fiscal year 2027 for the Milton Planning Board. At this time, I would like to now call the meeting to order and begin by introductions of the board and our staff. Um Al if you'd like to start. >> Al Mer member. >> Magfield member. >> Sean Fei, member.
>> Cheryl. >> Carl Tagas, member and secretary. >> And Meredith Hall serving as chair and with us with our staff this evening. Vonte. >> Yeah. Avante Grady, assistant planning director. >> Miss Manning, planning director.
>> Great. Thank you. Um and uh we can start first with administrative items. Um, we do have some, um, edited meeting minutes, um, but they were late to getting into the folder, so I just don't know if members had a chance to look at them or not. I
>> did not have a chance. Okay. Um, understood. And I um did read them, but let's defer those to our next meeting. Um, future um, meeting dates. Uh currently we have scheduled a meeting
for um August 13th um would be the next meeting. Um and I spoke to Liz today. I actually I have a conflict on the 13th. I'm wondering if and maybe we can wait to decide uh later this evening, but either moving it um
doing it the week before if we think there's some some um housekeeping things we need to finish on with this with our short-term um rental bylaw or doing it maybe on the 12th of Wednesday before um would also be a possibility.
Would people how would if we met in two weeks on August 6th, would that work for people? I would prefer to stick it to this Thursday schedule. This the six would be great. >> The Yeah, the Thursdays seem to work well.
>> So >> Oh, sorry. Which which day doesn't work for you? >> The 13th. So it would be the Thursday before. >> Okay. >> Which is two weeks from today. >> So we could potentially meet the 6th and then the 27th >> and then the 27th. Okay. >> Would be the following. Y
>> I would be okay with that. >> If that's okay. All right. That's great. So, August 6, >> I I may have to call into that potentially. >> Okay. >> If that's if that's if that's acceptable. I I may I may already be on the road at that point. >> Um >> Yeah, you're heading out of town.
>> Yeah, it's not. But but I'll I'll do I'll do my best, but I may have to I may have to do that one virtually. >> Yep. Okay. >> Um and um >> the 6th >> and then I will So then we'll do the zoning we'll do the zoning hearing then on the 27th. >> Okay. Okay. And we'll have enough time
to get that advertised for the sixth. >> That's that sounds great. >> Okay. >> Okay. Great. Um, and staff update. >> Yeah. >> Do you want me to share? Do you want me to share a screen on the Well, why don't
you start and I'll I'll pull up the I'll pull up the matrix while you're sharing. >> Sure. Um, yeah. Um, [snorts] just want to provide an update on the space rep plan. So, um, I uploaded the summaries from the last two focus groups to the
materials folder. So, feel free to take a look at those. Great feedback was from those. Um, have still been in contact with the commission on disability. Had a call with the chair last Friday. Um, she said she hasn't finished putting together her list of feedback. I think
she's been got some personal stuff she's been dealing with. So uh engagement's been a little bit slow but um still determined to get at least feedback from like two to three members from the commission. So um their perspective is
reflected in this ADA plan which I still think is very important to include in the open space plan. So, um yeah, other than other than that, um my priorities are kind of focusing on finishing up the you know, important aspects of the
inventory um and thinking about the meetings ahead which include like a public meeting and meetings with the open space and um committee. So, Zoom. Um >> anything else?
Let's see. I can provide an update on vision zero. It's probably not organized in this list, but um >> or do you want you want me to want me to grab why don't you pop in one? So So
this is sort of a new a new initiative [laughter] to try to kind of keep this matrix fresh and to use it as a way to sort of help us follow, you know, kind of progress in the office and and you know, things we're working on. So the
goal is to have this um updated monthly. So the the version that you guys were looking at um the night we went in front had the joint meeting with the select board was was the the June version. So this would be the the July version. Uh and so as a you know kind of again as a
way to kind of stay connected to each other with with all the multiple projects and what have you and and so that's the goal is to be sharing this out monthly at a minimum. Um, and so just to kind of, you know, and the way this is structured is the um the
highlighted cells are the ones that have additional information included. If you had an opportunity to look at look at any of this um in the last day or two, I know it's a lot of information, but um let's see this first section here,
housing, the housing category. There was a um a meeting with the Salshore housing, the Salshore home consortium to discuss um a project in Brainree, additional funding for a project in Brainree. We were um made avail we were made aware that there's new funding
available for the first-time home buyer program and Milton in the past was wasn't really able to participate because the um the max uh [clears throat] amount that you could spend on a home was was a lot lower than the prevailing amount in Mil in Milton. that amount has been increased to
$857,000 um for for purchase of a for for first-time home buyers. So, so there's a chance that Milton could maybe get a little bit more involved in that program and that's there and there's funding available. So, I thought that was good news to share and to follow up on. Um
and they also shared that there's about $2 million in available funds in that um home consortium um fund essentially today. Um, so we've had a couple of meetings on the housing production plan. I know we talked about this last time. We're proposing our first public meeting
for um for Wednesday, September 16th. Um, the needs assessment has been drafted and stakeholder consultation is underway. Uh, let's see. As a centure, working with Asenture, they're our shared housing support office. So actively um
providing information sort of up-to-date daily information on the lease up at 936 Brush Hill Road. That's the 20 unit um comprehensive permit project which is very very close to getting their certificate of occupancy. Um we are following up on monitoring for
um 440 Granite AB in terms of their local action units. That's another one. Those are probably the two that are kind of like highest on the on the list in terms of closest to to occupancy. So, we're working actively with them on those projects. Um,
Avante already talked about the uh open space and w plan. Um, so the um and if and if anyone has any questions or wants to interrupt me, I'll try to try to move a little faster. Um and in terms of climate and environment,
we had um we've got some updated information on battery energy storage systems, KP law has provided a model process um that they created for the town of Medway for this consolidated permitting process, which is a new state
requirement. So, we're still trying to understand exactly how that's going to work. And I would imagine that that's going to be something that's going to come back to you folks for for more consultation about that consolidated permitting process that the state is now requiring for battery storage and for
solar. Um very kind of broad brush on that one. There's a lot more detail there. >> Um can I before you jump to a different category? So, at our last uh climate action meeting, um there was a discussion that the um at
the fire station headquarters that the pitch of the roof might not be ideal for um the most efficient solar panels. >> Okay. >> Do you know what the status is on that? Because I know at town meeting we we
voted um to lease it out. >> Okay. >> So, I just wasn't sure. I think that information was just coming in when we had our last when we had our meeting last month. >> I don't I don't know anything about that, but I I do remember you mentioning
it though, actually at our last meeting. Oh, >> yeah. >> Um and um and so I can definitely follow up. >> And if the pitch of this roof is not the correct pitch, then I would assume that the pitch of the East Milton isn't the
correct pitch either. So, is the East Milton Fire Station not getting solar panels? >> I don't I don't I haven't even looked at that project. >> Yeah. Sorry. >> Yeah. >> Um but I can definitely I can definitely follow up.
>> Um All right. So, we're all pretty much aware based on the um the uh proposed uh zoning hearing ad that I put in your packet for the that the bylaw for the 15% um requirement under the MBTA zoning
for affordable housing that that's drafted and and ready to go. Um let's see what else we got here. Economic development plan. So, so um progress there. Um we had a meeting on
um Tuesday with Nick and then Nick and Nick Milano and Cody case. Um do you want to do you want to pick up that at all in terms of [clears throat] Okay. >> Yeah. So um we had a meeting with them. We kind of talked about the the joint
meeting the planning board had with the select board and just thinking about that conversation in relation to the scope MAPC scope and how that conversation went was just kind of a sense of
it seems that like the the scope needs to be a little bit more expanded so it's more broader to the town and not so much focused within like the business districts. And so, um, some ideas were, you know, discussed about how to do
that. perhaps the focus groups instead of doing it just in the like business each of the business districts doing like kind of more broader um parts of town like East Milton, West Milton um couple other places I'm spacing off the
top of my head but um >> we kind of discussed too sort of like you know Randolph A and and the um you know the institutional we talked a little bit about some of like you know the institutional players you know like a like a B Milton and the Curry and Milton academy and you know sort of like
thinking thinking you know a little bit more broadly than just sort of like you know just those sort of like business village shopping areas. So it's it's a work in progress. We're definitely, you know, we we looked really carefully at the um the minutes from the meeting on the 23rd, the joint meeting, and um and
you know, we'll be we'll be sharing out we'll be sharing out the you know, as we as we develop a modified scope. Um, and maybe I was hoping we might be able to go back to MAPC and see if there's any sort of of their district local
technical assistance funding that didn't get claimed [laughter] >> because they might they might kind of fill that gap for us potentially, you know. So, it's worth the ask. It's worth the ask. And then that could get you back get us back to that to that um original number that closer to that 100,000
or closer to the to the number we want to be at. >> Okay. Great. So that is coming along. Uh let's see what's one of them. So that vision zero project, did you want to talk about that at all?
>> Oh, sure. Um yeah, so final deliverables were um sent to the town on July 1st. And so um yeah, just a little bit background on that. Um yeah, they delivered a report um which details
safety issues and recommended safety counter measures for Squanam Street from Granite A to the Quincy line. [snorts] Um the recommendations are based off crash and existing conditions analysis and an inerson safety audit held on April 9th, 2026. So um with that they um
provide some cost estimates as well as um three conceptual designs um I think two lower in terms of cost on the lower end and then one a bit on the higher end. So I heard from DPW from a meeting we had um
with them this week that um they're working on I think reigning some of the lines in some of the areas that are being proposed. But I think additional funds will be needed to implement some of the recommendations that are part of this vision zero. So they're they're
looking at potential grant opportunities to apply for to help fill that gap. So >> is that information in our folder or could it be? >> I I can share it with y'all. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, I can share those. >> It's funny because it wasn't too long ago that they redid that whole
intersection, the Squantum and Granite intersection and restriped everything, doesn't it? >> Mhm. It was it was really recently. It >> wasn't that long ago. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That was that was definitely part of the conversation was was that there were pretty significant improvements
made in that intersection not too long ago. I think I think this one bubbled up because of because of it's considered a high crash >> high crash location. And so um were there were there even deeper more additional things that could be that could be implemented? >> Yeah.
>> To you know to address that. So, um, but yeah, we'll share that information and we can we can come back to that. >> That's great. >> I find it interesting on Rand Alabad when it's a high crash issue, they um decreased the the number of lanes. So, here they're trying to expand
for high crash. Is that my understanding? >> Um, so that just seems >> I don't Yeah. >> not consistent policy [sighs] >> in terms of what I'm kind of initially seeing based off of a conceptual design. It seems just kind of more ways to kind
of narrow like I guess the view of like drivers if they're like making a turn. So kind of adding stripes so that like >> so they're not like cutting through quickly um in their turns and things
like that. Um there's also I think like call plastic um >> follow posts. Let's not do any more plastic flex posts. >> The town engineer did mention one of the meetings, too.
>> They're just very ugly looking. I wouldn't want them in front of my house. >> And they and they can and they can be noisy. That was definitely, you know, some some of some of these some of these measures can be can be noisy, you know, sort of with the hump and the and the, you know, flex post and what have you. So So there were this but there's there
was, you know, there was good rigorous conversation around some of those things. Um, and I'm imagining that that some of this will circle through too with the with the the uh the tool effort, the master planning, the traffic the traffic calming master planning effort as well. So, I I would imagine
we'll be circling back on this. >> So, will that be something that there'll be public a public process and getting input and feedback on this >> for for those specific for those spec for the results of this specific vision
zero effort with the NO? I I'd have to I'd have to talk to engineering about that. They really >> state road, >> right? Well, I think I think the state road comes up to a certain point on on West Guanum, but they but that was another thing that came up too that there was an understanding that the
state road came up further on West Guanum >> up the hill towards Quinsey and it really doesn't come up as far as maybe as maybe was was um understood. So it's it's um yeah, so I I I I can I will I will we can circle back with with
engineering about that about sort of like what the next steps look like and if there's you know how the funding's going to work. you know there's there's there's more questions to be answered and I think this was sort of like a these are these are like quick build right so there's kind of like a tightened you know a tightened time
frame to sort of you know do the assessment do the walk audit get the get [clears throat] the concepts in place so if the process I think is intended to be sort of like that quick you know kind of lowhanging fruit or whatever um so um but yeah we'll we'll follow up on next
steps and keep you guys keep you guys in the Yeah. And is this so is this Did you say I'm sorry. Did you say this is available? Um where can somebody see what the current plan is for this? >> I know they shared the final deliverable
deliverables with us. So, but I don't this isn't posted on our website yet, but this would definitely be >> Yeah. >> Good to >> Oh, yeah. Absolutely. >> Yeah. So yeah, there's been a lot of discussion and concern about >> the the Adam Street Squantum
intersection as well, which >> what they're trying to do there is >> create, you know, again, they were starting off trying to widen it and doing a land taking. And again, to Maggie's point, rather than slowing it down, they they were trying to make it wider, which is only going to bring
traffic in faster on that area, as we all know, um >> cut through traffic. So, I'm concerned. And there were also um we learned that they weren't the plastic ballards. We thought they were, but it's more of a striping, but it was a bike lane that goes to nowhere. So, it [cough] was a
bike lane that started at Helen and then ends. So, a lot of the neighbors have issues with that proposed plan. And >> this is this is at Adams and and Squanto. >> Yeah. Okay. So, on the other side on the other side of the highway. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, Okay. Yeah. So I'm
wondering if >> anyway >> well if we share it in your in your packet in your in your folder for next for next >> just meeting and then that way [clears throat] that that folder is public it can be shared easily with people that might be interested. As much as I love bike lanes, sometimes, you
know, what happens is they try to put it in with all of these cars that are racing through. And I I think, you know, sadly what just happened in Roxberry with the, you know, the the woman who works in, you know, >> um, so who specialized in that was was hit by a car. It's just the drivers
these days are >> really um it's really scary the way people drive now. And sometimes when you're putting traffic in bikes al together, it's it's >> if it's not done the right way, it's >> can be problematic. >> All right, that's great. Thank you.
>> Very fair. >> All right. Uh so let's see. So these were just some more of the um more more detailed information about some of the 40B projects. 440 Granite, uh 7173 Warren Trust, which is that 936
Brush Hill that we just talked about, 40 access, which is the prior 728 Randolph A and 485 Blue Parkway. Um so, um just just, you know, different levels of of monitoring and staying on top of documentation for those projects as they
move forward with the building permit process and and and what have you. Um not much more to report there. Uh so and we're we've we've noted the um the changes in the the update. Do you want to pick that up with the mass works
reason? >> Oh um yeah. So I followed up on the believe turning movement counts. uh talked to Sky in engineering and he said that they're going to move those to the
fall. >> Oh, wonderful. >> Um so so that yeah >> they they collect it at a time that's like more accurate in terms of like the traffic that's in the area >> and that's not supposed to delay the project at all with that change. So
>> great. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Anything else on that? I think that's that's all I have. >> Okay. >> So, that letter um was in your packet, the final letter to the library trustees about the parking RFP that was in your
in your um in your folder. It was it was sent this week. Um the um I connected with the chair of the sheet tree advisory committee. >> Wait, can you just go back to the library question? >> Oh, yeah. Um, so I thought I overheard um somebody talking that the library is
getting like a big $400,000 generator and that the placement of the generator is going to be at the front of the building. >> It already is. >> No, but even that's even I think more in front of that >> like on resale.
>> Um, no on nav. Um, so I'm kind of wondering if that's like the best place for it. Um, you know, do we have I don't know who to contact about. I I just overheard the conversation. So, I just feel like the garden club in the town
does a great job preserving the the front facade of the building. >> Where do you put it on the lawn? I think it's in a planting bed like not where the garden club not the U shape but um to the right over there
>> and I think you know it's pretty big >> cuz they already they have one right by the parking lot. >> Yeah. So there is one there but I think it could be in front of that. Um so that's what I was just like I just wanted some information on it. I didn't get the exact location, but I was just
um concerned [clears throat] >> that it's going to be this big huge generator at the front of the building. >> And you know, usually I have a generator at the nursery and we have it at the side of the building. And usually when it's a very big um
>> you know, piece of equipment, it's usually at the back. >> So I'm just kind of wondering why they chose that. in Kenab is a historic um road and I don't know if they have to remove any trees um or plantings to put it. >> So I don't know if anybody's heard
anything about that. >> I I definitely can follow up follow up with the library director. I'm sure he [clears throat] would he'd know. >> I'm happy to. >> And again, I'm not, you know, saying that they shouldn't have a generator. [clears throat] I'm just saying the placement is questionable.
>> All right. Uh and speaking of trees, reached out to the uh shade tree advisory committee just to kind of get the ball rolling on the trees uh for the um their review of the trees for the 440 Grand Street project. That was one of the conditions of the site plan approval.
Um let's see what else here is noteworthy. Just kind of gave you a quick update on some things like the you know the the big uh types of uh topics at the at the tricked meetings. the um the regional planning meetings
um the language accents project um I think um shared on that you know sort of the success from that pilot of the blue pantry popup event that's too far up
from that >> add a comment on that last category >> um I just so others know I had reached out to Liz because um in prior years I we I've had a membership in the um
American Planning Association and then the Massachusetts chapter um and I've asked Liz because my membership's expired to have it reinstated. Just I wanted to put that out there for others. They do offer um workshops
um they've done they do research, they have reports, there's a magazine, there's a lot of um good content and so I encourage others to um ask Liz about getting um that membership. >> Okay, >> that's awesome. Definitely.
Um and and and I'm working on it. Cheryl, [laughter] >> I'm not meant to to be a a nudge. It's just meant to make the others aware, Liz. >> Yeah. No, no, no. It's good. It's good. I'm glad you did. Um, all right. So,
let's see. Anything else in here? I think that's pretty much it. I think that's great. >> I think that's more than enough. >> That's great. [laughter] >> So, you don't want everybody question. So, I heard the other night at the Skeleings meeting that um that they're
going to be requesting additional funding for upgrades on Franklin and Basset for a water project. And I think a member asked if the Falcone are going to help pay for that upgrade. And um the
answer sort of was um no that they're doing they're contributing to maybe paving. So my question is u while they're doing this upgrade um are they looking into the possibility of people
along Franklin and Basset doing um edus? So is the upgrade going to accommodate the future of um more density in that area? So, is it just a a replacement, like a like kind replacement, or is it a
true like upgrade? >> And um >> you know, kind of what's the difference? Because I know we've talked about the the the costs that come with um the developments and having um the developers pay for or contribute some
impact fees for the impact of their developments. And so, um, um, I'm just wondering if like what's is is it just going to be a white kind or is it actually going to be an upgrade? >> Okay. >> Like a one like a one for one swap in
terms of in terms of capacity. >> Correct. Yeah. Yeah. >> Because I thought when we were discussing MBTA zoning, I thought the um the testimony was, oh, we have plenty of capacity in our infrastructure.
>> Um, but I'm wondering if we really do. Okay. >> All right. Liz, thank you so much. That's that's is great. Really appreciate it. Yes. >> Um I think the matrix is awesome. >> Oh, good. >> We haven't had that document in in my
time and it's very hard for residents in the town and quite honestly even for members of the board to >> consistently have a grasp on everything that's going on. and that's a tremendous amount that's going on. So, credit to you for putting this together. This is excellent. Um, there's a column that's
indicated as as priority. >> Do you envision using that column to to flag what might be a priority task? Is is that your thought? >> Yeah, I mean, ideally ideally it was something that the board would would weigh in on >> this board.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Because Yeah. Because I mean, we've got we have things that are that are deadline driven. >> Yeah. Um, but beyond that, it's really just kind of it's it's it's getting our getting our our leadership from you folks like what you want to be,
what you want to be studying, what you want to be focusing on. Um, so yeah, >> I see the matrix as being like fresh and new and I think what you and Avante are doing are tweaking and adjusting and modifying, improving it as you see opportunities to do so. >> So is am I right? Is that your
intention? We have a we have a section at the bottom which captures a number of things that I think you just wanted a place to be able to have them. Is that is that what that's for? >> Yeah, pretty much. I mean I mean those are those were things that those are you know the the [clears throat] project the
project review status. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, ideally, like we're we're sort of working towards a system where when we go into these monthly meetings, we're coming out with a pretty good detailed summary of like what's going on with
each one of those projects. Like, so ideally, I'd be able to answer you and say, "Oh, that water upgrade is this." Because at our meeting last month, the discussion was this. Right? >> So, um, and so yeah, that's that's the goal. And then of course there's those
additional items um below those multiple items that came out of our you know kind of goal setting discussions around different you know zoning zoning amendments and and some uh and some different planning initiatives. >> So they kind of they're kind of in they're kind of in a couple of different
buckets. >> Great. Great. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, [clears throat] >> oh, Cheryl, sorry. Sorry about that. >> Um, to Sean's point about that uh
spreadsheet and the tracking, uh, we spoke uh several meetings ago about short-term, midterm, and long-term um, goals. And I' I'd like to suggest that our next meeting um we put that on the
agenda so that um we can begin to be prepared for a Springtown meeting. >> Yeah, I think we do that. >> Be a good meeting to do that. Mhm. Great. Um
Okay. So, um with that, um we can move to our public comment. If there's anyone here in person who would like to, um to speak to, um on any issues, please feel free to come forward or on Zoom, you can raise your hand if you'd like to come.
Yes, please have a seat. All right. >> Your name and address for the record, please. >> Nice to meet you all. Omar Alasad 1263 and 1265 broke road. >> Nice to meet you. >> Nice to meet you. >> Uh so I'm here to uh share with you uh our feedback and also some concern
regarding the new bylaws for the short rental term rental. So myself and my wife Serene, our four kids have made Milton our home since 2018. And uh we live in a multif family where we live in we used to live in one unit and rent out
to long-term rental another unit until uh 2025 where we welcomed our first baby Lila and then we welcomed another baby in Malik. So two young kids. Uh we needed uh heavy help from our parents and in-laws with taking care of the
kids. So we could no longer have uh we needed space. So we could no longer have long-term rental renters in our other unit and we needed to have this unit for our parents for support. >> Uh however, we don't have our parents all year round and we lost an important part of the income that was helping us
paying our mortgage and affording a house in Milton. As you know, it's extremely hard for family like us. So we were relying on that additional rental for paying the mortgage. But now we lost it. But we need some way to compensate for this. So short-term rental was really a lifeline for us. It helped us a
lot to bridge the gap and be able to have our parents uh for part of the year when we need help and when they are not there we could have have them help us uh we could have this unit uh rented to in short-term um rental for to get some
income to help us. Uh we are all for like a a good behavior in terms of renting but we have a big concern with the cap of uh and the limit of number of days during the year because um uh let's face it we don't know in advance how the
year will be and if we uh we have our parents for part of the year and the limit is reached and then we could not afford to have the unit empty for the remainder of the year because we won't have income that will help us with our mortgage. Plus we will still have to pay the electricity, the bills, keep the
house heated and uh there's in addition to that a logistical nightmare because we need now we have a crew that comes for the cleaning. So we train them for to how to clean the house and we have we trust them that so they do this automatically. Imagine if they have to leave for the remainder of the year
because we don't need them then we need to have new crew new retraining. So it's really a nightmare for us to handle. Plus uh short-term rental is really seasonal thing. It's not the same all year round and also the income that comes from it from it is the same is not the same in winter compared to summer.
So if we use all our day in winter and we have the house empty in summer. So it's pure loss for family like us that use this kind of income to help us. So um [clears throat] we would like really to raise this concern that the limit of number of days will be huge problem and
huge concern for us as people are using this as a way to uh complement our income and also pay our mortgage. And also I want I wanted to take the opportunity also to share our feedback as home owners in Milton that does this that this is really positive things we
feel for Milton as well because the type Milton by nature is not a touristic destination. for the type of people we we receive in our houses. Most most of the time our families will need to visit families here in Milton or nearby or we have families who have kids who attend
camps in the area. So they needed a place to sit. So they come stay with us for a week or sometimes for weekend to visit family. And because we are near East Milton, they really enjoy going to the restaurants in the area, seeing the food center area. They give us really
glowing feedback on how they enjoyed the businesses around that area and we see this in the comments they did for us and the five stars review we get. So we feel it's also a good way to bring business to the town and make this town vibrant as well to get uh families visiting the
town and really if we lose that capacity to do so we would not be able to bring this business as well to the town and we just penalized and losing business for other families. Uh so we are all for responsible renting but we would you
would like you to consider removing that cap from the uh the number of uh days per year. Thank you for your >> Thank you. Can I ask a question before leaves? >> Yeah. >> Thanks for your email. We had your email this afternoon. >> I appreciate that.
>> So appreciate that Omar. Um so would you suggest no cap? >> Yes. Yeah. It could be rented for 24 hours >> no cap all year round because we don't know advant in advance what will happen during that year. We don't know how
often we will need the house, how often we will be empty. The mortgage will be need to be paid anyways. Mortgage is fixed 365 days a year need to be paid. So in in that year we don't know invest some years we may need it all year. Some years maybe we don't we won't need it
all year and the fact just to put a cap will create just logistical nightmare. in addition to managing a family of six and managing parents around. So we would like to relieve from that part and I understood one of the main reason about putting a cap is to avoid having
corporation to manage houses in Mittton and rent it all year round. But I believe there should be other mechanism to avoid that by assure ensuring that home owners who live in the house like us are being renting those those properties and I believe this would be
good mitigation against these kind of issues. >> Shere were you asking about the minimum stay? >> Minimum stay. >> Okay. So the so there's [clears throat] been discussion if there should be a minimum stay of x amount of days >> right. I don't know if I think that that
that's important. that there should be no no also no minimum stay allowed because most of the people we get uh come here for a weekend this is the majority they will come from Friday live Sunday and uh some of them will be here for a week that's uh another type of
visitors but I would not say those would make the majority of them they will be uh two night minimum which is the majority of the stay however I would say even one night sometimes is useful because we have sometimes or nights where we have a weekend and Then people
leave Sunday and another group come in Monday and then you have a night that is empty. So if you we don't have this possibility as well. This would be another yet another issue for handling. We as home owner we always put a minimum stay of two night and we only allow for a single night when it's an orphan
night. So that's why putting like a constraint on that will also add an additional hurdle to manage as well that that part of the uh the activity. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Yeah, >> thank you very much.
>> Thank you. >> Amber Belton 20 [clears throat] Willoughby Road town meeting member precinct. Um I just want to make one comment. you um there was discussion about talking to different stakeholders and I just want to remind the board and
I'm sure you all know that there are a lot of we have senior communities here [snorts] Fuller which I'm a executive director you know Fuller is one of the largest taxpayers in town over $600,000
and has 400 residents home inc also pays a lot of tax and such as ME. So that any kind of stakeholder discussion should also um I think the senior community should be reached out to. So
>> but I'm here also and I really appreciate it was it's so great to um hear somebody who actually has an Airbnb and um you know I want to thank you for addressing this issue. um I you know
have have thought about this and I brought it to you um at the when you started um working in the summer on what you were going to put in the fall town meetings. So to me, you know, I want to protect the character of the residential
neighbors. And I think when we write any regulations I remember from law school is that, you know, we not impose any unreasonable regulations. And so I just ask that the board think about that when they think
about whether it's limiting um you know the days or um any other limitations. um so that there aren't unreasonable regulations and if we are going to put limits who is going to enforce those so
for example the 120 days which I think you made a very cogent argument against that um you know who would enforce that the 120 days nobody's going to go around or and ask well did you have somebody this weekend or how many days is it now
so um [clears throat] I would just um ask you to be reasonable. Um, in looking at the draft, um, I had we had a discussion at my house before I came about adjacent properties and I think
maybe um, that was in um, 3B just kind of more of a definition of adjacent properties. I think even the definition itself lends itself to many interpretations so that we know um what
you mean by adjacent properties. Um I I think that you know it to me I think the health department should be involved should not be involved unless there's a complaint. um you know you can get too
many agencies or too many departments involved and I think then it becomes uh very [clears throat] unworkable. Um but um I thought the you know the draft um had a lot of good things and I
think the example that the gentleman just gave about that he lives in the home um and that I think makes a big difference. So I was glad to see that in regulation. So, I just wanted to thank you and um good luck on the final product.
>> Thank you. >> And any I'm not seeing any hands up on Zoom. >> Okay. So, then we can move to item number four, our short-term rental uh discussion on the draft bylaw. Um
and we have um Robin Stein. Uh Carolyn Murray could not be with us this evening. So um Robin is joining us from KP Law. Um is she >> can we see she just I think she just came in. >> Okay. She's on the screen. Great. So we
can invite her to join us. Hi Robin. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. Welcome. >> So dark on your screen there. [laughter] >> If I can get some more light going in
the background here. >> That dark where I am. I can assure you. But good evening. >> That's good. >> Okay. >> Terrific. [clears throat] >> So, Liz and I spoke earlier with um with
Carolyn um and she was going to sort of give you an overview of where we were um with Yes. >> with the bylaw recap. Um there are a few things that um we need to finalize and sort of put placeholders in and plug in
some language just so um to get it to a more fi final form. So I thought maybe we could walk through those confirm there was there were things that we had taken out last time that we had said let's delete that and Caroline's comments were in there. Um so does that
make sense for us to walk through? >> Sure. um those items and Liz, do you want to take [clears throat] walk through that discussion and just touch base with >> I'm just gonna I'm just going to hand these around. Um this these were the materials that um and I put these in the in the packet as well, Cheryl
>> uh or in the folder just just late today. I didn't have a chance to get these out to everybody. So, here they are by >> by hard copy. Um some of the um comments that um that um Maggie had had collected. >> Okay. Anyone else? Um, do you need a You
probably don't need a copy, right? >> I do not. Perfect. >> Is that in the folder? >> It's in the good. >> Uh, I can pull it up. >> I'll pull it up. >> No, I haven't. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Just just came in this morning, so I was Yeah, sorry. >> No, no, no worries. Just
>> so when we get to that point, >> just trying to make sure everyone had it. Didn't want anyone to get to get um, uh, you know, whatever. We've all got We're all working off the same information here. >> Liz, excuse me for just a minute. So, there's two documents you're referring to. One, the purpose document, and then
second, the comments. So, you guys want either of these. You get both of them. >> Yep. >> And I think we'll probably [clears throat] um Well, I mean, I guess we could if if it made sense to talk about that purpose suggestion right right off the top because that's the
first section of this proposed bylaw um on short-term rentals. I I'm happy to I'm happy to do that right now or if we want to hold that after we kind of review the the comments and the edits and what have you from the last meeting? >> I I I'd like to talk about the purpose.
Yeah. And and who was the author of that document? >> Okay. Um you know, you know, I'm going to I'm going to share concern I have and I think it this takes me right back to this. This document further takes me
back to the concern that I have. Sorry, before you proceed, can uh Liz share the document on the screen? >> Yes. Yes, I can do that. >> Thanks. And while she's doing that, I'll say Carolyn reviewed this and didn't have
any problems with it. >> Okay, that's good. >> She said it's more than we probably need to say, but she does if that's something that we wanted to adopt. She did not have a problem with that. >> Okay. I I didn't understand it, you know, to be honest with you. I was looking back at the draft and the
purpose was pretty well was simply much shorter than the purpose in this. I didn't even know where it came from, but but it it triggered Charl, are you okay with me going ahead? Can you speak? >> You're muted. Um, yeah, sorry. Thanks,
Sean, for waiting. [snorts] >> Sure. But it it it triggered for me uh probably um deeper thought in terms of what we're working on >> and all of the challenges
embedded in this. And um there I think there were there are so many considerations. So many and and the considerations are everything from the considerations the resident that just
joined us tonight and sent the email this afternoon to us today raised his situation is probably unique to him. He owns a two family property. He lives in one of the units and he utilizes the other one either renting. We use it for families.
That's that is a unique situation and not every short-term rental will be that one, but I think as you go through the town, you'll find um you know, probably a great variety of situations of rentals.
Um in our last meeting, we we talked about departments within the town and what responsibilities different departments would have. um we have yet to hear from those departments
and I think if there's anything we're responsible to to listen to as members of the of the board in addition to listening to our residents is listening to the to the employees of the town that are responsible for enforcing whatever we create for bylaws.
Um we've yet to hear from them. We just heard from um a speaker tonight, Tucker Felton, who doesn't feel like the board of health should have anything to do with it. We've been talking at length about what the board of health's role is and we've written into it what the board of health should and and everybody's
entitled to their point of view. anybody that comes to speak here. my I looked at this document this afternoon and you know there's 11 and and and now we know this is written by one of my members um which I appreciate it but uh
you know there's 11 intentions that at least one of our members has recognized here as intentions that Maggie as a member believes we are trying to achieve. what I guess to not take a long period
of time um to express my point of view. Um, we are moving way too fast for something that is as uh important to the town as um
as a short-term rental bylaw. Uh we're not nearly prepared in terms of the time that we have between now and town falling to do this right. And uh I I am
I am 100% opposed of any effort to try to get this to town meeting in the fall. I don't think we're going to serve our residents well. I don't think we're going to serve our town well. I think we're going to make mistakes and we're going to write a bylaw that we're going to regret writing
and once it's written changing it. And I'm not in favor of bringing something to town meeting and asking the body to pass it and saying, "Well, we'll modify it later if it doesn't work out." That's not good governance. And I don't want to
be a part of that kind of governance. This issue that's gone on has gone on probably for a lot longer than anybody was aware of. There's no need to respond and rush something as important as this without allowing all the stakeholders involved
in it to have their point of view heard. Um there's there's no need to move that quickly and put this in front of town meeting the fall. Uh we have we have taken to town meeting um bylaws that were not nearly as
impactful to the town and extended the period of time for those particular pieces to get the proper consideration so that all the constituents could be happy with what was passed at the end.
This is far more important to the town of Milton than those that I just referred to that we allow the time uh for it to be done properly. Uh this is this is moving much too fast
and it it's not going to it's not going to significantly change the fact that we have uh residential units in the town that are being utilized as short-term rental. It I don't believe it's going to increase that number significantly and
certainly not going to decrease the number if we don't have it in the fall. You know, if we have it in the spring instead. We will do better work as a board. um we will serve our residents better. We'll have we'll have an opportunity to listen to more people. I don't think there's an awful lot of people that even understand that we're
working on this. You know, there's very little email traffic to us as members of the board. I don't know if you guys are seeing anything that you're getting separately. I'm seeing very little. So, that tells me that an awful lot of people aren't aware of it. And I don't
think I don't think that awareness um should be reserved for the people that have a rental unit. I feel like awareness if we really want to consider what's proper awareness, it should be everybody. Whether you have a rental unit or you don't have a rental unit,
that's sufficient awareness to me. And I I honestly don't believe uh the majority of the town um has any idea that we're working on this. I just think they do. So, I am I am a proponent of slowing this down, doing it right, uh having
proper engagement with the town officials, um listening more, you know, to the residents of the town, and really thinking long and hard of the implication of what we're creating and writing something that we're going to be um
writing something that's going to serve as much of the interest as we possibly can. So, so ha has the conversation happened with um ISD or the health department? I know that um you had initial
conversation with Caroline, right? And I believe that the board of health spoke about it on Monday's meeting. >> I wasn't able to attend that. I don't know if you or were able to. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And I did I did get a chance to talk to to to Caroline. >> It's okay.
>> This is probably good time for you to Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. and and I I did get an opportunity to catch up with car Caroline today. Um and we were able to kind of cuddle for a few minutes at the end of the day with with the building commissioner on this and um you know in
in a in a perfect world we would have had a meeting you know sometime in the last you know two to three weeks where we really could have started could have dug in on some on some of this um and and folks just haven't had the bandwidth.
So, um, so I I feel like the I feel like the, um, the consensus was that this was this was going to be like a heavy lift for fall. I feel like that was I feel I I that I mean I'm I'm pretty much the same the same sense that I had that that
are that our last meeting, you know, um in in in terms of trying to, you know, uh figure out exactly what is the correct the correct way to implement this and enforce it, right? Like like dealing with that piece of this which is
which is such such a major piece which is the implementation and the enforcement. Um, I was able to reach out, and I'll just be perfectly honest, just today to the fire chief, the police chief, and the superintendent of schools. I was recommended by the uh
health director to reach out to the schools just to kind of get their get their input, and I heard that excellent uh suggestion as well for the for the senior community. Um, so I made note of that. Um, the only response, uh, the police chief had said he was definitely going to look at it and get back. Um the
fire chief had said that he really wanted to take a careful look because he's heard he's heard issues with other with other uh with other chiefs essentially. So he definitely he he he he was definitely interested in in in um you know get digging in and and and giving us um giving us some feedback on
that. So that's really that's really really helpful. Um so you know that's where we're at. you know, ideally again we would have had the opportunity to be sort of, you know, cuddling, you know, more intensively on this, but you just it just hasn't
happened yet. >> May I um Sorry, I don't know if people see one of my hands raised. >> I'd just like to suggest that while we have Miss Stein here that maybe we defer discussion of this type of these new
documents that honestly this is the first time I'm seeing them. So, I would like to suggest that we move forward with the draft that was um in the folder um earlier in the week uh with Miss Stein, Miss Stein and the comments that
Carolyn and Liz have put in there and then come back to this out of respect for her time. Thanks. >> Yeah. Um but I think and and we can I agree and we can let's go through this and then um what Miss Stein can also
help with is explaining which Carolyn it was very helpful that when you're looking at who who's the enforcement agent, who's the you know who who does the application go to when somebody comes in. When you have a zoning bylaw,
the building commissioner tends to over oversee zoning enforcement, but when you have a general bylaw, that would tend to go to the to someone like the board of health who would then write those regulations. And so she said what you know you we could do a zoning you know
it could be the zoning path and the building commissioner would be the person the touch you know the um sort of the responsible party for oversight of these but if it's general it tends not to go to a building commissioner because the building commissioner doesn't write
the regs the select board would write the rags and the select you know and the board of health would write the rags so that I just that would be helpful in the end just to sort of explain that to people the different options of paths. But um >> but yeah, I think we should we can
continue with this. But I think what I'm hearing from Liz is aligns with what you're stating as well and this is this is really important that this is done right. So, um, >> and that's sort of why, um, you know,
when we started this process, I think at our first meeting, I I stated that I didn't have an opinion at all on shortterm rentals. I didn't have an opinion if it should be prohibited. I didn't have an opinion if it was regulated, that I hadn't spoken to
enough residents um, to feel comfortable having a point of view. I didn't know enough at that point when we started it um uh how the discussion was going to go. But since that time and since um we saw this
draft, I have done more homework and I have spoken to more residents and they seem to be aligned with Sean's concerns and I have reached out to you know other towns and their enforcement um code
enforcement officers and you know their biggest concern and is um removing housing from our um regular housing stock and that is why some towns have
the owner occupied um requirement and um they have a longer uh rental period. um you know we we've heard and you know we had this housing crisis and we've heard you know for the past few years
about um the the lack of availability in housing and so the fear is by many communities um including Boston, Cambridge, Quinzy, Watertown um they're they're the most uh
restrictive they have the most restrictive short-term rental bylaws because they are afraid of the loss of housing. So when I um you know had the time the past um you know week or so I
my purpose was longer and I know it's a long document and I have no qualms if anybody wants to redline it to death and it's easier to edit and remove things than add on the fly. But I also have, you know, know that how important the
purpose is. If if any bylaw is ever um challenged in court, the courts always look to what's the purpose, what was the purpose of passing the bylaw. So having a more expansive purpose, I think, is
just helpful. And um that's why why I put this together and and all the the intents, you know, I know there are 11 and you could delete probably many of them, but that those are kind of the the things that I'm hearing from residents
from all over town and all who live in different type of housing. And the gentleman who just spoke, he is in a unique situation because he lives there. And that's different if you know that's different having a person present um
>> so I do want to talk about it but let's come back and I I was just yeah so that was just my >> No the purpose and if you want to redline it that's fine you know I don't have a problem with that but I do think we need a longer purpose than what is in our um
>> in the draft >> and it might be that people need more time to to >> look at it >> to look at this. Okay. All right. So now, so would you like me to pick? >> Yeah, if you could. Great. >> All right. [clears throat] So, so at our last meeting, there was a um a request
to add protecting the character of residential neighborhoods. And Caroline's uh comment on that is um instead consider enable residents to remain in their homes by earning extra income from their properties. Oh, am I am I mixing that up? Oh, I apologize.
I'm mixing that up. That was an in that was um >> not necessary. may be deleted, but consider instead enable residents to remain in their homes by earning extra income from their properties. So, >> well, Liz, I'm sorry. Can I I'm interrupting, but I just want to see if you could swap out what we're seeing on
the screen, please. Thank you. >> Yes. Yes. Yes, indeed. >> Yeah. >> So, item C we So, item C, we had talked about one C. >> 1 C. Do we need to just Were we just going to strike that? >> Okay. >> Because Maggie had mentioned maybe that's not necessary that we say that.
Um, and then we sort of just put a pin in it and kept it. But I I liked what Carolyn >> her suggested language. >> Um, >> I think that would be that says it in a better way that just doesn't sound like it's for profit only, >> right? Yep.
>> And that goes exactly to the gentleman who spoke tonight, right? That >> I think that ties nicely together, right? >> You can you can write it any way you want, but it might be real. Yeah. >> You know, and you don't want to write something that's real. I guess that's okay. But
>> no, I guess we we thought it's it's sort of obvious and implied. >> Okay. >> How's that? Good. >> Okay. >> I mean, would you rather strike it? >> It's fine. >> Or just leave it as >> as is. I have bigger issues.
>> Yeah, I know. I >> Okay. So, um so the next next comment is on um >> So, I'm sorry. Um Liz. So, now that we have it there, um, >> item C, Carolyn has a suggested
revision, right? So, did did we just discuss that or are we discussing D? >> No. C, that we'd like >> C that we'd like to Carolyn's language, >> right? Okay, fine. I agree with that. Thank you.
>> Good. All right. So next item is um this the the clarification between principal and principal and um and primary dwelling. So Caroline's
suggestion is to to swap out principal and and and eliminate any reference to to primary dwelling. >> I I think I went through it at one point and I think I found like four of one and three of the other or something. So, so we'll just consistently use the princip
principle. >> Okay. All right. Uh, so there was some there was some discussion about needing a um clarification on long-term rentals. I think that gets picked up later in the
in the document. Um, I think there's a comment >> and I think we decided to strike the line that uses long-term rentals. So, we don't need to define long-term rentals if it's not been used by law. >> I think was what I >> was that the was I don't know if that
was the only reference. >> Oh, okay. It's when it's been struck. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. >> And I think we had struck that. >> So, what is the definition of a long-term rental? >> 31 days or greater. >> 31 days or greater. And that's defined by state.
>> That's a state definition. >> So shortterm would be 30 days or less. >> 30 days or less. Correct. >> So the occupancy and occupancy are guested. We struck both of those. >> Right. So those So those Yeah. I just
wanted to confirm that those have been that those have been struck. Why? I can't see this entire bubble here. or confirmed delete occupant or guest definition. Great. All right. Uh
see confirm deletion of the 4% cap. Uh let's see. This was Yep. Same discussion we've already had about the consultation with with ISD and and health department.
um agreed on this one with a strikeout for K. Uh let's see. Long discussion about if a long-term rental is needed subject to long-term lease requires written authorization of
the owner and tenant at the time of submitting an application. All right, let's see. discussion. Long-term rentals need to be defined also where the tenant owner aid to apply for the license.
Okay. Delete N and not get in the middle of potential tenant landlord disputes. If we want to include this provision, she that's her that is her suggested modified modified language. I suggest I suggest incorporating her
modified language and to Maggie's point earlier about being able to remove things. Um once if we remove it now then it's it's not a a topic for discussion in further public discussion. So I'd rather in keep it but have it be her
revised language. >> Yeah. I like the way that she added the written authorization of the owner. Right. I think that that further gets the what we were trying to do and the discussions we had two weeks ago. Is there any reason why we would not
want to include it other than get in the middle of potential tenant landlord disputes? >> Yeah, >> which we of course don't want to be, [laughter] >> right? >> Certainly not. [snorts]
>> It seems like an improvement upon the boarding that we had. >> Yeah. I I I agree with Cheryl too. I think I think to if if if this is something that is going to require further further, you know, further
engagement. It's it's it's worthwhile to have to have that [clears throat] to have that in there to have that option still on the table and and to think about whether or not you want to make you want to make that opportunity available to long-term tenants. Okay,
>> I'm in favor and I think Cheryl's point is keep the language in there so we have it to discuss. You know, when we sit at the table with the people that should be sitting at the table with the building department, the health department, whoever it is, I'd rather not have language gone that could bring us back
to the topic that would be important to discuss with them. So, I agree with Then we move on. So this was this was you know obviously a discussion to be had about time
limitations or minimum minimum stays. I guess >> we can talk about this for the rest of the meeting tonight. probably should just [laughter] spend all that time because I think it's a it's going to be a healthy discussion. >> But whatever you guys feel
>> I think I've said before I think this is something that needs public input. >> We received some of it tonight but I do think we need more of it. Um so I I think keeping it in as one as one day is fine with me. It's
good with me. Um but knowing that there's going this will be something that there's generates a lot of discussion. >> Agreed. >> Should we do a a wider um time frame from 24 hours to 30 days? >> Yeah.
>> So so so residents know that it's up for discussion. >> Yeah, I I'm with you. I I don't think I don't think we should write I think I'd rather put nothing [clears throat] in there than put in 24 days or or or even put in 30 days. Leave it as it's is wide open, but I I wouldn't want to suggest
to anyone that we think that we're close with 24 hours, that we're just discussing 24. Um, >> so just keep it >> Yeah. So my my thought is a draft that's available for public view should have comments um cleaned up
comments not the extent that we have right now but this would be a top this would be one where we would say the minimum is 24 hours or one day the maximum is 30 it can be something in between you and you
know some communities have x some communities have y just kind of set the the discussion up. >> Okay, that makes sense, Charles. That makes sense. But I'll I'll I'll say that I'll never be in favor today >> or or you know, a year from now for a
24-hour duration. >> Yeah, >> I just won't. So uh nothing will get >> understood I >> yeah I I just feel as if this is something where there's a number of things we identified that are really public input is um going
to be extremely valuable. Some of it is probably pretty standard and agreed upon. Um, but others of it requires a lot of discussion and I anticipate there'll still be a lot of discussion at town meeting about some of these provisions as well. >> Yeah, I agree with you, Cheryl. And but
I I just um and I' I'd rather have the draft have, you know, a range of potential durations, but not as not as little as 24 hours. I mean, there were plenty of motel you can't get 24 hours at. You know, there are two day two night minimums. I mean, it's
>> 24 hours is I think if you pulled it down, no one would agree with 24. The majority wouldn't. >> So maybe we should put two days as a baseline and then still do the rest as a comment that this could be increased.
>> But we should also let them know what the max would be. The max would be 30, right? >> Well, that's defined earlier in the short-term rental, right? We we did strike short-term rental the definition because we're trying to be consistent with not including
general law definitions in here but general law says that defines that as 30 days or less. So, I mean, perhaps it's not needed in here, but if whoever suggested including in the commentary, perhaps that could be included in there.
That >> I think for the for the for the average person that's reading this that isn't familiar with MGL, what the short term, you know, duration is stated in MGL, it's helpful
to get in 30 days, right? I mean, we we can't expect every we we're going to say to our residents, well, you should you should research master law and make sure that you understand what you know what I mean. That's we got to serve the the residents, not to make things hard for them. I think putting putting in that range and helping them understand that
30 days is >> so renting for an hourly rate or rental duration is less than blank two days if we if we want to increase it for 24 consecutive hour two days shall that be printed. How how would you word that? >> So, we would want to I think we would
want to strike renting for an hourly rate or for and then just start with rental durations of less than >> two days. Two days >> two days should not be granted, right? >> Yep. And just >> leave it at that.
>> And leave it at that. >> 48 hours. rental >> rental duration >> of less than 48 hours or do you want to stick with the with the number or that we want to go to days >> 48 hours? >> I think we just say it's not allowed to be rented hourly and it has
>> two days. >> I would go I would convert it to to two days. >> I don't Yeah, just rental durations of less than 48 48 consecutive hours shall not be permitted. >> Right. Y and just keep it simple and
then um >> right >> we'll get people we'll have feedback lots of feedback. So this next one was about the limits um
limited to having the number the number of parking spaces were limited to the number of bedrooms rented. Right. So put a cap on it so people couldn't try to try to stuff six or seven cars onto their onto their property if they're
renting out three three bedrooms. So I think this does that. Um Cheryl, you had asked me to look into, you know, this the issue with the parking in the rear yard. We actually looked at a ADU application today that had the parking in the behind the house. [laughter]
So um so that happens for sure. So there really isn't any limitation there. I I I think anything beyond maybe open space like an if there's an open space requirement or what have you, but I couldn't find [clears throat] anything a limitation on paving in the rear yard. Just just just as a note note to that,
Cheryl. >> Well, thanks for looking into that. And um I'd just like to put that as one of the things that we look at when we look at um F dimensional standards and open space >> as potential zoning revisions in the
future. >> Um that was one of the ones I hope we might talk about for spring when earlier when I asked having uh that be an agenda item. >> Um but this is one of the things that I had in mind with that. But I did, isn't isn't that Don't we have a um
a regulation either zoning um that there are no more than five cars allowed on a property? >> So that is >> parking spaces >> that that language is here um about and I think I believe it's in reference
specifically to temporary apartment. >> No, I think it's just in our general >> just across the board. >> Across the board. >> Okay. Okay. So, there was actually that caps it that caps it at least at the five. Right. >> But should we say it in here? No more not to exceed five vehicles.
>> Yeah. Again, I agree because I don't think we should expect them to go look through our bylaws to >> and I will say that on Mechanic Street there is a house that paved over the entire back yard and striped it with parking places.
So, what I would suggest is referring to the section. I'm sorry. I have to disagree. I mean, I agree with Sean about not needing to go look at Mass General Law, but I do think that anyone who's looking at the zoning should be able to cross reference and look at a different section of the zoning because
otherwise we're going to have a real problem like with the code recodification where you have different definitions in different sections and different requirements in different sections. for parking, you should refer to one section on parking and the sections that deal with the other parts should just
refer to that one in my opinion. So, I don't know, Miss Stein, if you have a any opinion about that generally about zoning. >> Yeah, good evening. Um, you know, I tend to agree and I think Caroline has talked with you about kind of the intersection
between the zoning and the general bylaw aspects of this, but um, you know, you don't want to have conflicting provisions. Certainly, if zoning is already regulating something, um, you want to be careful about that, >> right?
>> This would be adding it, but it wouldn't be in conflict. Well, if you're referencing if you're referencing the section that that regulates that, then you're guaranteed
it's not going to be in conflict, >> right? Because you're saying that the zoning says it's max of five, >> right? >> Anything we're adding now can't >> reference that. Yeah. And and honestly, I'm I'm only coming across it in in specific reference to temporary apartments. So, I'll need to find I'll
need to I'll need to find that more specific reference. It may be under this residents A, A, B, and C's district uses >> because Carolyn's note says in an event in any in no event shall creation of a temporary apartment reasonably require
more than five vehicles be gared, >> right? >> Okay. Okay. But it and it and it does sound like that's something to to circle back on for more >> public input. >> [clears throat]
>> And should we make a note that the town of Milton does not allow for overnight parking? >> Well, don't we cover that later on in the house rules with requiring that the owner have that be part of the house rules and displayed? >> Yeah. So, that's good for the the person
who's renting. Do you think the average person in Milton knows that there's no overnight parking? >> Yeah, >> most home owners. >> Yeah, especially if we're required to be homeowner or owner adjacent, right? You know that.
>> I think Well, we all follow it. >> I think we all know it. >> Okay. So, we want to un So, just so we want to reference the parking regulations once we have it. >> Mhm. Yeah.
>> Okay. >> Meaning explicitly point within this comment with within this line to that. Okay. >> But we still want a maximum of one >> per rentable bedroom. Right. Because
>> Yeah. Okay. Limit. Yeah. Right. Right. >> I still think that's good. Okay. >> Right. Right. Mhm. Okay. So, this is when we get into the the unknowns, the registration requirements. And I think we can't answer this. I think this has to be
something between the building department and the health department. >> So, on that one, I think it could be helpful to know a bit more about what other communities have done. And I know Hal had done that um kind of
spreadsheet, but I wonder if um I'm just going to throw this out. Perhaps Avanti can make some inquiries, email or phone calls to some of those communities and ask what their
experiences have been with the method that they chose in their towns. >> Not bad at all. Great. And should um if if that's something that we want to ask Amanti to do, should we focus it on the communities that we
largely base us upon to begin with like Lexington which have a lot larger staff than we do. So it might be a position that doesn't even exist, but it would be Yeah, I think that would be a good place to start >> as a starting point. Yeah. >> Um as long as they
it would be good to get differing ones. ones that rely more on health and ones that rely more on the building commissioner just to get a sense. >> So I don't recall and I don't have the document with >> it might be that more than two communities might be worth getting.
>> I think last time we we realized that the board of health the health departments were morely mostly uh in communities with large septic um systems. I think that's what we kind of deciphered from the um the communities
that were >> I know Milton has septic systems, but I don't know what percentage of homes um have those. >> Less than 10%. Cheryl, >> how many less? Sorry. >> Less than 10%. >> Less than 10. Okay. Thanks. >> Yeah.
Okay. >> All righty. So, we're sort of moving through this section. Then, board D is the next, >> are we are we are we getting are we going back into this these conversations
about building code and and etc tonight or are we sort of tableling tableling that until some of this consultation with these other communities? >> So, I still had that question Liz on D there. >> Yeah.
>> Where the initial inspection leaves it open to which department, but then the followup is by the building commissioner because of the state building code. >> And then that seems the health department from what I read from Carolyn
is mostly if there's a complaint. >> So that seems a good approach to me. >> Yeah. I spoke to someone who does a lot of rentals um you know that's what her business is and she says there's a big
concern these days um with bed bugs. So, um she believes that the um the health department should be involved and definitely a yearly in inspection, you know, possibly even six months, but I
she just said that definitely the health department should be involved. Oh, that's a because I was going to say, you know, I think both the building commissioner and the health department should inspect initially, but then I was going to say maybe they
the health department doesn't have to inspect annually, but now hearing what you're saying, >> I think I think it needs to be clear what they're inspecting for. The building commissioner generally inspects for things different things in the health department. >> Yeah. Because I think wasn't it that the
health does all like the housing forget they focus on um all housing issues >> like rodents and bed bugs and >> state sanitary code. >> Yeah. Sanitary code and you know if you are on septic make sure you have to get
your septic pump. I had to get my pump just last week. So um >> so I think we can't answer this. I think we need we need to hear from the building commissioner and the health department.
>> So this is again where I would say since we don't have experience with this and our departments don't have experience with it that other communities input would be helpful there. >> Agreed. >> Yeah. And I think I mentioned it before that because we do not have experience
with this, sometimes it's better to be more restrictive at the the beginning of a bylaw and then um loosen up as we do get more experience and then the staff can understand and have a better understanding of the problems that they
that are arising. You know, although our uh although we we refer to our health department, building department does not have any experience with this, I'm of the opinion they have colleagues in their positions in other towns that they probably talk to on a regular
basis. You know, just just a Liz, you probably do. You probably know planning directors in other towns and they're resources for you. So I think we should anticipate that they are probably talking with others that hold their same positions in other talents that have
deal with this issue. So when they come to the table they have a chance to talk. I'm sure they're going to have some informed points of view even if they haven't had this experience in >> they've had similar kinds of experiences and and you said like you said that you can rely on others to have.
>> Yeah. Okay. Um I I would suggest tableabling the the fee discussion for that exact reason. >> I I would too, but I thought we'd discussed just whole taking it out all together. >> We were just putting in an application
fee, >> right? >> As established by >> Right. So no reference to a specific dollar value >> in the bylaw. Okay. In the by just an application fee period, >> right? And then reference that in the the fee schedule that's separate.
Gotcha. Gotcha. Okay. >> And then I think the >> that fee has to be >> Yeah. So just an application fee no amount. >> Right. >> Right. You know I I agree with that too well. I think it's the right way to do it because you know we said this and
something else. We don't want to have to change the fil every time we want to change the fee. Right. So there good reason for that. But but we want to generate some discussion around what should the value be. So, back to Cheryl's point, when we take this out, you know, it doesn't prompt us to have that discussion. So, may maybe it will
maybe maybe just have in there that just we write something that the fee is going to be part of the application. Maybe that's enough to generate the conversation, >> but none of us will forget that. Right. >> Right. >> All five of us can't forget it, can we? Seven. >> Oh, seven of us can't forget it, can we? >> Definitely. 250.
>> Okay. All right. So next next part H um strike that final sentence. >> Yep. >> Okay. Separate regulations being issued and if so by the select board. Right. So, um, you know, this might be a
conversation that could that that could be could be continued on, but there was, you know, part of the discussion I had with um the very quick huddle that I had with the the um health director and the and the building commissioner was that, you know, a path would be to be creating
these regulations, you know, soon like now like let's get this going, let's get moving on these regulations and as as those are being developed, it's going to crystallize really quickly like who should be issuing them, who's going to be taking applications, who's going to
be enforcing, and what they're going to be enforcing like what as as as that and and and the meat and potatoes of those regulations probably is already in some of this language here or most of this language here. But I think we can, you
know, we can um that would be that would be my suggested approach would be to to be to be teeing up those regulations to be in in um on a parallel track with the with with the bylaw if that's if that's how this moves forward either as a
zoning bylaw or general bylaw. Um because there's also some discussion as well about maybe needing to do a little bit of zoning in in a little bit of zoning in um in as part of this whole package. And what we were discussed earlier today
is that the board of health can actually issue regulations on short-term rentals even with before our bylaw. Correct. So they can be working on them and maybe that way they would feel more
comfortable having the regulations in place before going to town meeting so they know what you know >> and they just so when they write um regulations it's just adopted by the board of health >> that they have to adopt them
>> right >> I have a question about that if if that's the case is any other town doing that without having a general bylaw or a zoning bylaw. And then also I thought we said we needed to I read Carolyn's
comment about wanting to have the use at least defined in the zoning bylaw. So how is it that the health department can just issue regulations on their own for this? >> Do you want me to speak to that issue? >> That would be great. Thank you. Sure.
So, and I I think Caroline has um kind of shared this approach with you before, but we certainly have seen communities that do this on a dual track. So, they regulate the land use components of short-term rentals through a zoning bylaw amendment, and then they regulate the operational side of short-term
rentals through either a general bylaw or a regulation. So the board of health always has the ability under chapter 111 to pass regulations within the scope of their authority. So you know for public health, sanitary code safety, that kind
of thing. And so one approach would be to again get all the real land use components into the zoning bylaw. What is the use? Where is it allow um parking? Those kind of things. And then the operational sides of it could be a board of health regulation. And you
know, for some communities that does give an opportunity to have a regulation in place, test it for a little while, see how it works before they decide if they really want to put it into a bylaw or not, which is also an option. Um, and to the extent that there are still
things left over that really fall outside the scope of board of health and zoning, you know, you could look to do a general bylaw if you haven't been able to capture everything that you want to regulate. But since it's easier to change regulations on, you know, what I'll call the operational parts of this,
if you do it through a board of health regulation, you have some more flexibility. >> So, um, is it possible through the board of health then to limit it to owner occupancy, to limit how many days of the
year, limit, put a limit on the minimum number of days, all of that can come through a board of health with no vote by any other body? >> No. See, in my opinion, I think that's where you start to stretch 111. And that's why we see communities do zoning amendments that are defining the use,
the scope of the use, the nature of the use combined with more of the board of health components of it. Um, I don't know that you can defensively do everything that you might want to do for short-term rentals just under chapter 111. >> Um,
that makes sense. Mhm. >> Regulation >> then um in your experience is what's captured in this draft of a general bylaw capture what mostly would be in a health department regulation.
>> I think this I mean and again I've only been involved with this since about noon today [laughter] work with you folks on it a lot. So I mean I did read it obviously I wanted to be prepared for tonight. I didn't study it at that level, but my initial read of
it is that you probably couldn't do all of this in a defensible way through just 111. >> You could not could >> probably >> not probably in my opinion probably not in a in a fully defensible way. No, which is why I understood you were putting it forward as a bylaw. But I
think there's another approach where you could have a zoning bylaw cover a lot of this and then 111 cover the rest of it or a general bylaw cover the rest of it. Um but you know if if you're interested in that approach, I mean I'll talk with Carolyn about it. I'm sure she can make
some recommendations for how you could draw the line between zoning and general side whether it's a bylaw or regulation. So, my concern about that is it has a less public vetting process. Um, and
the general bylaw goes to town meeting. Is that right? >> And and you could say we're going to do it through a general bylaw and his own bylaw. You know, it doesn't have to be a board of health regulation. I think the appeal in some regard to the scope of what the board of health can regulate is
it does give you an opportunity to test some things and and be able to make adjustments or make recommendations as to what would ultimately go on a bylaw that goes to town meeting um because it's a little more flexible. >> Would you be able to do the board of health without the zoning in place
first? It seems like >> it would well it would depend again I think on what you're trying to accomplish through the board of health. >> Well, let's I'm just going to put this because what's come up to us is that um there are residents who are concerned
about an unregulated use um in their um neighborhood [snorts] and so they wanted some way to regulate and have enforcement mechanisms. So, um I don't know if that helps you
like think about what might be a better route or might be the most effective route. >> I mean I think you know I would need and probably Carolyn would need a little bit more direction from you on you know from a policy perspective what
would be the scope of what would just be in a board of health regulation and what wouldn't. Um, so I don't I don't have more detail to offer on that at this time, but um, you know, there are different ways to approach doing this and and you know, like I said, a lot of
communities that we talked to are doing it on both the zoning and the general side in some capacity. >> Cheryl, could I answer this conversation? I I just have a question in relation to what you're talking about with Robin. >> No, of course. I think what would be
interesting for us as a board if Robin and Carolyn could take this draft document that we have and highlight for us the components of it that could go into our regulation.
And at that point we we you know so just you know we we could probably do something very quickly if we understood what latitude we had for a regulation to address anybody that had um you know accelerated anxiety
about regulating but instead of you know instead of trying to that might be the easiest way if Caroline and Robin can just take a look at it and say hey you know we might come back we might see 50% of what we have here that we can But it's a regulation. It would be good. >> Yeah. And if you could do the same with
what would absolutely be best in zoning. >> Yeah. Well, I think whatever they don't highlight that could go into a regulation is however you sort it out. It's either highlighted this needs to be in a bylaw, you know, uh, and everything else go into reg. However you do it,
just separate it. And, and I mean do it very simply, uh, Robin. Don't don't, you know, don't move the wording around. just, you know, everything in yellow >> can be in regulation. >> I'll talk with Caroline. Yeah. No, we'll I will, you know, I'm take obviously taking a bunch of notes as we're going
so I can report back and make sure I don't miss anything. So, we'll um put that on the list. >> Yeah. So, I agree with that process because in my um experience with um writing a bylaw, you know, the 15 years
ago, and I think Sean mentioned it earlier, when you pass a bylaw and then it's very difficult um to change it. So, I'm stuck with a bylaw and I was informed by my attorney at the time, oh,
don't worry, just accept it now and then we can come back and amend it. That was 15 years ago and the bylaw still does not work for me. It doesn't work for town staff. It's overly cumbersome and we've never returned um because the fear
is it's going to get rejected at town meeting. So if anything can be put into a regulation that is outside a town meeting vote um and it's more flexible with changes of time and um changes of
philosophies um you can still go through a public process. The board of health still has meetings and and residents can still go and and voice their concerns. So, it's not like it's happening behind closed
doors. And I would expect that hopefully we might be invited to the board of health meeting. Um, you know, to to listen in and offer comments. So, I do like the idea of um separating it and
having it as um two different documents. >> Just a question based on what you said, Maggie. Is it the board of health who issues the regulations or the health department? It's board of health who creates a guid the regulations and then the department of health who enforces it.
>> Yeah, I would say the board of health would would adopt the regulations. >> Robin agreed. >> Well, it's done through the board of health at a public meeting. >> Right. That's helpful. >> Okay. >> And it would be helpful Yeah. to sort of
break this out. >> You know, it's sort of just like why why it's the same principle. Why we want to have the um the fees in in a different schedule, you know, same with this. What if we're finding that something's not working for the board of health and they
want to change it um or they're realizing it's not as much of a problem as they've anticipated. So, they can adopt a change much more um quickly. Good. And then there was just one more one
more point on that same issue about um you know if this was to go to the board of this the select board would they be able to delegate that authority and essentially they they can't heard response is they can't delegate it but they can obviously assign assign the
drafting and the and the work of creating the creating the documentation but but the select board would ultimately have to be the body that would adopt similar to the board of health being the body that adopts the regulations. Okay, that's a simple one about keeping
keeping things about fees and and uh enforcement together. That's a simple change. Do you guys want to go do want to make that change since we're since we're talking about it? >> Which one is this? Um so this is um
moving paragraphs D and E from section 4 which I believe reference uh the insurance >> registration certificate and smoke detector carbon monoxide requirements. I
think that your recommendation to move that to into one location. So under so under inspections Oh, I see what you're saying. >> Yeah, I think it was just just for clarity. Oh, right. Yes. Keep the similar the similar topics. >> So, keep all the inspections in one
>> right in one in one >> header of inspections. Yep. That makes sense to me. >> So, this [clears throat] motion four to five. >> Yep. Was a good suggestion. I did not need any progress on getting in touch with the town's insurance
advisor. This would be um this would I think the consensus was to was to get more feedback from the police chief on that one. So I have I have reached out for his for his feedback. >> See confirm with Caroline that this is
provided for context not not to suggest internet changes. Okay. So that was just adding that statement again about notwithstanding the provisions of the zoning bylaw. And I think that this is a good way of referencing the parking count,
[clears throat] right, with the exact section of the zoning bylaw rather than just generally the zoning bylaw as it was earlier. >> Oh, right. >> Right. Earlier you said notwithstanding anything in the zoning bylaw, but this is very specific as to where the person
should look, which I think is helpful. [clears throat] >> Yeah, agreed. Okay, let's see. Confirm strike line. >> Sorry, can you scroll back up to right there? Um, >> so occupancy is not defined now because
we deleted that. Um, is that something that should be defined back in? I'm gonna I'm gonna kind of rely on Robin
>> because we we scratched occupancy earlier on because that was that's defined in Mass General Law. >> It's capitalized here generally means it's a defined term, >> but we struck the defined term.
Yeah, I think I think this was >> I think I heard my name. >> Yeah, >> I'm not sure what the question for me is. >> So, does do we need to put that back in as a definition of a defined term occupancy
or is it clear? I'll be honest. I don't know because I I'm not sure what you put. Let's see. Let me go back. >> Occupancy is just capitalized because it's under >> it's under K. >> It was it wasn't there before the
>> I see that. I was just going back to the definition. >> Okay. >> No, it's just >> you're saying the notwithstanding wasn't there before. So, occupancy was capitalized because it was the first >> letter. >> Yeah. I'm wondering if that's I'm wondering if that's Yeah, I'm wondering if that's what this what what this is
because I think >> it's spec >> it's specifically for an instance where there could be confusion or conflict with the zoning bylaw Robin like we we we kind of we kind of kept coming. >> No, I I I think the point is taken
though that the O is capitalized because it used to be the beginning of the sentence and maybe now it just needs to be made lowercase. But you guys can certainly think about whether or not it's clear enough just as written or if you think it needs some further defining.
>> Well, I guess what what is this referring to? So, if you're renting out two bedrooms, you can rent it out to four people. If you're renting out one bedroom, you can rent it out to two people. I guess I'm how
um occupancy also has a definition in the building code like uh I believe anyway um you might want to get some input from the building commissioner you know on that
>> yeah the um the other thing would be is occupancy defined elsewhere in the zoning bylaw I guess I guess that's what this is getting at up up above Okay. >> I just wonder if there's going to be questions about that as it goes to the
public. >> I agree, Cheryl. I have the same I have the same concern. >> Um, okay. Let's see. So, strike language on uh lodging house and what have you.
Um, okay. So, the response on this was, oh, can the can the building commissioner designate somebody? And I think she just clarified that that was not her intent was was to have the building commissioner, you know,
designate somebody to to um be able to um issue issue a written notice of any a violation. Right? So her suggested language is the commissioner
uh instead they should read the commissioner and strike designate >> I think is that how you guys are reading that? Sorry. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So just so just a bit I I I believe it's just to strike or
designate. >> Yeah. Because who would the designate be? As long as we specify who has the authority to enforce. Yeah. Okay. All right. So strike that and
section. >> I think that came up at our last meeting because I asked does the health department has the right to issue their own violations and the building department has the right to issue their own violations. Right. Mhm.
>> Yeah. And I think as somebody already, you know, mentioned under existing law, putting aside any local bylaw regulation, the building department, the building commissioner operates within the building code, the board of health,
it's a sanitary code. So they are regulating for different things. So if you're creating a bylaw that's them responsible for doing certain things, you just want to be clear of under what they're acting or what the scope of their authority is specific to the bylaw
and who can do what. >> Because that provision right there says any not wait stop there. The commissioner or design shall issue a written notice of any violation of this article. So really it's I think she her
her comment there Liz in the in the um comments said building commissioner or health director because it it would be to respect a violation. Which violation, >> right?
>> Well, but the way it's written, you're essentially picking an enforcing authority and enforcer for this bylaw. >> I see. Okay. And so I think you know again and you've already noted you have some discussions to have internally about who's going to be responsible for enforcing the bylaw who's going to
implement the bylaw. Um and you you know if it just says building commissioner or board of health then or or health director then either of them and both of them would have authority over the entire bylaw. If that's not what you intend then you know I think that's going to come out of your internal
discussions though is to you know who's going to be responsible. Well, it seems to me if the health department, if we do something differently, like we just discussed, if the health department is issuing regulations, then they should be able to issue violations relative to those regulations and the building commissioner should do those relative to
the building code in my opinion. >> It sounds like it it's something that's going to come from your discussions is what the ultimate language will be. So this next section um per 79 meeting as listed in the regulations
uh strike in the amount not to exceed 300 per offense some discussion about revoking the license instead of fines. Just wanted to note that. So are you guys comfortable with her with edits there.
That's right. Interesting. This might be this this might be one that's makes more sense to table for discussion about the you know the mechanics of of who's enforcing what and what their what their current fee schedules are sort of current
[clears throat] what the current process is >> and sort of you know the right the right >> I don't think we can answer that tonight >> and usually I think if if there is a um a violation. Again, I don't know, but under a zoning
code, don't you have the right to cure to to to cure the um violation and not just be um penalized or revoked? >> I spoke with someone on the board of
health and they said that for sanitary conditions, that's what they do. they go they'll inspect it, they'll find them and then give it a certain amount of time for them to remedy that >> that's what the building inspector usually does. So I guess it so I don't know if that is
that in conflict and again didn't we have a discussion one point about um the emergency going on someone's property what constitutes going on someone's property >> and issuing a yeah >> you can the inspector can only go on
someone's property if it's an emergency >> right >> and who decides what that emergency is >> unless they're invited Unless they have to be invited in, >> but I think what she's saying is we have to be aligned with
the limit of the fine no greater than 300. And she refers to the zoning I I guess right is doesn'tice. She's referring to the general violation section of the song dialogue provides and then she articulates what's written
and it it reads that each violation should be punctuist that's going to cover what we can because 5100 300 >> that's what she suggested. Yeah. >> For first, second, and third.
>> But she does say 300 is the maximum. >> Tabling it. I don't know. >> Yeah. And I and I can tell you what we did with the sign bylaw was we >> we sort of took I guess anticipating recontification. we kind of took the easy route and said and we just pointed
to the that section in the existing bylaw >> and didn't and didn't get into any more detail than that. So at least at a minimum the signs would be treated the same way as anybody else that got pointed to that section that was only
>> good. So that's a that's a that's a strip that's one. Um so all right. So that's good. So there's a lot of questions that we still have outstanding and just for the purpose of
time. Um Carolyn had a chance to [clears throat] look at these but I think really didn't it was my interpretation that she might need some more time on them. to go through or should we go through them tonight with Robin? These >> What's that?
>> Oh, the um the the >> some of the legal questions that Maggie had this was that second that second um >> the second page I was still >> I'm tableabling your purpose for now. >> And there's 10. There were 10. Um I guess
>> Well, Megan, maybe we'd be better. We'd be better off. I I don't know. I don't know if you want to. >> And Robin, did you have a chance to look at these? I read them. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Uh this afternoon when I, >> you know, read this for the first time.
But >> yeah, >> I mean it I'm I'm certainly not trying to add any delay, but I I know you do have more work to do on this and it may just be better given the having just received them and my overall familiarity to at least give me or Carolyn a little
time with it. I don't want to misspeak [clears throat] on anything tonight. kind of get my head I'd want time to to study it a little bit. Um I did I mean I looked at everything obviously, you know, this afternoon. >> Yes. Yes. But even Carolyn said, you know what, I would just like to take a little bit of time with this because um
she said she didn't have an issue with the purpose, but she said, I just would like to take a little time with this to see um would it make it better or is it not nec you know what items um in her interpretation. So, I would I would be
fine. And I think Caroline said she could make the sixth, right? She Yes. said she could make the sixth. >> You did mention to me that she was going to attend your next meeting. >> Yeah. Which is great. >> So, >> yes. >> So, I think >> you did tell me that >> should we give everybody time to sort of
look at this, read through the purpose, you know, have sort of their um comments are there um >> and where did these comments come from? um from just different in my research I've reached out to different attorneys
in town. Okay. And so I've sort of just collected their comments and against their >> peer review. Yeah. But their preliminary comments same thing that they haven't had a chance to study them but it was what certain things jumped out at.
>> Okay. All right. So, I think um is there anything else on the short-term bylaw that anybody wants to discuss it sounds it sounds like if there's a pathway, you know, on the sixth to maybe look at how
we can at least at this point look at implementing regulations and who is going to do those regulations. But starting with that until we can until our staff is feeling comfortable with actually how how
>> I think um this is a totally new topic is just to pick this to the health department and the board of health without having had a conversation with them on something that we've had multiple meetings on. Um, so if anything, I think we need a joint meeting with the board of health and
discuss how they would approach this if that is an appropriate approach. I don't think we should just decide tonight when this is the first we've heard of it. I'd like to see what comes back from uh Carolyn and Robin about how you would uh divvy this up between regulations and
zoning. Um, and I think we need to uh schedule a public forum on this topic uh for sometime in September uh when people are uh back from vacations and other things. um uh
mention >> having regulations that are um you know rooted from what from the research that we've had. I don't think it's a it's something we can just kick to another board for now without having had a discussion with that.
>> No, absolutely. >> And that goes to Sean's point, you know, why rush things? It's such an important um you know, such an important topic. So, why should we feel rushed to to get something done because we have so many
unanswered questions and the lack of um public input? >> Yeah, the there's no decisions made tonight at all. But I think the discussion that we've had tonight and what Robin has, you know, helped us understand and what we talked about previously with regulations affords us a
chance to consider that we might be able to create some create something before we get to a bylaw that might be beneficial to the town. So we need more conversations. We need more discussions. We Cheryl's right. We need to talk to the board of health. We really
>> I understand that the select board discussed this on Tuesday. I wasn't able to watch the meeting. Sounded like you might have. >> Yeah, I don't think I watched that part. >> Okay. I'm just wondering what >> I don't know what that discussion was. >> Yeah, I I didn't see the I didn't see
that meeting. >> Um All right. So, I think this is a good sort of um place where we are. We've ironed out a lot of things and we know there's a lot of outstanding questions. So, >> I would just also like um to get an
understanding how long it will take to get the feedback from the departments that Liz has reached out to. Um I understand she mentioned that the bandwidth um if
uh it's not realistic to get feedback um I think we're just going to be stymied. So can they those departments give some indications of when we'll get their feedback? Ken, >> I I I will I will continue to do what
I've been doing, which is which is visiting people personally and and working with um and working with the the town administrator and the and the and the assistant town administrator to try to pull sort of like a staff level effort together. I think there's
definitely um a desire to work together and um I I mean I but I I couldn't speak to like an exact turnaround, you know, time at this at this point, Cheryl. I I I I don't want to I don't want to artificially say, you know, something
could be turned around in a in a time period when I don't I don't I don't know that. I don't I don't have that answer yet. Um, but I think >> I think we've got >> if it's going to be something that takes a long time, I mean, I'm going to suggest we turn our attention to other priorities. I mean, honestly, I I think
um we spent a fair amount of time in the last two or more months on this and then we're going to get to a point and just table it and who knows when it's going to get any traction again. And I feel as if that's not the best use of my time
for the last two months. So I would like to at least get some sense that yes, there's going to be discussions and we are going to get to a place where there's some direction um for this topic.
>> And Liz, you had talked about doing um a public meet doing a public forum on this public hearing. >> I I >> on the 27th of August was that the >> Well, it couldn't be just a forum, not a hearing. >> Did you Did you mention I mentioned the
27th for for the zoning hearing. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Right. That's the only date that's going to work for for advertising purposes. Um, if we're if we're having a zoning we're having a zoning hearing that night. I mean, it's you know, it's it's it's a couple days before. Well, actually, Labor Day is
kind of late this year, but it is it is sort of in the it's summertime. People are away. I mean, I don't know. I don't know. >> So, maybe Cheryl's point to do a a public forum in September. >> Yeah. Yeah. I would I would pro I would want to I would want to look at something after Labor Day for sure to
have people's attention and and you know if the if the pressure is off in terms of timing for fall then it then it it it creates that it creates that space to to to get to do some have these conversations and have the public input and you know like I said you know a
possible a possible avenue would be to you know getting these regulations mo moving on a parallel track so that if if and when it does come to town meeting, you've sort of got that full package. You've got that complete package um you
know to to present the you know the law and how this is going to work and because those questions are going to come. >> Yeah. And I and I don't think Cheryl that it's been a waste of time. you know, we haven't this has been a new topic for all of us and you know, I
don't think any learning experience is a waste of time, you know, and I'm kind of a firm believer slow and steady wins the race and you'd rather get it right um than get it wrong. And if it takes a little extra time and it all of us and I
have to admit I wasn't, you know, maybe you had more knowledge about this than I did. So maybe I'm a little slow in in getting up to speed. Um, so I have been actively reaching out to just a variety of people and and you know I still
haven't heard back from quite a few people. Um, so another piece of information I thought might be helpful was do we have any data around the average length of stay for the current 75 units that we have today? Like where would we get that information from? Like
the Department of Revenue because I think that's where they um the Airbnbs >> My understanding is that the people who operate short-term rentals on the Airbnb have access to that kind of information. >> So I wonder if they would share it with us.
I just want to clarify. I didn't say a waste of time. I said u best use of time [laughter] because you know F or other things. >> I think that's important. I think that's important. So, it it's really what I'm I
guess expressing some frustration about or um trying to put some pressure on is not to have it get to this point and then feel as if there's no um um motivation or less motivation to push it
to a springtime meeting if that's where it goes because those still have those articles still have to be submitted in January. But I also rather see that spend a little time now and then go to town meeting and then get sent back for further study. To me, that's like more
of a motivation killer than us just taking the extra time. >> I mean, honestly, um you'll have to admit that most people aren't aware of articles until they do get to town meeting, right? >> Or they're close to getting to town meeting. And so
>> it's very difficult sometimes to engage people before then but um summer is difficult as we all have have said um but I do want to make sure that we um we don't let this slide um that because
it's hard to to put something aside and then pick it back up later and not have to uh refresh your memory on every discussion. Go back and read notes again. It's it's all fresh and we should continue to keep um the foot on the
pedal in my opinion just to get to >> I think they've done a lot of really good work. I think we've done pretty much as much as we can do as a planning board up until this point and now it's really it's how this gets implemented which is the questions that need to be
you know how does this get enforced? you know what you mentioned in your other meeting you know who's going to enforce the two person per bedroom you know it's there's a lot of questions that I think the people who will be in charge of this will need to think about and and be part
of it but but I think the work that we've done is is great and has really teed this up to to be able to go forward at some point >> I realize we're moving on and I don't want to belabor this um we're talking maybe September to have a a forum, a
public forum to have public input and present where we are. By that time, we think we'll have input from fire, police, uh the different departments. >> Yeah, I think I think that's I think that's that seems very reasonable to me. That's about that's about, you know, 6
to 8 weeks out. We have a housing production plan um public meeting uh scheduled for September 16th. Um, so that so we need to need to factor that in. Maybe something happens at a meet at
one of the planning board meetings. Maybe maybe there's just an you know a press release in the times and some social media outreach and just let people know that this is >> that this is going to be a you know >> a topic to be discussed as a suggestion. I don't know if that if that's if folks are looking for something wider than
that, but that could be a way to do it. >> Okay. Well, Hal, you get good um comments on your social media posts. I was going to post, but I thought >> there's a lot of them. Yeah. >> But I thought it was going to be a Yeah. violation, but I think you get a lot of um I think that's good. [laughter]
>> Yeah. I thought that uh you know, just trying to get that out there for Sean, to your point at the beginning, right? Like a lot of people don't know about this, which is true, but I would argue that it's been in the Mil Times last several issues. It's been, you know, I posted a some healthy discussions going
on. Um, but I I think that publicizing in the September forum would be a a good thing to to have. Um, we just for my own clarity, we the August 6th, did we say that we were going to try to do something more immediate though with that? I thought we said
>> so August 6th was I think that was because you had a conflict. Yeah. >> No, no, but I thought related to this, were we trying to were we trying to have someone come come in August 6th? I think I think the I think that I don't want to speak for you, but but was was that sort of like if we needed to to to wrap
anything up right prior to needing to submit anything and move move something on for fall town meeting? Correct. >> Is that is that what you were is that >> that's what I was thinking. Yeah. >> Okay. I I didn't know if that was when I think someone suggested maybe having a joint meeting with the board of health. I didn't know if that was something that could be possible to have these
especially if we're looking at trying to bifurcate the bylaw from with the regulations. >> Yeah. Yeah, I can I can I can I make a suggestion? >> Yeah, >> I think we all recognize the benefit of putting more time into this and having
participation with people who need to participate >> rather than speculate on what can happen on what date and who can be sitting at the table and who can give a response. How about if our path forward was to leave our meeting tonight, you have a chance to talk to the chief of police, the fire chief, the border of health,
the building department, and ask them how they could participate and how they'd be interested, right? And then when we get back together, we can share that with us with our >> But we we we can't I mean, we're just we're just kind of waving out through this our way through this thing trying to figure out what's it going to look like the next few games. I think we
should give Liz a chance just to talk to the people [snorts] that we need to talk to and and and maybe to tell them that this, you know, the direction is going to be spring, not fall. Now that we're not trying to make it happen for the fall, you know, tell us how you can
contribute to helping us understand this and and something works together. >> I still think that it would be helpful for uh Robin and Carolyn to look at the bylaw and as you suggested, Sean,
>> yeah. what what's reasonably in a regulation and what's what's in zoning because I think if that's the path that's going to be done then we need to understand that sooner rather than later >> I agree I'm not changing that you know Robin and Carolyn can do that on a
separate track but you know in terms of the town and and who can help us when can they help us I think we need to give Liz a chance to talk to those folks >> we're talking about a board of health probably a majority vote of three people on regulations than zoning you're talking about for something like this I
believe is a supermajority vote and a general regulation which I think requires a simple majority vote is that right Robin >> yeah general bylaws are are a simple majority >> so it's a completely different path of approvals and I think the public needs
to understand that as well >> and one thing that Caroline also said this morning is if we do do a general bylaw we would still actually then have to put something into our zoning, amend our zoning because right now it doesn't allow for
short-term rentals. So, it would have to somehow reflect that they are that there is a an allowed use. Um, so we would need to amend the zoning if we're doing it as a general. >> Yeah, that's that's this last comment
here. >> Yeah, >> on this final page. >> Yeah, >> that that that needs to be there. Marilyn or I will we'll get few comments on that issue generally just what we see fitting where. >> That's great. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Robin.
[clears throat] >> Terrific. All right, Robin, thank you so much for joining us this evening. We really appreciate >> of course >> your time. >> Happy to help. >> Thanks, Robin. >> And we're so >> the work that KP Law is doing so and working with Caroline. >> Well, we appreciate that. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> All right. Well, if you don't mean that, I will hop off. >> Yep. Thank you for having me. >> Have a good evening. >> Have a good night everyone. >> You too. >> Thanks Rob. >> Okay. Um so next item um is the fiscal year 2027 the mass
budget um and zoning amendments, zoning act amendments. Do you want to touch on those? So, I had um I had uploaded this um this memorandum from KP Law on those changes for for uh 4DA for the zoning act. Um
did folks have a chance to look at it? Did you have any thoughts? Did you have any questions? Um I mean I can just kind of quickly run through what those changes were if that would be useful or >> it might be good for the public just to highlight.
>> Okay, great. So um so um our town council KP Law pro provided this summary dated July 13, 2026 and it summarizes the um changes that affect the zoning act in the in the um the house budget
bill the the bill the sorry the budget that was signed by Governor Healey on July 9th 2026. So um there are multiple changes to um to the state zoning act. There's changes um in sections five and 11 which um deal with notification
requirements on zoning amendments and special permits and what have you. And they're essentially allowing um this opportunity to use electronic notification but with the caveat that um you know an assessor's department has to have a mechanism for providing a
certified list of you know say email addresses as opposed to you know the the the um uh regular mailing addresses that are that are currently used. So, so that sort of, you know, moves things forward in terms of, you know, paperless and sort of streamlining things, but there's
going to be some work that's going to have to happen there to to implement that. Um, >> yeah. So, how do they know what what if someone doesn't have an email address? Like, if you're >> right, I think that's I think that's kind of where this some of this stuff is is it's sort of to to be determined how
this is going to get implemented, right? Sort of the reality of it. Um, you know, I don't know that um you know, I don't know. I suppose there could be like an opt-in type of arrangement where if you want to opt in for paperless notification, right? And there's some
kind of process where you sort of like sign off on that and then if if something ever comes up where you're certified a butter and you've opted into that paperless notification, right? So there I could I could foresee a way that it could it could work, but there's going to have to there's going to be some, you know, some there's some work
to be done to make that happen. Um, so in my conversation, quick conversation with the building commissioner, I think that this next change to section six on um nonconformity pro protections um the the
extension or alteration of pre-existing non-conforming structures, his sense was that the town sort of already has language in the in our bylaw that that that allows most of what is contemplated here. So, I I need to circle back on that a little bit more, but it's
essentially um allowing you to um to, you know, to alter and extend by right without special, you know, special zoning relief if you're on a non-conforming lot. So, an undersized lot, you you know, you don't have the setbacks per se, you know, sort those
those sort of things. Um and so that whether or not that's going to kind of open things up in Milton anymore, I'm not really sure. I'll probably have to kind of look at that one a little bit more carefully in terms of what's currently in the the town's zoning bylaw
for that for that situation. Um ex I believe there is an extension on um from two years to four years for abandonment for pre-existing non-conforming use. So like if you had a store in a residential zone and you weren't using it as a store
for for over two years, it used to be that the use was considered abandoned. Um this is extending that protection to four years. That's my understanding of that. Um expansion of protection. Okay. So this next one um I can give you an
example. The gardener school came in and applied for their signed permit under the old signed bylaw and then they were not able to proceed under the old signed bylaw because they hadn't been issued the permit. Right.
So, um, before before the the the new zoning was advertised and what have you. So, this this will this will protect folks as long as they get their application in before a zoning change has been advertised, they will have that protection where they can proceed under
the old zoning. So, it just gives people more more certainty about their path in terms of in terms of the zoning, right? because sometime and and and with the gardener school great example they just didn't want to lose any time and they said we can't take the chance that the town is or isn't going to vote this
thing up or down. So they just kind of wanted to move forward. So so under this new under this new um you know this new uh language um those folks would have more certainty once at at the date of application. They they would know that they don't have to they don't have to
worry about whether or not a town meeting was going to go up or down. Um so zoning freezes um one to two years. Uh so this again sort of just just um
enables again you know the that the owner the developer who what have you the interest um that they would have additional time and protections for uh other permitting processes to play out. So like you could have sort of like an an ongoing issue with like say a Hong
Kong filing for instance and you've got your you've got your um zoning permits but you don't have your Hong Kong. So um you know this would extend those extend those protections so that you wouldn't have to sort of start over from scratch while you're dealing with other
permitting other permitting um needs. Um expansion of lot merger zoning protection. So this is going to allow um currently singleum two family residential lots um have already been protected from the lot merger um
provision but this would extend this um this protection to uh commercial lots as well undersized commercial lots um and so >> Liz >> Yeah Liz can I ask you a question about that?
>> Yeah. So is it that it was previously that if there were two adjacent lots under common ownership, they were um considered merged and considered one lot.
>> Right. And I believe and I believe that the that the housing I'm not going to get the right name but that the the housing act right that that with that that that sort of it carved out that protection for single for single um
single and two family residential uses. It carved out that it it eliminated that that that common that common that merger doctrine essentially for single and two family uses. So now this is extending that that um protection to beyond single
and two family uses. So multi >> every use is it extended to every use >> strikes residential use requirements providing protection for all lots. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um and so let's see easing of
varian standards. So this is the big one. So this is the one that everybody was chatting all about on the mass planners list serve. [laughter] Um and so essentially it takes the you know I I would always say with a variance it's
it's it's shape topography and soil or something right so there was like three things that you could that you could legally you know sort of issue a variance for right so um and so what this what this is doing is is it's broad broadening that I think considerably
it's taking it to what they're calling a practical difficulty and So um they're including things like so well soil condition shape topography. Okay, those are those are ones that were already that was the standard that's been the standard for for decades. Um
and then st and then they're in incorporating financial hardship which I think gets on a de facto basis gets called in a lot but it was never it was never part of the of the zoning act that I'm that I'm familiar with. Um and
um I think I skipped to the wrong page here. What's number three? Oh yeah. So whether the benefit sought by the appellent can be achieved by some other feasible method, right? And whether the practical difficulty was self-created. So essentially financial hardship
whether or not you can achieve that same method feasibly in another manner and then whether you you created your own hardship. Right? So th that's going to be the standard that the zoning board is is um that's my understanding of where
the zoning board is the standard that that is going to be applied for variance. Um but again this is all new this there's so much there's so much chatter about how this is even going to be implemented and you know so >> and thisuge huge caveat.
>> Does this apply to a use variance as well? So yeah, I would say so. >> Not just a like building. >> I I mean I I think so. I mean, don't don't quote me that that Milton allows use variances.
Um there they're not necessarily available in every community, but my understanding is Milton allows use use variances. So I would think so. I wouldn't think that this was just sort of like a dimensional variance or >> but but that's you know again again some
of this I think I think will be probably will be tested [laughter] right the limits the limits of some of these of some of these um changes uh let's see okay so in increase to the
um to the um periods for variance duration so again similar to you know sort of um allowing other permitting processes to to to play out um and um determination of appeal
various extensions of up to two years provided the request is filed prior to the expiration. So so essentially allowing that the the zoning board to to to grant additional time on a variance at their discretion um than was than was previously allowed which I believe is
six months maximum of six months. Uh so and then there's and then they the the second paragraph in this memo is the so-called economic development bill contains several different zoning related amendments including commercial conversion to multif family housing by
right allowing land held by religious groups to be developed as multif family housing by right and codification of site plan review. They're still in flux have not been enacted into law. Um, I know the Senate was debating their bill this week. It does have to go back.
It does have to go for reconciliation and I think one of the big ones with the Senate's bill was the duplex by right. I don't know how I don't know I don't know if that's going to if that's going
to pass or survive. I I don't know. That was definitely causing a lot of chatter as well. So that would take single family to allowing single family to be converted to two family across the board as of right. [clears throat] So that's it on that. More more to come.
>> Wonderful. [clears throat] Thank you. >> Not so wonderful. >> Not so a [laughter] wonderful report by Liz. But yeah know that's the problem. these things, you know, get voted and then it's like, but how are they going to be implemented >> in the cost of it all? If all of a
sudden every single family house can be could do flies, >> you know, >> when does that go to a vote? That was not voted today, was >> I thought that was that today. >> I floor debate Thursday. Today? Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> I don't I don't see any news otherwise. >> Yeah. I don't I think they're still I think they're still >> I think that's going to be a tough >> think they have until the 31st. >> Okay. All right. Um Okay. >> And they should be prepared to give some
more um money to the municipalities, which I don't think they're prepared to do. >> Well, um with that, that was our last agenda item. So, I would entertain a motion to adjurnn. [snorts] Motion to adjurnn.
>> Second. Second. >> All in favor? I >> need to do a roll call because >> Oh, yes. Roll call because Cheryl's remote. Um Hal, >> yes. >> Maggie, >> yes. >> Sean, >> yes. >> Cheryl, >> yes.
>> And myself, yes.