> the share of revenues fell to 20% by fiscal 24. >> Yeah, it might have been impact. >> So towns can charge a zoning I mean a lodging fee, right? They the town can collect lodging
>> fees, but we can't collect fees off of short-term rentals. Is that >> uh the laws? Yeah. >> Yeah. >> But adopt an excise. >> Yeah. Adopt an excise. >> The state law charges 5.3, I believe,
and it the law allows up to six%. >> Yeah. Yeah. with that law >> of the rent value >> um of something. >> No, it must be it must be the the rate you're charging. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Yeah. And then if the the
community community impact fee was on top of that, it could be up to 3% if they own two or more properties. >> So when do we adopt that? >> Only if it's two or more properties. >> That's what the state law said. >> Oh, that's interesting. So if it's only two or more properties, so we're
limiting it to one. So we can't So we can't >> Right. It's right. We're even more prohibiting commercial. >> So the same question on MAC said that um Nantuck and Martha's
Vineyard fully 60% of all housing units are set aside for seasonal use. Cape Cod 36%, Berkshire County 13%. Well, no other region reported a share greater than three and a half%. >> So, I would think that that's maybe what
we might be in the category of since we're not a coastal community. >> Okay. 1% of the state's housing stock is registered at the DR short, >> right? And and and Milton has the
assistant town administrator did some research and Milton has 75 >> 75 >> 75 on that list, but it's a cumulative list. So from the date that that list was established, you know, some something could have gone
on that list. I don't know what the date it was established, but it could have been four or five years ago >> and it hasn't been active. So it's not it's not a >> mean active perhaps. >> Yeah. May it may not be active. It may whatever. So 70 so 75 since that list got established
>> and get that information from. >> So it's from the department of revenue. um the um the platforms have to um have to register. I think I think it's the only way for the state to collect their portion of tax, right?
>> Um so literally literally finding this out in the last like 48 hours. >> Yeah. >> So it's just it's just it's it's there's a lot there's a there's a lot there's a lot there, >> you know, trying to understand like the universe,
right? And um and how many of these how many of the 75 are are owner occupied? >> I I have no idea. >> I bet you Yeah, because you now you have that restriction. But but again, you know, you're creating this pathway. So
>> I I don't know. I don't know. It's just it's hard it's hard to it's it's it's hard to understand the universe, but the bottom line is is that there's a housing shortage. It's a very desirable desirable place to be. people are going to be doing this like even if even if
it's a even if it's a narrow pathway, right? There's a lot of very interesting configurations in this town, right? I've seen every configuration under the sun with these ADU proposals, right? >> Gate houses and and you know using the
upstairs upstairs and you know repurposing that and what have you. So there's a lot of different configurations that people could you know could could try to work with, right? So it's it's but it is it's hard to understand what the universe is here because it's because it's it's unique you know um
maybe maybe maybe we try more research into similar towns to understand like the universe of how many these are actually going to happen. Well, just just imagine if 3% is that number that seems to be
if if we hit that >> and if the 75 was accurate to what exists, we'll go from 75 to 300, >> right? >> I didn't follow that part. That's just an average across the state of how many units are being used for this purpose >> within town. Within town, it's an
average. >> We said you said 1% later. >> 1% for total. Yeah, >> but obviously it's higher in the vacation locations and lower everywhere else. The average of low of everywhere else was three and a half, I think. Or that was a little more than three and a
half. I have to go back. I'm sorry. I'm off to that at the moment now. >> But um >> but if it's legalized and we get to 3%, it's that 3% of the residents we have in town is 300. >> But it's it's not allowed in multicam
like Fuller Village for example, right? go down if it has to be >> but if it's owner occupied I think we're going to be able to get rid of a large percentage of our current system
>> how >> or they'll continue just to be illegal >> but they can be so what is I guess they can continue to be fine that's the benefit of the fine right True >> because you're continuous to be fined if
they're operating it illegally. >> But can can you can't evict an owner though, right? From their home, >> but there has to be some sort of mechanism to have it removed from Airbnb. >> Right. >> From the platform. >> Yeah.
>> Remember, somebody was doing a fine if you're >> advertising off that. >> Oh, yes. >> To get it to get it before because that was also again that you're really trying hard not to put words into someone else's mouth. But that was also a little bit of conversation today was around
once somebody is in a right. There's a whole, you know, if there's any issues with with, you know, removing them from that, you know, there's it's it's not a, you know, there's a whole >> there's a whole renters. If someone is operating one of
these illegally now, >> are they going to register? >> Do are they going to register? Do you think they care at all about a fine? You know what I mean? We we have we have plenty of delinquency of of things that are
of things that are required >> utility imposed. You can you'll collect it in 20 years. >> Could you put a lean on the property? >> Well, I think Caroline can answer that, but we couldn't someone has a has a legitimate, you know, has a legitimate
fine. I'm sure it could be, but you know, >> I mean, that would be sort of the sort of thing I might get. >> It cost you more to lean on for 300 rolls than the 300 rolls itself, you know, >> a day, >> I think. I don't know. >> I I'm just thinking doesn't expire. >> Yeah.
No, 300 a day for for fines. >> If you really if you really wanted to, but >> you really wanted to, you know, stack it up. >> And we set up the 60 days. So, is that is it is that what we said earlier? >> I'd have to go back and look and see
honestly. But, but yeah, but I'm sure there's going to be some level of limitation something like that, but but it could it could be a significant amount of money >> if it's out of the >> pardon me. Okay. >> I mean, do we have to say I like the
lean idea. Do we have to say in it that >> we have to put a lean or is it just on a >> You don't have to do that. I mean, the time >> they have that ability. >> Yeah. If someone hasn't paid, they >> anybody's subject you don't have to. >> You don't have to state it in here. It's
already Yeah. Okay. So, should we move on to our next agenda item of asked? And that's just the update to um what we would submit to town meeting >> um changing to from the 10% to the 15%
in language by Carolyn. And can we pull that up on the screen just for people watching so they can it's a minor change. So just a little bit of context on this one.
um sense on this was the the um the approval from the OHLC really guides this in terms of in terms of the 15%
being in effect. Um, so this this striking out of this final sentence, if the EOHLC determines in writing that the town has not shown the 15% requirement to be feasible, not fewer than 10% of the units in the development
containing or shall be affordable to households or any income up to 80% of the AMI area income. Um, her sense was that this was not urgent if the because again OHLC's
um you know ruling stands that that that places the 15% requirement um you know in effect this could be a housekeeping item that you could bundle with some of the clarification if you so chose. It's really it's your it's your per if you
want to move it forward for um the fall town meeting. Uh this is her suggested drafting would be just you know we would do a hearing on it. um in the next month or so and um go for town meeting or it
could be bundled with some >> I think we should go ahead and just do this. I I think it's we have development projects that come before us. We just want it to be crystal clear. >> Okay. Okay. >> That's everyone else.
>> Okay. And I think this is perfect language. >> Um to to submit this to to this line. >> Yes. Let's let's just take a >> I'll make a motion to uh submit a revision to
chapter 27 section 3.25 25 MBTA's multif family overlay district sub paragraph P3 by deleting the text as provided um by town council Caroline Murray and screen is there a second
>> second all in favor >> I get that hearing advertised and scheduled quickly Um I think under staff update maybe this could apply. Um Liz, I
understand there's an economic development bill pending at the state um legislature that would codify site plan review and I was thinking that um
>> the budget that's is the >> economic development bill. >> Oh, okay. They they tend to throw I guess from what I've read throw things into a couple of bills just because they haven't been able to get to it. So there's like lots of things that get considered >> tend to become like the normal practice.
>> Yeah. >> Everything gets piled in there and no one knows it >> like MBTA zoning. >> So uh I just want us to like >> Yeah. be aware of it because I we passed ours which >> I'm pretty sure we reviewed a draft of that bylaw or that legislation because
we did this with pending. >> Yeah. >> Uh and there may be other things in there that we need to >> um >> be aware of. Okay. >> That was one that I recall seeing. >> I think that's in the next few days.
>> The Mass Winds Act. the which is not referred to. >> Okay. I know there's some things I think in the budget that was signed by the governor today too that affect, but I don't know if they affect as much as the board. >> Um
>> and bill effect zoning by amendments. >> Yeah. So I I just think that if we could >> have that I guess as an agenda topic coming up just like that was signed today. I thought that
was still >> the budget bill was not the economic development >> mass house passes catchall bill including policies. Yeah. >> And didn't that include that um houses of worship are now not um they can do multif family >> that's in the economic development bill
which is still under discussion I think but that was included in it. That was like one of the >> I guess hundreds of amendments that were proposed to be included and that one made it >> and and I think there was not a limit on height or number of stories. >> I think you can regulate
that >> but I haven't seen it. Yeah, >> just read for houses of worship >> religious not not just houses religious property own Michael Michael said something today
>> that was on the budget >> but there's I read something else about the economic development bill today >> I saw that too but I didn't have a chance I didn't um I just saw the highlights, >> but the cycl review caught my eye and I
I know it's been pending for a while >> because people said there was there's no state like enabling act regarding so towns are kind of just doing what they >> it's a creature of the courts. >> Yeah. So that was the courts upheld it,
but now this would put it into >> into the zoning act. >> Zoning act, right? >> Okay. I don't know. I'd have to look at it. >> I'm not certain, honestly, but >> it just >> you go to read these things and, you know, >> it just seems like they're taking away
the town's rights to do things. That's what >> that's to me my general feeling. And I haven't I didn't dive deep into it, but it that's to me it seems like the towns are going to be losing out on all these
things. All right. Anything else, Liz? Or >> All right. And I think we're completed with um the agenda items. So I would take a motion to um
Motion to >> second. >> Second. All in favor? >> I