Good evening and welcome to the 24th meeting of fiscal year 2026 for the of the Milton planning board. At this time I would like to now call the meeting to order and begin with our administr by actually introducing the board first and
our staff. Um you'd like to start. >> Sure. Cheryl Tagaya, secretary, >> Sean Batty, member. >> Maggiefield, member, >> Al Mer, member, >> and Meredith Hall serving as chair. And with us um in person, we have our planning director, Liz,
>> Liz Manning, planning director. Thank you. And on Zoom, we do we have Avante? Did you say? I'm sure I wasn't supposed to let in. Sorry, guys. That's all right. We may we will have our assistant town planner uh
Avante Grady uh joining us uh shortly. Okay, bring him in. And then there's two sets of meeting minutes while Liz um >> actually four
there's I just saw the uh 511 and 528. the 56 and the 57 also >> I did town meeting last >> oh those were also I didn't see those file okay um if others read those I'm
comfortable approving them um and I know for the 511 Maggie wasn't here for that um for that particular meeting um how you were here um and so um if I could >> can I just mention I was when I was
looking at Um I wasn't sure that the the number so the X 24th let's say. So I wanted to come back because May 6 it's it says the 18th and I thought we've met more than these numbers. So I think we
just need a few corrections on the numbers of the meeting. So >> I think I caught that too. I think there was a repeat of the numbers. >> So can we can if there's no other changes I think we could approve them. you know, >> subject to reconcile. Reconciling. >> Yeah.
>> Meeting number. >> Okay. Sounds good. >> Okay. So, if I could have a motion to approve the minutes from May 11th. >> Did you want to do this? Oh, you're going to do that separately? >> I'm going to do each one separately because different people were here.
>> Uh, so moved. >> Second. Second. >> I >> I Okay. And then for five, um, let's see. You said 57 and >> and six. >> 56 and 57.
Um I believe everyone was here for those. Um if I could have a motion to approve the minutes from uh May 6th and 7th. >> So move. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> And a um a motion to approve the minutes
of 528. Sean and Maggie. We're not here for those. So it would be just the three of us. Um >> so moved. >> Second. All in favor? >> I approval of minutes of 528. Thank you, Cheryl.
>> Is done. Uh future meeting dates. Um and let's just here. Sorry. Our next regularly scheduled meeting is uh July 9th.
Is that um I don't think we have any other my calendar up. >> No, sorry. The 9th and 23rd. >> The 23rd. Okay, that's what I was >> um double checking that. Yes. So, the next uh regular scheduled meeting um will be for the 9th and the 23rd of
July. Um and now we can uh go to staff update, if I may. Um I had I had inquired for Carolyn's availability on uh the 9th and she is unavailable that evening and she said could would it be possible for the board to meet on July
8th instead. So that would be the day the night before be Wednesday night. That is if the board feels that they would like to have her available at their next meeting. Depending upon different business and >> we might not need for her to attend that
meeting. we can wrap up some of the questions that we have. >> Okay. >> Um, >> is she attending by Zoom tonight? >> She is. She's joining us around 7:30. I cannot do the ETH unfortunately. Okay. Um, >> I do. I haven't
um evening, but maybe we can to be TBD. >> Absolutely. Yeah. I just wanted to put it out there in case you guys wanted to grab that grab that night before before we get into the certainly into the holiday weekend and whatnot >> because hopefully Yeah. we can have it sort of teed up and ready
to Yep. submit that week. >> Yeah. Okay. >> With her coming today. >> Good. >> All right. Thank you. Uh so in the interest of brevity and getting out of here while it's still light out. Um um there were a few items in your uh in
your board packet. um the ADU memo which was a summary of the current applications just to give you a sense of you know sort of where some of those friction points are. The three of the eight had the second second story staircase
um and pretty much every um application was missing one at least one if not multiple of the of the requirements in terms of the submission. So my suggestion there is to invite um Michael White in to to to chat with us um and
just um you know kind of have that conversation about the process and that sort of do analysis and you know it might make sense to also have Carolyn Murray at the meeting as well potentially um to hopefully finally get to a place where we've got sort of a set
a set set of rules and regulations and we're all comfortable with the requirements and >> what we what we need to see. So, >> uh the uh folks at the uh fruit center um restored
those numbers of the the categories of those ABU applications >> if we add all three is that the number of applications that we have or are some of them >> is there duplicity? >> No. So, so right now there are I I've looked at eight that are in perman a
ninth one has just come in. I didn't really have much of a chance to look at that one yet. Um so right so three of the eight are the the kind of big issue which is the pro prohibition on the second floor staircase. >> Okay. >> Uh and then the um the the majority of
all of I think there was there might be one there might be one that could move forward soon hopefully. It's it's similar to 1210 Randolph. Yeah. >> Where it's a detached it's a single story. Uh you know there's no issues with any zoning setbacks. the lot size,
everything is sort of lines up. Um, and um, I think they have pretty much all of the documentation that we require, it might be a little bit squishy with some of the grading and drainage, but you know, based on the circumstances, you know, if it's if it's a pretty
straightforward situation, a flat lot, um, plenty of room, you know, I think that's sort of where that discretion comes in in terms of how much engineering you're going to be requiring. Um, so, um, yeah. So, but but the but the majority of the remainder are missing. They're missing the
elevations on the primary structure, the floor plans, the you know the more detailed civil, you know, type of type of um you know, information that you guys were looking for, the the utilities, the things like that. >> So, okay.
>> All right. So, that's that. Um and the folks at the fruit center um very quickly were able to replace that handicapped parking space. That was the um the um issue um was the um parking plan that had been submitted sh was
showing an additional pin kept parking space on the corner of Vantorf and and Granite. That space was replaced. Um and that was the I think that was the final requirement on their certificate of occupancy because they have a temporary certificate right now. Um, so I was
going to go ahead and let the building commissioner know that that's that's um sufficient sufficiently addresses that. >> I had a question on that because I I'm not familiar with the code requirements. You might know this or um there's a sign there now, but it hasn't they haven't
stamped the pavement and typically you have a blue >> sort of a wheelchair, you know, symbol. Yeah. On that spot. There is a sign, but it's sort of in the bushes >> a little bit. Um, I'm just wondering if they need to do that a a stamp to meet
>> I will definitely confirm this with Michael White. I think it's the sign actually that might be sort of what is the requirement as opposed to the striping on the on the ground. Yeah. So, but I did notice that the bushes were high. So, so we could certainly reach
back and ask, you know, have that trimmed back. So, it's very clear that the sign that the it is a handicap space. Um I don't know that it would be you know how difficult it would be to to re re you know stamp it with the with the um the
>> Yeah it's not but I just I was over there and just check >> okay yeah I can definitely follow up on that for sure. Okay. So, I also included this um this letter from the attorney general's office about the um articles 8 and nine
from the fall, which was the uh protection against light trespass and the um traffic impact mitigation articles. Um so, the the the the bottom line is we suggest that the town discuss
requirements in more detail with town council. So to the extent that the traffic impact mitigation um applying to the MBTA communities and and that sort of the the scope of that requirement being broadened the extent
that to the extent that the town is in needs to sort of report that to EO ELC I think that's my understanding. Um so I would be happy to kind of tee that up with town council that conversation. Um maybe that's another thing we could add to our to our list running list with
Carolyn. Um but um so that's that. >> So can I just say on that um I think it we should be clear with HLC >> that it's it's not something just MBTA committees, right? It's it's everything. >> It's everything. So we're not singling
it out separately. And I think it's important because >> um >> this is uh was a what we felt was a fairly minor change to capture some at least the business districts and where we have some overlap with MBTA and business.
>> You know it wasn't anything targeted towards MBTA. Right. So >> you know if we can just reiterate that I think it could be helpful and the intent behind it. >> Yeah absolutely. >> It may or may not help.
And can I ask a question? In um there they said that um the approve article 8 including the enforcement provisions. says as long as it's not in conflict
>> with state law. And it said the Supreme Court has held that the um that warrants are required for non-emergency administrative inspections.
>> So what is that? What is a non-emergency administrative inspection? And secondly, what is the recourse of a private property owner if a municipal officer performs
a non-emergency without a warrant? >> Yeah, excellent questions. You know, I honestly this is this is a general bylaw, right? Um, and these enforcement actions would definitely fall, it's
probably somewhat with the short-term rentals where we're talking about later will be talking about, you know, sort of the roles with the building department and the health department. Um, that's kind of the wheelhouse where where it lands. So, um, I don't know enough about
what the definition of a non-emergency administrative inspection. I don't know enough about exactly what falls under that category. So, >> so this um this ruling would not apply to zoning if this does this only apply to g a general bylaw and not a zoning
bylaw. >> A a non-emergency administrative inspection is a routine regulatory check of a home or business conducted by a government official such as health, fire or building inspector to ensure compliance with local codes. >> Yeah. So codes as opposed to the bylaw
per se, right? >> Yeah. But I in reading this note, it seems like >> well I'm assuming which council would know better, but if the property owner doesn't let you on, you can't go on without a warrant. >> Mhm. >> Right. But if they let you on,
>> can they come on if someone complained that their dumpster was overflowing and their permit says your dumpster can't be overflowing? >> I think this is a really good topic. Not I'm not trying to content topic for when we do have have legal. >> Okay.
>> Um and and and because >> yes I I think I think I'd love to have I'd love to have clear a clear understanding. It would it would it would educate my me as well. >> Yeah. >> All right. Um so that was the AG's letter.
So the we found out this week that the um economic feasibility analysis I think EFA >> uh for the MBTA communities was um approved >> by HLC. Yes. So that's good news. >> So we can move forward to the article
then up. >> Yes. Okay. Yep. So that's so that's good. Um and um what else? What was your last thing? Oh, I talked about Carol the 7th. So, I think that Yeah, I think that was pretty much all I had for you guys for a staff report.
>> Okay. >> We had a Randolph AB decision in the folder. Do is that >> it's on the agenda? Sorry. >> I'll Yeah, I'll explain it later. It was a It was a um while it was a mistake. >> Okay. Sorry.
>> And depending on if Carolyn's here at 7:30 or not, we can maybe move that up on our >> agenda. But, um that's great. Thank you so much. And now um it is uh item number three uh public comment. Citizens speak if
there's anyone online or here in person who would like to join us. >> Okay. >> Good evening. Yes, please. >> Welcome. >> There's a little hand out. Oh, sure. >> This way. >> Yep. >> And this way. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> My name is Thomas Dy, uh, 247 Adam Street and 58 Churchill's Lane. Uh, I'm handing out uh, four pages regarding the proposed Squantum Street,
Adam Street traffic light deployment matter. Uh I addressed each of those as you'll see in the the handout there. Uh I addressed them the eight points that are in there uh with the planning board on
September 22nd, 2025 with the traffic commission December 3rd, 2025 and then a again April 15, 2026 and with the select board recently June 9, 2026. uh the department uh transportation
provided this uh set of uh I'll call it uh the plan and its elements back in August of 2021. As far as I can see the eight points in the listing that I've repeatedly presented uh you know they haven't been
addressed yet. Uh and importantly, it would be helpful to keep in mind that it would be really good for there to be a meeting of the residents with members of the planning boards like board, but also
uh the department of transportation uh uh the DPW uh to try to address those issues. And I you know I could go through all of them but I'll just give you a couple of examples in the eight that I think you may have you may remember or some of you
have heard it before. Um, for example, they have lots of uh aspects that they have paid attention to, but they don't at all address or even include how the uh center street,
which comes down shortly after you would be turning uh onto uh Adam Street and comes down very close to the Squander Street intersection. That's not addressed at all. and consequently it's just an in my view invitation for
gridlock and that needs to be addressed. Another example is that um with regard to the fire station, now that the fire station is there, this isn't 2021 anymore, why not consider not
even having the traffic light which has other new traffic light which has other sit other concerns, but rather having the fire station have an ability to have its own light if it needs an emergency to stop traffic, get it to happen, go
out and and let it return to what it was in the first place. I'll stop there, but I think the the big issue here is um again and again and again we're going along um without sort of I don't see God bless all the work that was just two
nights ago that was discussed uh by by you all and and and board. So it's this is one more >> piece of the puzzle. Uh but it would be helpful to sort of keep in mind the need for that because I'm concerned that if a town meeting is to have this as a as a
vote this autumn or next spring forgot about it, it would be very difficult for people to get an understanding in time uh for that. So I'll I'll I'll stop there. But that's what where I'm coming from to ask that somehow people keep in
mind the need for uh these eight and other people's view as to what else they would consider uh these eight elements to be addressed sometime. So thanks. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay.
>> Can I ask a question? >> Yeah. >> I haven't been following this as closely as you. Um, have there been public meetings uh recently regarding this project? >> No. >> No. >> No. No. And here here's a little point, too. You've got those the wonderful
folks on the select board, for example. Um, you know, John Driscoll came on to the select board November 4th of 2025. So, it's after even last fall, of course, the the two new uh select board members that were appointed in April. So
three out of the five and one of the select board members uh Megan Hagerty she because of her day job might possibly therefore recuse herself. So it slept with you know Mr. Dailyaly and uh
you know 2025 uh April he came on um and at that point again none of this had been really developed. So, >> and then um another question if you may um
>> this is being managed by the DPW the town the director of the DPW is as far as you know >> as far as I know it's it's yeah exactly that would be the >> the >> it originated under Chase Berkeley >> I I remember when it started and I
remember the issues of kind of widening the landet etc. Um, and I remember that it began as a request of the town. Um, but one of the things I I think uh would be helpful is to understand what the
safety concerns were that might have led to the u request for this from the uh DOT um you know as a as a frequent fire in that intersection at rush hour times. >> It was it was town initiated. It's the
and we the town was looking for a way to source the funding for a project. Um but it's not a state road. So the DOT only is responding to the town. >> Correct. But >> but but there's two aspects to that. One is to the extent that it was initiated.
you it was never really put in any context as to exactly what the safety is compared to other aspects including the >> the difficulty if you then have a bike lane that itself is going to have some safety issues. Um and then secondly, we
keep in mind that um as to the cost of the actual construction, that's 100% paid by well 8020 federal and state. But as to costs such as if the if the part of the road has to be moved back and
that's that and the town and that part that it's moved back to is town property. It's the town that would then have to pay that that price in this and then of course pay its own part of the administration. >> Three very sign historically significant
properties that the blacksmith shop it is a significant amount of land. >> Yeah. So, >> so would the town or is it a possibility for the town to withdraw their concern? >> Yes. And the select board decided to that that would be a possibility when
they see what you know the results are of the study because they're also new. I think their feeling was let's where it's a 75% design. Let's see what it what it ends up being and it might be something that we don't want to it might not make sense. And as anyone knows, when you
widen a road, it just makes the traffic drive faster. And that's really a a major cut through right now. >> But I do think you make a couple of uh good points with respect to um a ch changes that have happened since the project was initiated, the fire station.
And I also agree with you on the central. Yeah, >> central's coming in there that that it doesn't make sense not to consider traffic lights or intersections that are nearby. And uh I think this came up on Randolph a too is to to consider the the
whole corridor. Um so you if you fix a problem here, you might cause a problem somewhere else. I I I agree with you on that. So I don't know. I I think um maybe this is one where we maybe Meredith, you speak to Winston and say that the planning board would like to work with the select board um on on
reviewing this and a public process, you know, to um to get community input before decisions are made. Decision I I do know I just shared um Steve O'Donnell who's the chair of the historical commission just met with Nick um and the assistant town administrator and the
engineering department to review sort of the plans go back to um the engineer who's been working on this um to see you know if it's possible to not have any land taking but um but I think this does need to be a that
we could have a conversation with the select board in re in reviewing Um, and I think Nick mentioned um or engineers that there might be a public meeting over the summer um to which Steve O'Donnell said, "Well, it really would be better to do it in September because
so many people are away. Neighbors of Butters who are impacted by this um might not even know what's happening." So, um, so we're waiting on that and and maybe I can work with Liz and Nick and just get having something set up where we could have it, >> um, talk about a joint
>> meeting and and then September, school is in and if you think about the traffic problems and people already trying to get their children to school in this way, >> right? >> September is a good time when people have that in mind. >> Yep. >> And the um, town website shows that this is from 2023. Does that sound right?
February 2023. The original plan. >> Uh, well, the original is 21. >> 21. Okay. >> 2001. >> 2001. >> Yeah. >> And then there was another version that came in 2023. >> Wow. >> It's it's been modified. >> So, it's been it's been a project for 25 years.
>> No, no, no. 21. Oh, okay. Okay. Okay. >> 2021. Okay. >> Great. Thank you very much. >> Thanks a lot. >> Y. Is there anyone else online or not seeing any? Oh, let me double check that
again. Nope. No hands online. >> Okay. Um and and I'm not seeing Caroline either. So, >> not seeing Caroline. Okay. Um do you want to just um jump ahead and and get the sign um the 1210 Randolph AB out of
the way? >> Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Very very simple. Um I um I wanted to require the uh decision be reported. I thought it was good practice. Uh and when our first
applicant tried to report it, they were told at the registry that they could not report it because it doesn't have a formal appeal process and I don't think the town wants a formal appeal process. Therefore, these decisions will not be reported. So, um, I just eliminated the the
condition for recording. >> So, it's and I and I had a conversation with Carolyn Murray about it as well, just to make sure I was following the proper the proper procedures. >> Does it matter what color pen we use? I don't think so. >> Do we need a formal vote on this since
>> I don't Oh, um, I don't think we voted the decision last time. Did you before you signed it? I think you just signed it. >> You You're more than welcome to vote on it if you if you'd like to. Um, I would vote on amending the decision based on the recommendation of Liz. >> Okay. Is there a second?
>> And it's just the is it just the three of us because that was >> I move to the motion you just described as amend. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Great. >> Yes. So, it's just I think there's some meeting minutes
that I need to sign. >> Thank you. Did we vote some? Did we vote some >> last time? Yeah, I I I actually meant to say that in my staff report. We interviewed three >> people today for the for the that job.
>> And >> so so so hopefully some of those tasks will be a little bit more a little bit more. We interviewed three people today for the admin job. >> That's great. Yeah. So So some progress there. >> Yeah. This is just maybe Back to meeting
minutes for a second. I had asked if I need to sign some minutes because I haven't I don't recall having signed minutes that I do recall that we approved >> and they need to be signed before they can be put on the website and I I know
there are residents who get frustrated when they can't locate meeting minutes uh for like six months, you know, that we're we're behind or or whatever period that we're behind. So, we're we're one of the best. >> Yeah. I was going to say I
>> we're we are I mean, I'm not trying to pat someone on the back. Honestly, I'm a bit of I'm I'm a little crazy about minutes because I know how important they are. And Avante is definitely doing doing the lion's share of the effort. Um, and you're correct. We do need to get we do need to kind of circle back
and make sure there's a couple of holes there, especially when it first started. I know we had a couple ones back in the back in October. Um, and and I think we're posted through I think he's we're posted through like March, right? So, yeah. So, there probably are
a couple of months. You're right. But but >> yeah, I had pretty good to um DPW to look for concom. They haven't posted it in like seven or eight years. >> Seven years >> that Yeah. And wasn't they weren't even approved. I had to go through these
binders. This is one of those things for the maybe the ten administrator, select board, etc. in terms of um best practices like how the minutes get posted like >> you know I I know there was a time on the master plan implementation committee
where there was a a complaint about minutes being behind >> and um and I think at that time there may have been a complaint of a couple other committees because someone was going and had gone and checked and was interested in in minutes and so um we
became very um diligent. >> Yeah. >> But you're right, when there's not staff support or someone who's assigned to doing it, it it can fall behind. But it is one of those things where maybe there's a central place that they the minutes go where they get posted once
they're approved instead of Avanti having to do it and the secretary of con or all of these different >> somethingicient. Yeah. Be efficient, right? >> Yeah. >> I know this might sound like a crazy question, but
>> couldn't Could we let AI build this? But >> I don't know. I I think it's um >> I guess my my question is before you before you answer I don't I don't know I don't know what the output would be. It
just be curious to see what it is. It be fast. >> Yeah. Well, I mean, if the if if if people were comfortable with verbatim, then that would be I think that would probably be very very straightforward.
>> I wonder if it would be verbatim. >> I wonder. >> So, so I I think there I think there are there are tools that that that you can employ to get to get a verbatim transcript. Yeah. Right. >> So, so so the question becomes, do you want a verbatim transcript? because that's probably the only way that you
could like kind of like mechanize it completely because the there's so much involved in sort of like in in in in summarizing the the the key aspects of a of a conversation, right? And making sure
that you don't miss the the critical part of the policy discussion, right? And so you're balancing like do you do you post like a for for your meeting if you posted your verbatim minutes from that three and a half hour meeting. Yeah. >> How long would that document
>> 50 pages right? It' be like a reading a court transcript and you don't want to do that for for residents. >> My question is is it possible for it not to be you know. >> No it is. But then but then there's a lot of work in there's a lot of there's a lot of human power in getting it to
the point where it's a document that's useful for the public, right? But but is it that is is is useful for the public, is transparent, meets all the requirements, and is, you know, of a length that that is, you know, that's that's reasonable.
Th those would be all the things that I'd be trying to balance. I mean, I don't know, K. Cheryl's been doing this for years now, right? >> It's a lot of work. >> Yeah. And that's the reason I bring it up. There's a ton of work. There's a ton of work within staff. There's a ton of work that you do, you know, just to to
make sure that words and phrases accurately, you know, represent what was said. And at the end of the day, we haven't back. >> Well, one of the things though, but that the record that those meeting men that serve as the official record. So, like if you have, let's say we you know
because I've seen a few come up 333 brush row maybe as an example and you need to know how a vote was went and what the discussion was the minute is the official record not the recording and you know make knowing what is the
important feature to include in the minutes I just am a little leerary about AI being able to pick up without combing through let's say if you had AI comb through let's say five years of planning board meeting minutes to to discern what
are the issues that repeat themselves in those but that's they don't have a database necessarily automatically for planning board meetings that's how AI is generated right database >> I'm not I'm not saying as of the 25th of June 26 we I'm not saying that at all
I'm exploring yeah you know is is there an option I spent the better part of the first 20 years of my career as a project manager writing my own meeting minutes I understand the importance of capturing the right words, right phrases, and and having the right content. I get it. I've done so much of it myself. Just looking
for a faster way to get there. I mean, it's not it's unreasonable that years go by being published, you know, in in my world and in my day job, two days is all we allow. >> Well, don't come out within two days as well. >> Well, right, because then it's stale. And and that's and that was that was one
of the things that you know again avant has done the absolute yman's work on this because it's it's a heavy lift and he caught up on stuff that wasn't done when he came when he came on board. Um and so but and I'm a pain in the neck because I'm like I need them by the next
meeting. Like I need them by the next meeting. Like I can't do what I need to do. Like you and I aren't going to know what we need to do if we don't have those like really fresh. And it is it's a total project management approach u and it's and it's critical and so yeah there's a legal component and I'd be
very interested to see um >> how that's going to get tested though with the with the recordings postco because because that is a record right >> I'll be I'll be I'll be I'll be very inter I mean there's an official record but there's also there's a body of
evidence right so so I'll be I'll be curious to see kind of how that how that how that plays out because because it's it's there. It's there forever. I mean, the town's not going to, >> you know, we used to we used to throw out we used to erase the tapes, the cassette tapes. As soon as those minutes got adopted, as soon as we took that
that vote, that tape that cassette tape got got erased. >> That was the process. This is the official record. It's adopted. There's going to be no >> whatevers, you know, about, you know, splitting hairs over who said what and what have you. This is what the board voted. So that cassette tape doesn't get
erased anymore. It like lives forever in the cloud. >> I'm really really dating myself. >> Is that tape? I remember that. >> Yeah. And they used to have to turn it over. >> Pause the meeting. >> Yep.
>> I don't think you're the oldest person. >> I'm up there. No. Uh well, in the interest of uh Meredith succeeding, ending this meeting to bring it back, we should probably move on. >> Carolyn is here. Great.
>> Carolyn email that I sent to you. >> I forwarded it to her today. Um, I think she she should be able to she should be able to respond to that on the fly for sure. >> Fantastic. >> Welcome, Carolyn.
>> And and for the record, I'm also old enough to remember erasing the tape, but you know, we don't need to go there and compete. >> Well, few of us have been there. Um, >> great. Welcome and thank you on sort of
it was it was sort of as I was preparing for this meeting, I'm like, did we invite Carolyn to come? Because I think we you did such a great job putting this draft together that we can sort of go through and just address some of the questions that you had and get us in a
really good, you know, position to be able to be ready to submit this soon to the select board if that's what the members decide. Um so um just going through some of the highlighted um your items uh the first
uh thing you have highlighted um significant is the short-term rental uh as defined as GLC uh 64G um yeah so I think that's um and
then you said note the GLC 640G G definition of short-term excludes hotels. That's unnecessary. You felt to have that included. Is that >> exactly? I I just wanted it it it comes up a little bit later because one of the
things um you know the board had asked for you had identified like four other ordinances or bylaws that you liked and you said, you know, let's throw it all in together and see what um see what we ultimately like for ourselves or what we want to borrow or don't borrow. Um and
and elsewhere in this draft there is a reference to um another community that talks about lodging houses. And I don't think it's necessary for them to even do that because the state definition specifically excludes lodging houses,
hotels, and motel. So I just wanted the board to be aware of that. >> Right. So I would agree with that. I don't know how other members feel. >> Yeah. And Carolyn, does this get to the point I think last meeting you said, uh, do we want to include definitions that are already defined in mass state law,
general law? And this is >> Thank you for bringing that up because um, we could, as you see at the very end of the definitions after owner adjacent um, we've got any terms not expressly defined in this bylaw. Yeah.
>> Is would be as defined in the state law for short-term rentals. I could move that right up to the very beginning sentence under definitions and we could even consider uh whether or not for example owner and operator may you know
may not be necessary as well. Um you know maybe we could condense this a little bit more. Um you know owner occupied and owner adjacent I do think have specific meanings here. Um, I don't know that it's necessary for us to define the building commissioner, but
uh, I think we'll we'll we'll be able to flesh some of this out based on some of your responses to other questions. >> Great. And I think that commissioner will come into play when we determine whether it's the board of health or the
health or the commissioner. So that so that Oops. Give a little feedback. Give a little feedback. >> We've got you I've got two screens >> on the um for the for the Zoom for the
webinar. >> Maybe he had >> actually No, I think we're good now. >> Okay, great. Sorry about that. Um >> there was a little bit of an echo there for a minute. Um yeah so that I think we
can um keep that as is. Um and yeah unless if you think we should take it out but you know I think maybe leave it as is unless do others feel take out it was owner and operator
>> that might be just helpful for a lay person reading it. I'm sorry. I was trying to find my markup copy. Where where are we now on >> on page page? First page and the definition. >> Yes. And which definition? >> Yeah. I think that those two are so uh
key to this whole uh bylaw. It might I know I know we just said if if anything's already in general law not to include it here, but we're going against that. But those two things are so important. I think that defining what an operator and owner are so someone doesn't have to go to something
else is It's not the worst thing. >> Yeah, I'm fine with leaving those in. Um, and then under the owner adjacent uh unit, you had the note at the end.
>> Um, just to remind everyone that um an ADU could not be used as um a short-term rental. >> So, I um So, for example, where where there's the
potential that you could have a property where you have the principal dwelling and then you have an accessory dwelling unit. The accessory dwelling unit cannot be used as a short-term rental under that separate bylaw. But
obviously, a primary dwelling with an accessory dwelling unit attached >> does become an owner adjacent situation. So, if the owner if the owner occupies the ADU and rents out the principal dwelling as a short-term rental, that
would be allowed. That was really just for, you know, just to as a reminder more so than anything. >> Should should we add that under things? >> Um, >> meaning that any property with an ADU can't be a short-term rental short-term
rental. Now, that's not what the ADU bylaw actually says. The ADU bylaw simply says the ADU cannot be used as short-term rental, >> right? >> So, where where we're defining specifically this idea of an owner
adjacent short-term rental, then you could have a situation where you have a principal dwelling and you have an ADU on the same property. The ADU cannot be used for short-term rentals, >> right?
>> But >> the owner or the owner adjacent as we define it, the owner >> could live in the ADU, rent out the principal dwelling, >> correct? >> As a short-term rent, >> correct?
>> So, I don't know that we need to >> repeat that in the short-term rental bylaw. We could certainly repeat it under restrictions or um or the requirements just as a reminder um in case anyone is >> that's what I was thinking maybe just as
a reminder for the ADU not the adjacent primary >> anything anyone else want yeah back to occupancy um where it says says that
the use or residing in or the right to use or reside in the short-term rental normally used for sleeping and living purposes for a period of not more than 30 consecutive calendar days.
>> So, could you explain exactly what that means? That's that's the definition basically of a short-term rental is that it is up to technically by state law it's up to
31 consecutive days. Um, so if you rent something for two weeks, if you rent something for a month, it's considered a short-term rental as it and I think the intent is to distinguish that from year
round renting or maybe even um something that is less than year round but might be, you know, seasonal renting. For example, you know, um if if somebody just rents their house out from, say, April to October, that's not considered a short-term rental. If you are renting
it out to the same entity for a six-month period, short-term rentals are meant to be no more than 31 consecutive calendar dates. >> Okay? because at our last meeting I I
said that I didn't really have an opinion yet. I hadn't formed an opinion because I hadn't really spoken to a lot of residents about um short-term rentals. So, I sort of did my informal survey between um last meeting
and today. So some people, you know, said, "Oh, I want I want it to be prohibited entirely." Which I found interesting. >> Other people said, "Oh, I would like it prohibited
and regulated for um periods of time for less than 30 days." In their mind, they were thinking if they had a a neighbor rented out their house and every weekend there
would be a different group of people in there. That would be a problem for that neighbor. They understand that the the it would be owner occupied. and she
said, "Um, I value my relationship with my neighbor and I would like for her to be able to rent out, but I don't." She said, "I don't know if I want somebody every weekend,
somebody different every single weekend. She'd be okay with a longer term rental. Can we So this is saying we can't prohibit or so the so the property owner could
rent out every weekend >> as long as it's not less than 24 hours. >> Yeah. So every weekend could be a turnover of somebody different. Right. >> There's potential.
>> Yeah. That so that's the potential. So, how do we is there a way not to allow that >> or does that go against the whole short-term rental? >> Um,
you could I mean, we do say it can't be rented out by the hour or for anything less than a 24-hour period. If you wanted to say that it has to be rented for at least a week, for example,
um we could we could put that in, but it's it can't be anything more than 31 consecutive days. >> I um I my own opinion I if I'm well shouldn't say that take a step back. the
the transiency of it I think detracts from what Milton is you know probably every one of us and this I'm hearkening back now to some of the conversations when we were talking about news but you know
I don't know where everybody here lives but I know where some of us live and I think we chose to live in the neighborhoods we lived in live in because of the nature of a single family residential in the community that my neighbors across the street are the
same neighbors that are there month after month, year after year, stand next to this something I think we all benefit from from the stability of that. So what what I concern myself with is the transiency and in the turnover I felt this way about the AU. I didn't agree on
that very day term. You know, I don't think that's consistent with what most people prefer, which is not that. So having a minimum is something I think we
should talk about, think about. Um, but the idea of people coming in and spending two days there and then the next weekend somebody else is in this house for another two days and you know that it's going to change neighborhoods if that's what we end up having. Um,
many many condo um properties that do allow uh the condo owner to rent the condo. limit the number of times you can rent it in a year and and you're allowed to rent it, you know, once or twice and it
has to be for a maximum period of time. I I don't um you know I I don't know what's possible, what isn't possible, but uh >> Sean, I think there is in this draft maximum number of total days of the year
that can be rented. >> I didn't see that, but >> we we did discuss it. Um, I don't see I don't think it's in here either. >> Oh, okay. Sorry. I >> I thought Yeah, there's a Caroline.
Well, that at at the end she's asking us aggate number of days per county year a unit may be rented in a short-term rental if the owner occupator is not occupying that >> unit >> because what what so to get to your point though I think that one of the other towns we saw limited it to 120
days overall in in the entire year. Um, >> yeah, >> I don't I don't think that got into this, which is something we could do that kind of gets to the points you're making. Uh, which I >> I agree with the I agree the the sentiment behind it. My worry is if you
make a minimum number of days, you have to rent it. To me, that's kind of a backdoor uh prohibition on it because I to which maybe we want to do, but if you're requiring someone to rent it for seven days, I'm not sure how many people are going to do that. And then so do
then people just do it uh kind of in the black market which is which is what we're trying to avoid. I think >> it was just an interesting um conversation. It was it wasn't it was somebody who today and it was someone else last week sort of said it. Somebody
>> last week said, "Oh, I think it anything less than 30 days should be prohibited." >> They supported regulating it. >> Um but they said 30 less than 30 days should be prohibited. um the person today,
>> you know, she was just thinking about herself and she goes, "I just um wouldn't want every weekend somebody different." However, if her neighbor goes away for six months, um she's fine
with them renting for 6 months or three months, >> but it was just every weekend >> and because she's in a slightly tighter neighborhood >> and um you know, she was concerned about the trash, >> you know, and if um do they know when
the trash date is and when who would put the trash out and and I said, "Well, all that can be worked out in the rules Right. So, you know, so she felt good about that. But it was just like interesting. Everybody that I talked to, most most people said we should, their
initial reaction was prohibit. Then I said, but you know, wouldn't you want to do something? We have a lot of people in town who are looking for some rentals um as their house is being renovated. And it would be nice to to be able to stay
in town and have your kids stay in the school system. and they're like, "Oh, yeah, so that's a good idea." >> So, you know, it it's it it's I don't know. It's um a complicated issue. And so, somebody else said, "Well, it's a
slippery slope and it would really have to be well thought out before they really wanted to support it." But regulation is, I think, the biggest topic and they wanted to know what how
it was going to be regulated. they just didn't like every weekend. >> So I do think then that question of how many days that a home or a part of a home could be rented should be included and then what
that final number is I think you know should be um you know part of a public engagement process. I mean I do think that there will be varying opinions about this and I do think we should get those opinions. Um, but we should lay
out all of the things that we think are a way to regulate it for the people who came to us and said that they would like regulation because they're happening anyway and there's no way to regulate and no way to enforce different
behavior. And so, um, Nan, uh, you were away for some of those folks, you know, who said those things, but you know, one said that there's basically a party house you know, in East Milton. And another said that there's there's like a
fire pit in the backyard and there's concerned about, you know, what what there's no regulation on it, you know. So, um there there's not really some you can't call necessarily um inspectional services because there's
like nothing for them to enforce. So, I think that's what we have to kind of explain to folks is like the the reason behind this and I think some people thought there were 20 to 30 um Airbnb Airbnb listings in Milton, let's say now
um which aren't regulated. So here there would be a registry so they'd have it there it would be known you know who was responsible for that which is in and of itself it's like a huge >> you know I think if it were if it were
let's say like you know one of the neighbors who or one of the residents who came in if they knew that there's like a number like this is licensed under this bylaw and it can be enforced that the owner then would be banned I think there's some prohibition if are
found to be in violation. >> Yeah. From doing it. So that is it better for those who are having bad experiences. Now >> Carolyn, do you know of any other communities that have um a limit that's
greater than uh 24 hours? You know, it's obviously up to 31 days, but do you know of any that have like a 14 day, you know, or seven days? I I I believe there are a few communities down the Cape that do
have at least a minimum of seven to 14 days. >> Which makes sense on the key to >> which makes sense, right? >> Okay, that's let's put a pin in that and just think about it. And you know, I think >> that'll be part of the public hearing uh
process to try to >> think more about that. That's that's good. >> Um anything else on page one? >> Okay, moving to page two. Um
let's see. Um on under H uh you had uh you would put in the total number of short-term rental licenses in the town of Milton is limited to and you use 4% of the total uh number of legal res residential units in the town of Milton
as determined by the assessor's office and this was pulled from NAT um what folks Nihant is a um I think that is sort of a summertime
rental area. So maybe that would have a need to limit the >> I I think it's we talked about this a little bit the last time like is it going to be a frenzy then you know to get yourself in get your application in even if you don't even know that you want to
use it because you want to keep that option open to yourself >> because it's capped >> yeah I I don't know I I feel like this but there was something that we talked about in the last couple years that I I my recollection is that we couldn't do
that. I mean, legally, would it be possible, Carolyn, to have a cap? I mean, that'd be 400, you know, and if you didn't get there in time, you know, do you have an argument to say, "Hey, this isn't fair. Why is it capped at 4%." You know, no, I can't get on the
list. I I >> It was ADU. >> That was no more than 10. >> Yeah. >> Before it became state law. >> Yeah. Yeah. Right. Yeah. >> And I think we we did we discussed that and we said it could become like I think maybe Cheryl you said it could be like the um liquor license right where that start to become
>> you know if that could start to become something you could trade valuable you could trade it >> like if you sold your house and it had the registry there you could say hey mine mine has approval for a short term >> right I mean four what what you know 4% maybe that's not the right number but like Sean like you said that is 400
units and we have 30 right now so we don't >> I don't think we want 400. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. Well, we I don't I don't know that we want to encourage >> Right. >> to get to a big number. >> Right. Right. >> Right. >> I I'm just concerned about like
how fair does it seem just like you said, Sean. >> Yeah. >> Like for for someone um let's say you move someone moves to Milton next month or a month after this goes in or then they don't have an opportunity because it's already capped, >> you know. So then you're you're preference or you're giving preference
to people who've been here longer >> or who are already here. So it it just seems hard to not to be fair. >> Yeah. >> I don't and I I don't think we need it. I mean I think it's something maybe if we needed to come back at a later time and
>> would would um would would we ever consider uh granting uh for a term? So you grant that if you're if you receive a if you get on the register, you're on the register for two years and and and you can reapply after two years. And you
know, if there are issues, at least we have an opportunity to say, "Hey, look, you know, your neighbors have had constant complaints. The police have been involved. You you know, you're not a good candidate, right? But if it's granted, what what you know, if we at least have a term, maybe we have some
behavioral constraints that would, you know, comply the uh the owner, you know, to recognize that, you know, it's not an automatic that you'll have it forever. >> It's currently a one-year term. >> Is it? >> It's a one-year term.
And the applications are due by >> Carolyn, do you have Carolyn? Do you by chance do you have two computers? >> Two computers open. >> No, but I am hearing feedback with few folks now. >> Speaking to yours.
>> I could try to I can log out and try to come back in and see if that >> um resolves it. >> Is your volume off? >> Yeah, my volume's >> I'm not logged on. So, >> we do you want Do you want to check and
make sure because I'm because I'm on as a co-host. >> Do you want to check and make sure that I'm that I'm up properly? I'm pretty sure I am. >> Sorry. >> I'm I'm muted. I think it might be I think it might be when when your volume Carolyn, but it's
not it's not you. It's it's it's the way you're coming into the meeting. I think >> it's that second Milton webinar that it's not muted. >> Yeah, that but that's the last recording. unmuted. >> Would you like me to try to log out and come back in on a
resolves it? >> Now you sound fine. >> It needs to stay on everything. Yeah. Um I'm not on >> I think it's the way I think it's the
way Carolyn's in is in the meeting >> because when when she when she's muted we don't have the there's no feedback. It's when she's not muted. Um do you want to try Carolyn just to I mean it's not it's not terrible. We pro I mean do you guys want to try to have her call
back in? If you want to muscle through, you can just proceed and then whenever it's done. >> Okay. >> But it's up to you. >> You could log out. >> Do you want to do you want to try to log out and we'll >> pause for a minute and then come back
in. We'll try to >> It might help. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> It'll be a little easier to hear. Well, it's so many of these are really interesting questions, you know, that we are >> um >> thinking about has some
>> and yeah, and I think this captures a lot of to what your the enforcement piece um I think there's a lot of good things that came out of Newton's bylaw that really targets enforcement and it that gives teeth for the building
commissioner or whoever is is overseeing this to to be able to shut it down for a six-month period. >> Yeah. >> If there's violations, and I think that's what we're hearing from residents that it's not everyone, but there are problematic ones that um >> So, I like the idea of a year
registration. However, is that um too cumbersome for our um staff to um manage? That's my only fear. I like it. But um you know being sensitive to their workload
having 40 or you know might be a lot all on the same date. >> Although I think we're going to have a lot fewer with owner occupancy requirements. >> I just don't see >> you know.
>> Right. Right. Right. >> Yeah. I guess I that's sort of my question is you know I'm trying to think it through practically like what what does that look like >> the owner occupancy requirement like what does that look like I mean she described it >> very was when it started
>> yeah exactly exactly so so so it's it's not the it's not the you know the sort of dedicated you know crash pad >> with the with the party every weekend you know so I so I I just yeah I think I think sort of thinking through that and then that owner adjacent scenario where,
you know, the owner wants to live in the ADU and then and wants to, you know, use the primary dwelling, which isn't their principal residence. That's the that's the distinction. It's the principal residence, right? So, if their principal residence is the ADU, the primary
dwelling can be can be used as as the short-term rental. So, I mean, it allows it allows um some flexibility for people to try and stay in their homes, you know. And and so also under um
I should have on the first page where it says um no more than the number of lawful bedrooms. So if you have a four bedroomedroom house, if you saying that only four guests can stay.
>> No, we're going to address that later. It could be two people. >> We can name how how many occupants. because that was some another >> another customer of mine brought that up. She said, "I'd be okay with that if you limited the number of guests to the
number of bedrooms, >> knowing that it's going to be more than that, >> but putting it in writing might help >> um dissuade people dissuade like 15 people crashing."
>> So, that's one of the policy questions. Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. you come back and >> we'll see if the volume is is better this way. >> Great. It does sound good. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Yeah, I think we're good.
>> Great. >> Sounds good. >> Good. Excellent. >> Good. Thank you. >> Thanks. So, we were on page two. Um, item number H. So, do we just want to cross take that out? I think so. >> I would I would I would agree with that.
Yeah. Okay. I'm good mute that. All right. Um and then we have under J. Um Caroline, if you want to talk. Um sure. So um this was language about, you
know, the short-term rental should not be used for commercial events. And at the the meeting two weeks ago, um the board had discussed that, well, maybe this is just a little too restrictive because, you know, someone
has, you know, a a graduation party or something in the backyard, you know, is this now being a little too >> restrictive. So, the other one that seemed to have some good language, Great Bington, in contrast, just limits the use of the
short-term rental that if there are events that include amplified music or tents that would require a special permit um that those types of events are prohibited. >> I liked that. I thought that was much
more appropriate. >> Do others agree? >> I agree. I think I think it's too restrictive on the Newton part, but I think that the Great Barington kind of is more broader encompassing and still achieves what we were I think looking for. >> Okay.
>> Yep, that's great. >> Okay. Um page three. Um >> before we go to three, could we just stop at um paragraph L? This is one that um again I I pulled everything together
so that you could decide and have a menu really what you like or dislike, but L is essentially um saying that an owner shall not register or offer a rental unit subject to a long-term lease as a short-term rental unless of course you
have the the permission of the property owner. So, in other words, if I was somebody who was renting a property, say for a year from my landlord, I couldn't use it as a short-term rental unless I got my property owner's, you
know, permission to do so. >> To me, I don't know that we need to say that. You know, I I think really it's going to be a matter of if the owner wants to use a property as a short-term rental, why would they
have a long-term lease with, you know, one tenant and then say, but we can sublet it, if you will, >> for shorter periods of time. >> I don't know if that is necessary. >> Yeah, I would agree. And it would have to go through the owner anyway. The
owner have to provide Does this does this prohibit it by if you took it away, does it prohibit it? Because I'm thinking again, let's just say let's say someone's a nurse and they decide they want to be a visiting nurse
um for a couple of stints. They go three months someplace, but they don't want to give up their apartment or their unit. Um, I keep thinking about Milton Bid Milton because it keeps, you know, the how they're expanding and uh the kind of the
folks who might be interested in being renting apartments or renting a house. So, I'm just wondering if that um if as long as the owner agrees that it's okay, which I definitely think should be a requirement if a tenant is doing it.
Um should should it really be prohibited? >> Where does the in this scenario, where does the owner live? >> That's >> not there. >> But you can't do this if it's not the owner has. >> So, that's where I'm That's I'm just
trying to kind of wrap my head around that. Is this that sort of really really narrow situation where the where the owner's in the ADU? >> I think >> or the owner might be in like a >> maybe it's two family or something. >> I think would have to be a two family or
a principal dwelling with an ADU and you rent out the principal dwelling say on a year-to-year basis. >> So let's run through a scenario. Let's say it's a a person who's older and
wants to live in the ADU, wants to rent out the house, and let's say they rent it to that nurse, and that nurse wants to be able to be away and still be able to pay the rent for that place and and maybe have it for an ADU for some period of time
while they're away as a visiting nurse. That's the kind of scenario I see it being used as. But is there a scenario that's But doesn't the owner have to the owner has to >> owner they would have to approve it, >> but the owner would have to apply for the short-term rental, >> not the not the person renting,
>> right? Yeah. >> Or the year-long lease, right? So, it kind of seems like it's unnecessary. >> I see. Okay. >> Like, you know, I mean, you could go back to the point that you made, Liz, if if it has to be an owner occupied if we
have the owner occupied requirement, then this doesn't happen. >> Yeah. >> Doesn't happen. But but otherwise, I could rent Cheryl's house and pay Cheryl and George 2,000 a month and then pivot and do 30-day terms at 3,000 a month and
just operated as like, you know, >> financially. Yeah, that could make sense. But but she needs >> our permission. Right. Right. Right. >> And you but you need to apply for the short-term rental, right? >> Sean can't do it on his >> should be able to. the owner that it
>> which I think this says that the owner has to apply for it. >> I think it says it's allowed by the property. >> Yeah, it says it owner should not register. >> But that that scenario isn't correct though because we would have to be living on the property. Right. >> So is it is it even possible to do it?
>> Just the way I think Liz described it, which is the owner living in the ADU or in a second unit of a two family. >> Yeah. So that's why I was trying to think through that example too where it's the person is lease is renting the
house because they only need the small and maybe they they're not in a position to sell the house. There's no place to go to, you know, for the dollar that they would sell it for. But >> so so in that case, let's say there is a property that has an ADU. Um, the owner
lives in the ADU, rents out the primary residence for a long-term rental for a year. A person rents that and then starts to um pivot into a monthly rental.
They could do it >> only with the owner's permission. According to this certainly wouldn't want that to be allowed without the owner having to agree to it. But you're saying not whether it should be allowed at all. >> Yeah. I I I just I just think it Yeah.
It could get really crazy. >> Also think it starts to get into puts the town in between a a landlord and a tenant relationship. >> Yeah. you know, whether there whether there is a long-term lease or what the terms of the lease may be.
I don't mean to be flip about this, but do we care? You know, if the owner of the property applies for um tries to register their property, use it as a short-term rental, are we going to ask, well, can you
please provide us proof that you aren't already renting that same unit to someone else on a longer term basis? Yeah, >> I don't think we're going to do that. >> Yeah. Now, this there is a lot of this that creates an awful lot of work e even the language that requires, you know, and
it's a proof that they're living in it and providing bills and I mean this we are creating we are definitely creating some work for someone in town. >> Um >> I think we could take this out. I think
we may be causing more confusion that we don't the town doesn't need to necessarily >> or if you leave it in is this just something that doesn't get enforced. >> Are you talking about the whole >> paragraph or just the second sentence of
it? >> Because the first sentence of it >> just prohibited. All right. shall not register or offer a rental unit, >> which is already subject of a long-term lease. >> Yeah.
>> So, they can't they can't rent it twice. If their if their visiting nurse goes away for six months, they can't even if the nurse is okay. They can't they can't rent it twice. >> They could subleas it. >> They could subleas it. Yeah, >> that's that would be different. >> So, they could Oh, but not as a
short-term rental as a short-term rental. >> But not as a short-term rental. Right. Right. We just can't >> Well, actually, no. If we if we get rid of this paragraph all together and an owner comes in and wants to register their property as a short-term rental, like I was just saying, we're
not going to say one of the requirements is that you prove to us that you aren't already >> subjecting that unit to a long-term lease. We're sort of taking it at face value. The owner comes in, I've got a separate dwelling unit. I want to use it, you know, as a as a short-term
rental, whether or not it's already been rented out to, you know, someone on a year-long basis. And um, you know, it's now a a nurse who's, you know, going to be away for a month or two months going someplace else for
special training or volunteering services somewhere. What does that matter to us? All we care about is that we know the property is going to be used as a short-term rental and that, you know, it's it's safe and that they're abiding by our bylaws and
not causing the disturbance to neighbor. I don't know that it matters to us whether it's a vacant unit or a a unit that is only vacant on a short-term basis because the primary penant is going to be away.
Carolyn, do you remember where you um pulled this paragraph from? Which town? >> Um I could look. I mean, it was just primarily Newton, Lexington, Gray, Bington, Nant. So, it's one of those four.
Yeah, I don't remember seeing that in Lexington and me. Maybe it was Nah. I guess to me, Caroline, it kind of goes to the like the intensity of the use, right? Like if if there's a concern about something already being rental
property and and then you sort of you're you're devising a second type of rental arrangement. Bington. >> Sorry. >> Yeah. I I to me that sort of is the that's kind of the the policy kind of
question is do you want to give an owner like two bites of the apple for for rental income? >> And does it incentivize doing this just for, you know, investment? >> Again, if you were a neighbor next to
this house, what would you want? That's how I always look at things. You know, at least the owner is there. You know that owner, >> right? >> When they take on a tenant, so now you kind of know that tenant. Now there's someone else coming in.
>> So it goes to intensity of use. So maybe we keep it in >> for the time. If you keep it then then you're then you're oh what the just that first sentence. >> Keep the first sentence. >> Oh the first sentence which which >> prohibits it outright.
Carolyn, >> it would and I guess I'm you know just thinking of what does the what is the town want to get in the middle of? you know, um, somebody rents out their property to, using Carol's example, to a nurse who's going to be gone for six
weeks. The property owner says, "Ah, I'm going to make a little extra cash during those six weeks, and I'm going to rent it out as a short-term rental." Um, the nurse then comes back and says, "How dare you have rented my unit out as a short-term rental while I was away?" Are
they going to show up at the, you know, the the building insp, you know, counter or the health department, depending upon who we decide is enforcing this to say, how could you have allowed this to have been used as a short-term rental when the bylaw doesn't allow such a thing?
How would we know that there is a long-term lease arrangement? Could you require them to could you require them to to disclose that when they apply for the um permit for the short-term?
>> We could. And if they are honest and provide it, great. And if they tell us that there is no lease, we're none the wiser >> until there's a problem. >> Yeah. So, this is an interesting interesting
scenario, but um why do we necessarily care if it if there's a long-term lease and that we're then it's short-term rental? I'm just trying to understand why why does it matter, though? >> I was actually thinking that it would be the nurse who would want to have the
short-term rental so she could help pay for her rent or her he could help pay for his rent. While maybe like like the example of volunteering someplace where there's a hurricane emergency or someplace and they're not getting the income. >> Yeah. >> I wasn't thinking it would best to the owner.
>> So it's interesting that you know Caroline viewed it one way a different way. >> Well yeah because well you have to you have to >> right >> you have to consider that right that it that somebody would try to maximize their profit in a situation like that. Well, maybe we should u put a pin in
this one and come back to it. >> Okay, >> good. Thank you for pointing that out. Um at the top of page three, um M I just noticed I just didn't have a period at the end.
>> Okay, >> very small. Um, and then under registration requirements, operators must register with the inspectional services department. So, in Newton, they have enough staff that they have an
inspectional department. Um, we have our really our our building department um or health department. And we were Liz is going to have a conversation with both Caroline Canella and Michael White to see who felt like
that this would be sort of in their jurisdiction. I don't want to put anything more on Michael. >> I'm sorry. Which one you want? >> Sorry. Under >> four registration. >> Actually, I had something before that. >> Yes. So did I. >> Oh, you did. Okay. Sorry.
>> Sorry. But did you want to finish what you were talking about? >> Yeah. So I just instead of inspectional services I was thinking should we just plug in building department for now but but keep it a TBD because we just don't have it in the special services
department so it has to change. >> I think it is actually >> in the building department >> on the website it's >> okay then that's fine. All right, then we can leave that language. >> But I do think there's a question of whether that what role the health department might have there >> because I think there is an area down
under D where it has the building commissioner and the health we could have and the health department and that might be appropriate to have both. But >> so I wanted to come back to P. >> Yeah, let's go. >> All right, let's go to >> You want me to go first? Sorry. All
right. So, um, no more than four vehicles on a lot. To me, it's uh there's some properties where that might make sense, but there's other properties. I mean, there's a lot of homes right now, like I go for walks. I leave my house, Cant. I go for walks.
I see four and four right now. >> Four cars in a driveway already for a single family home. All a lot of homes. >> So, um does this mean no more than four short-term rental vehicles or more than
four vehicles total? I mean, do whatever you think is appropriate. >> I read this on the lot, meaning that it's doesn't matter. >> And I think that that's a restrict that's too restrictive because that would mean that another one of these end
runs where you're prohibiting it by saying by this provision. >> Don't we have a bylaw that already prohibits the number of cars on a lot? >> I thought we did. I thought I was just going to say. So, I think we need to check what our current bylaw is because I think
>> that's my number. >> Is that Yeah, it is by I think it's by whatever um you know like if you're A, C, or D. >> Okay. Yeah, I I'm aware of you know parking areas over over a certain number
of cars needing additional like setback areas. I'm I'm I'm aware of that, but I don't know >> that there was a maximum number >> max for for single family >> for Yeah. depending on what um >> if you're an AA
cuz I feel like >> because we're requiring the home >> because I was concerned about that in my own >> like a couple times, >> right? >> We had too many cars. >> Yeah. Well, there's two required for for single family. I know that because that's come up with the ADUs where we
need to have they need to show at least three off streetet parking spaces. >> So here we're requiring the homeowner to live here. So they're presumably going to have their car at least one and um and we're going to cap it at four when
the single family is required to have two. Are we limiting it then to two of of the bedrooms? I just wonder if four is too restrictive. >> I know, but I don't think you can. I I think e even in double A, right? I think
the max is like four or five off street parking spaces. >> I mean, it's not it's not a high number. >> So, it's just a driveway. People are parking in their driveways then now because there's well and people obviously on other roads are parking in
rideways and other things, you know. U So to me it It certainly isn't enforced. >> I know you can't I I don't think you could be giving >> a preference to short-term rentals to
the full-time resident in town. >> Could you Well, >> well, we I I think I think the point is is we have to make sure that this is that this that this is in is in line with the whatever the parking whatever the parking restrictions are. Caroline,
>> I'm not seeing any specific restriction. >> Same, >> but sometimes, you know, this the the search just might not be coming up um as easily as we're talking about it. So, I'll I'll see if I can find something to that effect.
>> And by lawful bedroom, you mean lawful per the building code or lawful per >> lawful per building code? >> The size. Well, bedrooms are required to have windows with lights, access to light
air, closet. >> So, maybe we put a pin on this. >> Yeah, I just think we need to think look into that. >> You know, this this it's small potatoes, but I was actually thinking more about
longer term rentals. Um, we all pay excise tax. you know, does person long-term rental, are they subject to excess tax to Milton? >> Why not? >> Is there a reason they're not?
>> Um, because I would imagine because they're not considered residents and it would be where they're out where they actually consider their vehicle vehicle to be garageed. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Well, someone's I don't know. It goes it
goes really long term. Yeah, >> if you're renting, your vehicle is garageed where you are. >> Um, anyhow, >> and I we kind of had this conversation in my house recently and I think it comes down to insurance, too.
>> So, if um you are parked >> say in Dorchester, you're renting an apartment in Dorchester and your car is registered to Milton. If there's an accident in Dorchester, your insurance may not cover it because of um that's
not fair. >> It's registered. >> I'm not 100% sure. I know in my case, you know, when Kira was at UMass and I informed the insurance company because the rates be a little bit different in Ammerst than they are here, but I paid a full year of excise tax in
>> Milton. Yeah. So, I don't think I don't think Milton doesn't get any relief, >> you know, but anyhow, >> they're going to get you somewhere. >> You know, I'm just thinking that if this, you know, for for any of that, it's it's revenue for the town, >> and we don't want to ignore revenue if it's possible for us to collect an
excise tax for a vehicle that's parked in town, >> you know. >> So, Carolyn says we can't. I'm just I'm I'm seeing this um maintaining more than five registered vehicles on a single lot is generally
not considered an accessory use unless a special permit is granted. I think that's the where the five >> that's where the five plus the five and up cars was stuck in my head. There's definitely language in there about that because that's sort of considered a um >> you know more of like a commercial scale
like parking area. So, so there's minimum requirements. Res C I think is just one space is required. Off streetet space is required. So there's minimum and then there's this issue with the you know the limit limit
to the number of vehicles. So we probably just have to make sure that whatever that says isn't the last time that was in force. I'd like to know >> more than five registered vehicles on a single lot. We've got six
at my house, which is ridiculous. >> Yeah, that's what we had in my house. I'm concerned about that. C >> could we just avoid that and just say one vehicle per lawful bedroom in the short-term rental and just end it there? >> Yeah, I I I'm with you. I think that
might be the easiest thing. >> That way, we're not including the >> the main residence and we're not trying to get weed into that. works. >> All right. Great. >> Yeah. The periods after rental, right? Right. After the short-term rental period. >> Yeah.
>> Can Can we go back to um Bo? Is is um is that it? So, I think for an hourly rate of rental duration less than 24 hours, we can't have a number greater than 24. >> Well, no, you can't. You certainly can. >> Can >> and that this would be the place to put it.
>> Yeah. Yeah, you know, 24 hours is like it's like motelling. You know, someone could arrive at, you know, 8 9:00 at night and be at 7 in the morning. I I think I think a longer period of time would be better. Um
but you know and >> that's what to Maggie's point that was the concern of >> what somebody >> So what's the appropriate >> I think we should pin that and >> come back to that. I see it's getting a
little dark outside. >> Yeah. >> I know. I see. Yeah. There's a full moon. >> Yeah. I'm happy to come back, but I would like to make sure we talk about it. >> I agree. Yeah, >> I think the things that that uh we say
we're going to pin more more discussion. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, the inspectional services question is answered. Um down to D. I think I like that Caroline putting commissioner and health department here.
What other people's thoughts are? >> Yeah, I like health department because they're in charge of road control. So that was another issue is >> what control >> rodent >> rodent >> that I guess um would it be and
>> and >> yeah I mean I don't think we want to say that the health department could is an alternative inspection to the building commission. Right. >> Right. Right. >> So we need both of our officials to visit. >> Sound good? We should also consider um
you know the language is proposed is prior to issuing or renewing a registration certificate certainly before issuing you know for the first time you want to have the unit inspected. Um, under this under some
recent revisions of the state building code, if we're talking about an owner occupied short-term rental, they only have to be inspected under the building code every five years. So, I'll I'll play with that language a little bit to make it consistent with
the code. And then E, um, the first occupancy com commencing, shouldn't that say like January 1st after 2027 based on if we
>> I think that's when it gets adopted, right? When it gets adopted, >> right? I'm I'm assuming, you know, if this goes forward at a fall town meeting, well, the question really becomes, um, depending upon when your town meeting
is, is it even likely that by the time this goes into the attorney general's office and gets approved, are we even capturing it right >> for say January 1, 2027, particularly if
if this is going to be a general bylaw, which they typically are, Um the general bylaw doesn't take effect until the attorney general approves it. >> Okay. >> So let's say you have a November town meeting. Um I think it's unrealistic to think that the attorney general is going
to approve this uh you know say by the holidays at the end of the year in time to necessarily capture next year's rental season. Um, so do we want to put in say within six, you know, say 3 months
of the effective date of this bylaw that shall commence the first registration cycle or do you just want to wait a full year to 2028? I I don't think you'd want to postpone it a full year if it comes >> if the uh attorney general if this went
to a fall time meeting attorney general took till January and you'd wait the whole year, >> right? >> That doesn't make much sense. I mean to rush it now and then to say it's okay to wait another year, >> right? So maybe we give like a three months you know following three months
following the adoption the um approval of this bylaw that will commence the initial registration cycle and then that first term that say registration is in effect is only going to be through
December 31st 2027 and then we fall onto the annual cycle. So, um, is there a quieter time in the, um, building department? >> Exactly. I was going to ask >> that. Well, >> you know, maybe like late fall.
>> So, probably not late fall >> because, you know, I have a deadline um that I have to submit my reports by January 1st, and it is the worst date. I'm always late for it because I'm so busy at Christmas. December's so busy.
Um, so that was a a bad date. Um, >> I just know things were quiet. I started October 1st >> and things were quiet from like when I started until until the holidays and then it went >> Yeah. >> I wonder if like March is not a bad time
to have it be renewed instead of January because I also wonder if there's >> one thing to think about >> magical about January >> with the health department. I I believe they inspect camps. Do they do that? Like summer camps? >> Most likely. >> That's the board of health who does that
actually. >> Yeah. I'm sorry if I said that's what I meant. >> Yeah. >> Um >> I do I do have a I I set a meeting with with the head of the um the board of health um the um Carolyn Consella um the week of uh January 6th. January 6th.
>> July. >> That's a little weird. Freudian Freudian slip. Um July 6th, I think the week of July 6th. Um but so so you know clearly like you know ideally we would have had a conversation before tonight but but both of our she wasn't
in now. I'm not going to be in next week. So >> anyway, so whatever want to have that check that that's really critical to make sure that the that the staff, you know, staffing resources there and bandwidth and that it makes sense for them
>> because I know the questions are going to get asked. Right. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Well, another thought is to not have an October 31st date.
you could instead require that the registration applications come in let's say by March 15 and then you pick up you know it's still good for for say January to December
31st if that's a slower time of the year for either the building or the health department depending upon where this lands. >> All right, let's wait for feedback from Michael and Caroline. >> Okay, >> Caroline. Um, that's that's a great
suggestion though. Um, so next is the filing fee of um, and we have we have 100 in here and to discuss. Um, I did see some towns had 250. If I think about it like what an hourly
rate would be and how much time it takes to review an application, 250 seems better. Oh my god. I It's not even enough. You know, honestly, really, you think about it. Too many of these fees are too are too small given how much time it takes for we're going to have
someone from the building department and somebody from the board of health drive to the residence and do an inspection. We're going to have somebody kind of verify that the the owner's information that they submit, whether it's utility bills or whatever, you know, the effort
and the time and the hours, it's my opinion, I I think I think 500 is is very reasonable. Yeah. >> And I could justify even more. I mean, I >> we give away our services in the town. we give it away and and then what we do
is we charge the taxpayer, right? You know, to to to pay for it and the benefit is going to the person that's getting the discounted rate. >> It's silly to me. I I I think a $500 rate is a minimum. >> Well, I was going to ask what is the um
the rate for other um uh other applications? I think, you know, I go back to consistency. I like to have a consistent um fee schedule. Um >> so let's say we're going to explore that
>> since we're not going to know it tonight. >> Yes, right. Yes. >> Uh and I agree um that consistency is is good. I know on building permits it's a percentage of the cost of construction, >> but I don't think this is the type of thing we're looking at here. Um, but
>> but if you file for like a special permit or renewal of I think a renewal of a special permit is like 250 or something or maybe 750. >> I think our fees are actually are actually kind of
in line. I know I know like an ANR for instance it's like 500. So, so there, so that number is not not, you know, completely out of left. >> Yeah. So, 500. Let's plug in 500. >> Let's check. >> You think you have a fe you have a
registration fee that would be annual. I think that uh Caroline might have written in here or other towns have done it where you can have a fee for a fee for the inspection itself. >> Right. >> Right. And then you also have um
trying to find it again. Sorry. you also have uh tax added to the rental itself anytime it is rented. So I mean totally appreciate your point and I agree with it. >> Um but we are going to we are having
several different points we are extract or extracting maybe not the right word but >> getting income to the town but I totally agree 500 is seems like a good number. >> 50 some of these towns are doing 50 and that's ridiculous. >> Yeah. Although doesn't the tax go to the state and not the town?
>> No, there's both. >> There's both. >> We can impose, but that means we have to oversee it. >> Well, I think that >> I thought I thought the state does 5.7 and then we can go above above that up to six, >> right? >> And then we can also do a community
impact fee up to 3% if they own more than two properties. But I think Caroline, that's the point you made. you have it has to be directly applicable to the impact it's making on town, right? Or Liz, maybe you >> and and and also with respect to just the permit, the application of the
filing fee. Um I know that you're you you know I certainly understand um that historically municipal filing fees or application fees are low. Part of the reason for that is they're
not supposed to be revenue generating. the the cost for obtaining a permit is supposed to be commensurate with what does it cost the town be it your building inspector your health agent um whoever is charged with reviewing the
application making sure it's complete and processing it um what is the cost associated with that then of course there is the inspection fee which you know I I don't think $100 covers your application plus your inspection fee
But we are limited to being able to say, we can't just pick a number out of the air. We have to be able to say this is reasonably what we expect. It will, you know, it will take a town employee um at least an hour to review to make sure it's complete and complies with the
bylaw. And the hourly rate of the employee likely to process these registration applications is X. So that might be one way to quantify just the application fee. Separate from that I think is what Sean was talking about.
Now we have to have the building inspector and or health agent drive out inspect the properties. That's going to be at least another hour, perhaps longer. Um so that might be a separate fee or maybe you combine them all into
one fee, but you at least have an idea of what is the true cost to the town so that this isn't a losing proposition to the town. Um, but we can't we can't use the fees just to generate re revenue.
That's the whole purpose behind the adoption of the excise tax to get some additional revenue benefit to the town. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I'm not I'm not even thinking of it as a revenue generator. If it if it if it became that, it's because you have you have an extremely efficient process
and it just works that way. But, you know, when you think about the administrative component, you know, just just to process somebody's registration and you're going to mail something out to them. Do you know what I mean? And just all of the all of those tasks just, you know, iterate all those tasks. It's
it's it's going to take it's going to take um people hours and um I just want to make sure that we're not getting hurt financially. >> So maybe a one time of registration fee of $500, but that would cover the inspection.
Is that possible? >> Or you could say 250 and 250 >> or 250 and 250. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> I'm I'm okay with either how we do it. And and I think if there's a renewal, you know, that there should be a sign a sign of fee value for a renewal because you got to go back through the process again, you know, every time you renew
it. We should just not be taken advantage of. I I just I'm all for not >> creating a revenue stream and trying to I just want to make sure we're treated fairly. >> And how come the inspection fees are getting paid directly to inspectional services?
Should it be getting paid to somebody else? Because that goes into their um their budget, right? It typically doesn't. I mean, all money that the town collects is supposed to go into the general fund unless you have um special
legislation or you have a revolving fund or something that is set up differently to divert the funds. Um, I I think what this was trying to capture was you have an application fee, but then separately there's an
inspection fee that will be paid to the inspectional services department because they're the ones that are actually going to collect and perform the inspection. So, I think what this was envisioning is two separate fees, the application alone and then the
inspection fee. So you could have a you could have the filing fee if that's what we call it of 250 and an inspection fee of 250 and the inspe goes to the building department and the other 250 goes to >> the general fund. >> Yeah because if the health department is
involved how which is taking health department resources how come the health department isn't getting reimbursed. >> I think they I think it should be separate. >> Yeah. And or the fire department. I I I think whoever goes out should
should get a pay, >> right? >> But if you're if you're the applicant, all you really care about is paying the town. Let the town figure out how to get to the department. You know, we shouldn't make it to someone, >> right? It's all going to be paid to the
town of Milton. It's just is it one one fee that's paid, you know, say at the select board's office, and then another fee that's been paid at the time of an inspection being performed. >> Yeah. I I I like the idea of the language that articulates two values so
people can better understand that, you know, there's cost involved in this. We're just not charging $500 because we're trying to make some money. $250 for the inspection and $ 250 for the >> filing or application process. I would agree with that. Something
>> else to also bear in mind, we don't have to put the filing fee into the bylaw itself. >> Yeah. >> You know, that's actually a really good point, Carolyn, because uh and and I remember talking about this with some particular >> um article that we had over time. It's going to change. You don't want to have
to go back to the bylaw and change your bylaw because >> 10 years from now, >> we did talk about that with something else >> was a sign was a signed bylaw. >> Yeah. um >> having it having it in the in the handbook as opposed to bylaw. >> Yeah. May maybe the fees are there'll be
some some document that's an application. Maybe we refer to here that the fees will be listed separately in the application or something like that. >> I still think that it's good to outline a >> a dollar value. >> No, a registration fee and separate inspection fee. I can refer to a
separate document or source for what the amounts are. >> Yeah, I agree with you. So turning to the next page under I and Caroline had a question because
this this is just a food for thought. >> Yeah. Um, some communities they'll adopt a short-term rental bylaw and it will be very bare bones and then they will have separately regulations and the regulations might contain the fees. The
regulations might spell out um all of the components of an application for example. I don't know if you're envisioning having separate regulations or you want to just have that opportunity to have separate regulations in case it becomes
more convenient in the future to do it this way or would you just prefer everything be put into the bylaw? >> I think it's good to have that language in there because I think we're going to learn as we go
>> and I think we might we want to be able to add regulations. we want to be able to add the fees and there might be things that we want to to add to change without having to go back and change the bylaw itself. >> So the only other the only other question then and maybe this has to wait
until um Liz has her conversation after the 4th of July is who will be issuing those regulations. It could be the select board. It could be the board of health if um if this ultimately falls to the board of health. Um, we don't have
to answer that question right now, but we we if we're going to keep this in the bylaw, we should identify who has the authority to issue regulations >> because I I think of just the recent ADU regulations that you've >> you've sort of been working with Michael
White on those. You know, it's been this might be >> the board of health, Michael White, and you're so that is something to think about how that would >> Absolutely. Yeah. >> Yeah. I like how this this reserves your reserves your opportunity to to adopt them.
>> So, I think that's that's I like I like how that's how that's done. Caroline, >> we'll circle back to that one after after you have some um more input from Michael and from the health
department. >> Great. And then moving down to E. Can we just uh there's a typo in D >> sec second line. >> I think it's supposed to be used and not sued.
>> Oh, why not let them be sued? >> Okay. >> I'm surprised you didn't get that. >> For the night. >> Well, you know, it was even with my readers, this print is so small. >> Yeah, that's small. Um, can can I go
backwards? just a something I was reading here that caused me to ask a question. So uh in the in the section prior to it in G um and this is the section where it talks about contact needs to be provided so on and so forth and if the contact doesn't isn't
available within two hours of being notified but it it says um uh it reads in conclusion that if they're not available a failure to failure of the local contract to respond within the stated period should
constitute a violation of this chapter. So what happens if there's a violation? >> What does that >> they can lose their six months? >> They could they could jeopardize their their you know their registration or their ability to renew.
>> Is that >> do we do we is that written somewhere Carolyn? >> Yeah. When we get into the enforcement um >> that's okay. >> Yeah. Good. and and on H um is this is this in fact this language that a
property owner or indirect property owner must reside in a dwelling unit operate a short-term rental for nine out of 12 months. >> No, that is something again out of the four um communities that the board looked at their bylaws and liked it.
This was something that was proposed there. >> Okay. >> Whether but that is entirely up to you as to whether or not you want to include that or not. Well, I guess just in in reading it, it means that a person that wanted to take advantage of this would they could rent it 12 weeks of the year,
right? All right. Three months of the year, they could rent it. >> Um, >> am I not reading this right? >> Meaning that the the owner the owner has to live there nine out of the 12 months. >> Yeah. But during the entire year, they could
still >> rent out >> rent out the the second bedroom or the primary house while they're in the ADU or whatever that situation is. It's just saying that the someone has the owner has to be there at least nine months of the year. >> Okay. >> They can't just be gone. >> So, in a in a situation where the house
doesn't have an AD, which is most of the towns, most of the homes in Milton. >> Yep. >> If somebody wanted to take advantage of this, they can only take advantage of it for three months of the year. I don't think that's the way. >> No, I think I think it's I think I think it's I think it's intended for people
that have like a vacation home, >> right? So, you're going to spend the summer on the Cape >> and you're not going to be there for the for the summer or or you go or you're snowbird. Yeah. >> Right. >> So, you don't want to preclude those those homeowners from being able to do short-term rental. So, you're basically
saying that it's okay if you're away three months a year. >> Okay. >> That's how I read it. That's sort of a practical take on it. >> Okay. So, so, so that means that any home >> that doesn't have that situation with as an ADU that you could, you know, start
sleeping in your ADU and renting out the rest of your house, right? So, >> because most of the town doesn't have that. Most of the homes are like yours or mine or Cheryl's or yours. Um, >> they could only rent it three months in the year.
>> No. In order in order for In order for it to be in order for it to be considered owner occupied, Caroline, jump in if I'm not doing this right. >> In order for it to be considered owner occupied, you have to be there for at least nine months of the year. >> Right. >> So that's that's that's the owner
occupied leg of the stool. The rights to rent it as a short-term rental, that's a different that's a different leg of the stool. And and a good question would be who's in charge if you're away for three months? But what >> if you're if you're using it as a short-term rental, >> who's who's enforcing the house rules if
you're if you're away for the if you're away for three months in the winter and and you're using it as a short-term rental, that's a that's a fair question. Maybe maybe you're you're not supposed to be renting it during those three months as a short-term rental. I don't know. But >> um so is that am I characterizing that
correctly, Carolyn? I that's exactly it is that I think the intent here was you want short-term rentals to be owner occupied or owner adjacent so that there is someone who's at this property and responsible for making sure that you
know uh somebody doesn't set the house on fire with a fire pit in the backyard. Um but we didn't want to preclude people who may go to Florida or Arizona for the winter. um from being able to ever rent out. So yeah, the 9 to 12 months per
year goes to the property owner and the amount of time that they must reside at the property in any calendar year. But those three months that the owner is in Florida or is in Arizona or wherever, um there's nothing in here that says that
you can't rent out the short-term rental when the owner is away. We could add something like that in. Well, that might be when they went to rent it out >> as long as they had a a person who was responsible
>> uh while they're away, >> right? >> Right. That's where paragraph G, you know, the name of the person, assuming that it is not going to be just the owner, but whoever could be the contact person >> um would have to be identified.
>> Let let me ask my question in a different way. Um, in this situation, let's let's say it's my house. I do not have an ADU. Could I could I take advantage of short-term rental for 12 months of the year? >> Yes.
>> Yes. Okay. Then then I'm not reading this properly. >> I'm reading it the way it reads. Here's how I read it. I'm going to read it word for word. A property owner or indirect property owner must reside in the dwelling unit operated as a short-term rental for a
minimum of nine out of 12 months during each calendar year. End of sentence. When I read that, that tells me that if I'm going to use my home for short-term rental, I have to reside in it for nine out of 12 months. Meaning, I can only
rent it out for three months. >> No, because you can you can still live there and rent out a bedroom. >> Yeah. or two bedrooms while you're there, >> which is the old original way Airbnb worked, right? Is rent. >> Yeah. Exactly. Right. That you're Yeah. You're there. You're there with the
people that are that are using it. >> Would it be better shot if it said something like in order to >> Yeah. Well, well, I I guess what it means is, you know, you're renting out a portion of the residence and it doesn't maybe we need to add a couple of words because, you know, I'm reading it not
recognizing that, yeah, I could rent out a bedroom. I could >> you know what I mean? Um >> without without recognizing that you're going to rent out a bedroom, which I guess happens, right? >> Yeah. People do it. People still do it. It's not it's not as it's not as common
as it was when when the platform first started, but >> people still do it. >> They they they share their kitchens and their bathrooms and their >> whatevers. Yeah, people do it. >> You know, I graduated from college and my mother started charging my room and boarding
early Airbnb, you know, now she way ahead way long before Airbnb. that that I I guess not recognizing that it's a portion of the home that can be rented is where I was getting hung up because that sentence doesn't that
sentence I don't know Carolyn may maybe we can a little bit about that >> you you certainly can't because I think that that's a a valid way of of interpreting it. The only thing I would go back to is if we go back to section three, paragraph A, it starts with no
dwelling unit or part thereof shall be used as a short-term rental unless you have registered in, you know, in compliance with this particular chapter. So, um I I understand we, you know, we could
perhaps repeat here. Um because I I I understand what you're envisioning by this. >> Yeah. >> Uh you know, someone could only rent out a portion of their house as a short-term rental, still go to
Florida for the winter, and still have the house partially occupied as a short-term rental. Now, if that is not what we want, then we'd have to rewrite this paragraph to insist that, you know, an owner or an
owner's representative must be on premises anytime the short it's being used as a short-term rental. I mean, we do require that there has to be the emergency contact person who will respond within two hours, and that could be someone
other than the owner, >> particularly for those three months. >> I think the owner having an owner's representative there goes back to the protection that having the owner there is. So, I do think that makes sense and that would probably still alleviate the
kind of situation that we heard about in East Milton with the with the large number of people at the party. So, >> I think that'll make a huge difference. >> Yeah, I think that that would allow that option for folks, but it still puts a protection in.
>> You'd like to have like an on-site owner's representative whenever the owner is away. >> Not on site, but just accessible. >> Well, I'm thinking on site because the protection that having the owner on site provides neighbors,
>> so why give it up? But is that realistic to have someone move in someone move into your home? Someone would have if you wanted to use it while you're away. >> It's like having a you know a dog sitter coming your way or a caretaker way. >> I think that seems I don't know a little
to me. >> I think that's one of those things that should be discussed in in a in a broader public venue because it >> it's that kind of protection. I think gets to the point that uh Maggie brought up earlier >> like as a neighbor, what would you want?
>> So you you asked the gentleman who came in at our last meeting, what what would you want? You know, he's obviously not happy with how it's happening now. So what would make him comfortable? >> Yes. short short of that which
isn't having someone to respond within two hours and address the issue and if not they're penalized isn't that >> well I mean also think of it I mean owners aren't always home they travel they do other things um they might get away for the weekend I mean we're not
going to say that you can't leave your home >> so I guess that's the other thing right >> that you're not always get to have the person >> home I mean even if they're just out for the evening and dinner and somebody's there. So, I I do think that that's
>> that's a good point that you bring up. >> I mean, it's one of those things that um you we kind of have to live with it and see what happens and if something's not working, >> then you have to come back. >> Yeah. >> No, >> because there's so many different
scenarios that could happen, >> right? depending on the owner. >> Caryn that this I I I think we've all agreed this will move forward as a general bylaw. It doesn't have the same type of process as
a zoning bylaw. >> Right. >> Right. So So there there really isn't a required public hearing similar to a zoning bylaw. I don't I don't know that there is. >> No, there there is no requirement. That is not to say you couldn't have one if
you want to get greater public input. Um, you know, kind of going back to to Maggie's point, we're going down this path of drafting a bylaw assuming that this is something that the majority of the folks or at least the majority of people who show up
at town meeting want to see adopted. >> You could very well find out that the majority of folks who show up do not want short-term rentals in their neighborhoods at all. Um, so you could certainly have a public forum. You could you could have a public hearing. Um,
but there is no requirement for general bylaw to have that hearing prior to going to town meeting. >> Well, given that we have representative town meeting uh and so the people who coming will be our town meeting members, I I definitely think we should have a
public forum. At any rate, what it needs to be a formal hearing that's advertised, you know, in the paper and all that is another story, but I definitely help with I agree. Maybe the council on agent, you know,
have a it's a broader just Yeah. >> Okay, good. Um, so then we can move to E, which um, Caroline had a question on. I'm not sure if we need this paragraph.
Um, >> do we want to establish the types or amounts of insurance? >> I mean, I it is typical to require some kind of insurance. I mean, people insure their house. Um
and and we certainly I think we would not necessarily want to um have a situation where we're allowing somebody who's let their homeowners insurance lapse >> um wouldn't necessarily want um to discover that you know some tragedy
happens. I just don't know that we're certainly not necessarily and by we I mean me. I'm not in a position to say you must have comprehensive general liability and property damage, etc., and and sit here tonight and tell you whether that should
be $500,000 per occurrence or $1 million in the aggregate. I think if we want to require insurance, I think that is something that um the town and perhaps to the town administrator could reach out to the town's insurance agent and
get some input on that. Yeah, you know, there's a um I mean this there's a scenario that I think is concerning in this area. This I think is a it's a good topic of conversation. Let's let's say for example that a
person applies, you know, and is granted, you know, a registered short-term rental unit and they do not have property insurance and there's a fire in the home and the occupant um you know, the occupant
doesn't survive the fire. You know, where is the town's liability having granted you know, a registered rental unit and the property owner? maybe we're fine, but everybody gets dragged into court, you know, and you end up spending years defending yourself >> and spending money. I'm not sure what
the right answer is, but um >> I like >> Sorry, go ahead. >> I just was going to say um Lexington had a very um simple um line about this which I I sort of liked. All short-term rental operators shall maintain
liability insurance appropriate to cover the short-term rental use. And mass state law says it's a million dollars. >> Is that too broad in general? >> I don't know. I I think we should defer to >> Yeah.
>> Well, maybe it's just in compliance with >> state law says 1 million. >> Yeah. Um there's a threshold for rentals. I think once you get past 30 days, you know, insurance companies view your rental differently than if it's less if you're renting it for less than
30 days. I I I know from my insurance friends um that is a threshold. So um you know maybe maybe we consider that you know within it if you're if you're not sure I think that 30-day
um number of days is important to insurance companies. The risk obviously I think is rare you know if it's being rented out for a longer period of time. >> Okay. pin on that be determined and get more information.
Okay. And I would trust Liz that you if you find that information out could maybe communicate with Caroline on that to draft language as appropriate. >> Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. Yep. I'll I'll follow up. I'll I'll be following up with Nick anyway and and um try to and
go and reach out for information that way and also do some do some homework myself. >> Um so next item was was G Carolyn if you wanted to talk a little bit about this. So this uh again comes out of one of the
samples um and says that you know there has to be this log of occupants you know meaning whoever is renting the short-term rental that the operator has to maintain this log and the log must be made available for inspection by any
town official upon request. Um, if we were talking about hotels and motel, there's actually state law that says, uh, the guest logs must be made available to the police department,
but upon request, but this idea that we're going to tell any town official, anyone who might have rented um, a short-term rental, one, I pause and say, what's the necessity for that? you know,
why do we need to know who is necessarily in a short-term rental unless, of course, something goes wrong? You know, someone someone commits a crime or there's some property damage or something like that, in which case you'd
likely get the police involved and then I think the police could certainly say to the operator, I want to know who was in your short-term rental on, you know, February 14th, 2025. Fine. I I just don't I I think it's a little too broad to say that that log
shall be provided to any town official upon request. >> I would agree with that. >> Yeah, I would too. I mean this um while I think it's important to have some record here, I I think this paragraph really is worth thinking through a
little bit. This it's more than I think is necessary but >> keeping a log is very cumbersome. >> You know, most people aren't going to do it, you know, >> and it comes Yeah.
>> They'll just ignore it. Well, if they're renting through Airbnb, let's say, you're going to gather their information that way. So, you could you could access that through that service. >> So, maybe maybe it's unnecessary to add
that in. I mean, you're not going to collect a license plate on your Airbnb, but you're still going to get their name, their address, their email, their phone number, right? >> Of one person. >> Of one person. Yeah. Yeah. I think this is this is all the occupants, isn't it?
>> So, it's everybody. >> Yeah. One of the things that you might think about here is not including children's names. That seems like if you you're going to rent a place now, all three of your children's name are
listed here. They're not responsible for that rental, right? >> You and your spouse are responsible for it, right? >> Yeah. Maybe we refer to adult documents. >> I would think so. >> Okay. >> And I'm I'm know we talked about this
before, but I agree about what's the necessity of the license plate number um on the car except to enforce some kind of parking, but even that we're going to require off- streetet
parking. Um, you're right. You know, why do we need to know the license plate number? Um, >> so if I think about when I've been required to provide a license plate number when traveling, it's to make sure
that the the car is properly parked in the parking lot for that facility, you know, >> right? um so that they don't tow it or what have you. But >> that doesn't seem like it a likely need here. >> It it it could be a very infrequent
need, but I think it's just an identification thing. Every one of us have our cars. You know what? I mean, the town knows your registration, my registration, right? And all they're asking is we want to be able to identify the vehicle that's registered to who it is.
>> And some of them might be rental cars if it's somebody who's visiting. >> Yeah. Mhm. >> which you wouldn't know when you're filling this out for Airbnb. >> But I do think having it available to the police rather than anytime makes sense.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I I don't think it's every time. That's That's way too >> So help though. >> Well, how are you going to how are you going to how are you going to secure this? Now I'm thinking about this. If you're going through Airbnb, >> you don't do that on Airbnb. Then when the person gets there, do you have to
communicate with them directly and ask them for that? Is that what we're suggesting the own operator need to do? >> Yeah. This this we wouldn't even know if this log existed >> unless there was a reason to ask the operator for the log, you know. So um
I suppose the other thing you can do is that you know the operator submit the line but you do that then you have somebody here that has to be responsible receiving it and all that but that doesn't I mean there seems some privacy issues with it's not associated with
some complaint >> you know if it's a parking complaint the neighbor can call the police that night the police would come out and just ticket the car. >> Just ticket it in. >> So So this seems like it's could cover
something more extreme. It was not just a parking, you know, like something happened. >> I mean, this is where if there was some serious crime that happened. >> Yes. is everybody track down these people. >> And I guess the police would be the only ones, as Caroline said, who would need
that kind of information to track somebody down >> because if you think about like a rental car, you know, that's a way to track somebody down >> that you don't have a license number like a driver's license number or any form of identification
associated with this, just a name, an address, right? So, I mean, I would think it's I can definitely see the reason for wanting to keep the log and I think I
think having the police have the access makes sense and and if it turns out that you need to add in like the board of health for instance, because it could be something to do with their inspection or you you know what I mean that you know over time you could sort of add maybe those additional
uh players in. But I I do think it's important to have to have that record of of who's who's in that in that short-term rental. If if someone if someone is registered and they they they have the right to rent it, is there is there any reporting
required, you know, as to how their rentals are changed for how frequently someone comes in the town, somebody could rent it all year long. It could be 10, 12, 14 different rentals.
>> Well, that depends if you want to limit. limit. >> Yeah, >> that circles back to the question on that. >> You know, >> the reason I asked that is I'm thinking the volume of information of occupants and license plates. >> Well, they're they're um I mean, this is
a rental agreement. Like when I use an Airbnb, I I give this information, >> right? >> So, it's really just a question of how it's collated. >> But you're not giving your license plate is I guess what I'm >> g I've given my license plate on Airbnb. It will because I've stayed in, you
know, I've stayed in downtowns where, you know, there's no off- streetet parking or there's no on street parking and or whatever, you know. So, I so I've been in I've been in situations where I h I had to give it for an Airbnb similar to like a to a hotel, >> right?
>> So, um so I think it's really I mean all this information if you're renting from somebody you're this information is is is passing hands. So, it's really kind of a question of how it's collated. I think it's or collected or what or whatnot. I I don't think I don't think this is burdensome for someone who's
who's running a rental operation. >> Yeah. >> Personally, >> I I I mean um what Charles said earlier about adults and and not children is I think that's something that probably should >> should just uh not require children.
>> Yeah. >> Any adult place, right? Access. Anything else? Move to the next.
Um, under K, um, Caroline said, "Do we want to include the dogs must be leashed or secured in a fenced area when outdoors?" >> Maybe that's not a bad idea. >> Well, we have a leash. >> We have a leash law, though. Yeah, I
would I did. >> But that might not be that evident as a short-term renter. >> So, I don't think it hurts to include it. >> Yeah, it's a good idea. >> I I would think Yeah, >> I don't think by >> I don't think,
>> but it shouldn't be our burden to explain them to them either. But I think somewhere in here it should say that any renter is, you know, is expected to follow all the bylaws of the town. Yeah, >> I think it does say that. It does say that. Um, >> but I'm okay writing it in because that
is not an unusual, right? People people always know. >> Um, the the other thing someone had suggested that um perhaps not allowing them to have um outdoor fire pits
because it could create a danger and it would create more noise. That's in my my informal survey. That was one suggestion. >> I don't know. >> Is that any different from having a patio or a deck?
>> You know, it's still going to be a place where people can gather. >> Yeah. >> And and generate some noise and maybe disturb neighbors. >> So, that was that was the just, you know, I don't have an opinion. Yeah. Just to think about
So, under K um I occupancy limits. This is where we were talking about this earlier. Um according to the town's bylaws, this is from Newton's. Um should this be according to the state building code? Alternatively, some
communities allow two people per bedroom for maximum occupancy. And I feel like we just talked about that at one point. I >> thought we talked about two people per bedroom. Two people per bedroom I think is >> that is what we discussed. Yeah. >> Yeah. And I think we all agreed on that.
>> Okay. Anything else on this page? >> Okay. M Carolyn, do you want to just talk about that real quick? Sorry, I was typing on the That's okay. Um,
so this was this kind of goes to what I was saying earlier. You know, the definition of a short-term rental by state law excludes hotels, motel, and lodging houses. This was a provision again in one of the samples um that if your short-term
rental is classified as a lodging house under the building code, you have to have a sprinkler system. I don't know that we need to have that here. It may very well be that um I I I can't really speak to why
Lexington did that given the fact that the definition by state law specifically excludes lodging houses. Um I think it is, you know, important with respect to the definitions to let people know that
a lodging house is that a short-term rental is not a lodging house. But I don't think we have to put a requirement in here for sprinkler systems for um those types of of you know lodging houses. >> 9:28 p.m.
>> Yeah. I like the uh Lexington >> more. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Or you saying we you don't think we need anything here? I don't think it's necessary, but I do understand that, you know, we're looking at this or, you
know, I'm looking at this from the perspective of someone. I know what the definition is by state law, but, you know, I recognize that someone who's just a property owner in town may not understand that there's a difference between a lodging house versus a
short-term rental. So, I don't see any harm if we substitute instead just the Lexington language that just simply says short-term rentals shall not be located in the same dwelling unit as a rob a roaming or a lodging house.
>> I think that's that covers it. >> Are are lodging houses allowed in Milton? >> I don't Should I know that? >> Question. I don't know. >> If they're not allowed, then maybe we don't even need this at all. Are they allowed in the business
district? >> I don't know. >> I didn't think they were, but I'm >> I didn't think so either, but >> I know that there was a funny board member some time ago who was interested in the Airbnb bylaw and there was a draft,
>> prepared. >> Okay. >> But it didn't make it to town. couple years ago. >> A couple of years ago or longer or >> Emilis, so when was she on the board? >> 10 years ago. >> 10 years ago maybe.
>> Is this is this where um Carolyn Cheryl had reached out to me with um a couple of questions for couple of things for clarification that are in the current bylaw. Did you I feel like this is interrelated, right? It is interrelated. Yes. >> So So maybe this is a good time to Did
you see that? I I I I I apologize. I sent it to you kind of late in the day today. >> I I did not. No. >> Okay. Um so some of the some of the language in the current bylaw, the zoning bylaw around the definition of family um and then the um accessory uses
um accommodation renting space to not more than three lodgers borders as paying guests not considered are theoretically cleared not to be accessory uses within the meaning of the bylaw. So, I mean, so that to that to me translated into
>> you can't do a lodging house because it's four or more. >> Okay. >> Right. I I think >> this is where I also thought that you could rent it out to folks, >> but there's nothing there's not a duration. You can rent out part of your house to
nonrelated f people. That's why I always had heard that that was >> that's always been my understanding too. >> Right. So, I just would like some clarity, >> but that's not But that's not a short-term rental, >> but that doesn't say any length on it.
>> And I don't know that you can prohibit somebody from renting a couple of bedrooms in their house as to to borders. >> But is a border someone for a particular duration by definition anywhere? >> I don't think it's a duration. I think
it's like the nature of of how they live in the house. It's got it like has to do with like sharing the kitchen and and I I think traditionally boarding actually meant they got fed. >> It sounds like I should go home tonight and tell my kids
the treatment. >> I just >> I check every box >> and bored. But your boys, too. >> Yeah. So, I I I I think the main thing is is just to make sure that this is not
in conflict with with what we're what what we're looking at tonight. I mean, the definition of family is from 2006. That might be something that needs to be looked at during the recontification. >> It's definitely something that came up
in the past. What a def I think that may have come up with the ADU discussion. definition of family being antiquated. >> That's a nice word. >> Usually are
>> I'd like to find the building commissioner out there who's knocking on doors to say, "Show me your papers that you're within, you know, one degree of relation to this person." Doesn't doesn't exist. >> I will look at that. That's great. So,
we'll double check that. But, but >> we would like to go with that Lexington version if we can if it's not a conflict, right? Is that how we're >> Yeah, I'm not I'm not seeing anything about rooming or lodging houses >> in um nothing's coming up in a search, but
>> Okay. again. Um, let's take a closer look at >> and just on that quickly is would that be considered a business use >> and is that something that is explicitly
called out as a use under a business district? It's just a general question. I don't know. >> Well, at the same time, a short-term rental could also be considered a business use. This is where the table of uses will be very helpful.
>> It really would be. Yes, I agree. >> I look forward to that. Okay. >> Okay. Um enforcement. I don't think there was anything here. Um, select board authority
should >> Oh, wait. Question about subject to the fine in the amount of up to 300 per offense. >> My question is, what is the fine for violation of other bylaws? Is that consistent? >> I would suggest taking out the fine
amount again and refer to the schedule fine somewhere. >> Yep. because that could change. >> And so then that would be the same in E, >> right? >> Yeah. Then Madam Chair, I think you were going to
>> I was section 8 of select board authority. Um again that would just be establishing whether it's the select board, board of health, who whoever you think is appropriate um to sort of administer all of this and establish you know an
application form and and adopt fees etc. >> I think that makes sense as a general bylaw. That should be a select board um through >> the town administrator's office to work on on behalf of the select board maybe. >> Okay.
>> If they set the the u the process they can delegate it to right >> to the health department or inspection services or whomever. And as far as effective date is
concerned, um being a general bylaw, it doesn't take effect until the attorney general ultimately approves it. But if you wanted to have wanted to push out the effective dates to allow, as we were talking about
earlier, sort of allow the schedule to to come into sync with our town meeting and when um registrations would start to be issued. You could put in a later effective date if you wanted to do so,
but we could also just take out section 9 entirely and as soon as we get the approval letter from the attorney general, then the bylaw >> is >> is deemed in effect. >> Yeah, >> that seems fine of me. >> Yeah. >> Okay,
>> I'm up with that. Okay, >> Caroline, one one thing that as we're nearing the end of this, um I remember from the review I put together, uh do we need to address anything about grandfathering in
existing units? not. Um, so where this is a general bylaw, there is no protection like that that would be afforded to any existing short-term rentals. if it were a zoning bylaw and if we were going to say that
um you know short-term rentals were now only going to be allowed in you know residence A and not residence B. Well, a short-term rental in residence B that has existed could arguably be um protected. Okay.
>> We don't have that issue with respect to um a general bylaw. U where you've also decided not to impose a a townwide cap on them. There isn't anyone who could come forward and say, "Hey, I operated a short-term rental for years, but now I'm
not going to be allowed to anymore because you're only allowing 50 licenses per year to be issued." Um I I don't think we have to address that at all. >> Okay, that's great. I think the question for the board um limiting the aggregate
number of days is something Sean brought up earlier >> and I do think um that's probably a good place to start you know because we can yeah see how this goes to I think to your point I
also Maggie what that number is I don't know you you refer here to Lexington Um, >> right. >> What did they limit it to? >> 120 for some reason is my >> That's what I thought it was. Is it 120 or 180?
>> It sounds right. >> I I see Bington has 150, but I thought I thought 120 was >> 120 be four months. >> Yeah, >> Lexington was 120. Okay.
>> So, I think we plug in 120 and this gets public discussion. >> Yep. >> Yeah. Now, the other um the other part of this is that do we just want to limit folks to 120
days per calendar year for use as a short-term rental or is it only if the owner operator is not actually occupying the unit? >> I thought they have to anyway. Well,
>> they'd have to they'd have to at least be owner adjacent or we go back to that other provision where you have to prove that you reside at least nine months out of the year. >> I just think it's a general applies across the board
>> whether you whether they're 12 months or nine months. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And that way if it's nine months, you could in theory rent out those 90 days. Well, >> yeah, >> you could.
>> You could. Yeah. >> And if we um determine a shortest duration, then we effectively determine the number of times it could run.
>> Turn over said. Yeah. Okay. So, do you need this then by July 9th? Was that the deadline? >> So, um Liz, the the select board is aware of this uh article.
>> Their their timing was early July or is there a finite date in July? I was trying to trying to get a better sense of that finite date. I'm I'm I still sort of have early July as the as the as the um the time frame. So, um I will
have a conversation with um with the town administrator and and see, you know, confirm what he needs by what date. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um and if it's a little bit earlier the that week, it it it might be a bit earlier that week. It could be
closer. >> I think it's the 7th. >> I I that that number that that date is kind of stuck in my head and I don't know if that's the the night the the select board is scheduled to meet. >> I don't think we should >> I wouldn't be comfortable submitting this with as much change as we discussed
tonight. I would like to review on the 9th and probably vote the language to submit on the 9th knowing that we might revise it further. >> We put a pin in how many things? Half a dozen things. Right. Yeah. So, >> so, um, the CPC committee met the other
night. CB CBC met the other night and we're trying to do a couple things that are, um, out of the norm for Tucker and for Athetherton because of the time sensitiv sensitivity with that. And, um, the chair of that uh, let me know that
through Nick, the select word is meeting on the 14th and the 21st. >> Okay. >> And so, they might not have their stuff till then. Okay. Okay. Great. I did I did I did kind of hear that a couple of those dates, but I didn't want to but
but that No, that's helpful. And so I I think I after a conversation I think with Nick to confirm that, I think um I think we could and and honestly like I I I wasn't suggesting that the board wouldn't need to kind of convene again
and and and resolve these things. I was just trying to figure out if there was a way to sort of, you know, kind of produce a certain level of of of of documentation to kind of, you know, kind of get the get the process underway. More more more that than anything. Um,
so yes. So the long answer after all that is is our next meeting is July 9th. So um we we would be looking for that by then, right? >> Okay. I will get that to you. >> Thank you so much and thank you for
being here tonight. We really I mean we we needed you to walk us through a few of these things. So we really appreciate it. It's >> No problem. No problem. >> I will get this to you as soon as I can. >> Great. Thank you, Karen. >> Thank you. Have a good one last thing
because you're not available on the 9th. >> Correct. If there's anything u that you think needs um you know discussion by the board that like you highlighted here tonight does it make sense for you Liz to meet with
Carolyn to run through it so that you can >> sort it'll be a standin for her for the night. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Would you have some availability, Carolyn, um that week to just kind of kind of run through things?
>> Yeah. And I think it might make sense, Liz, to let me let me turn around the revisions that you have discussed tonight and clean this up a little bit. >> Okay. >> And um then I think we can, as I have been doing, I'll I'll highlight the things that still remain
outstanding items that that require some decisions to be made. >> Okay. And and I'm going to get I'm going to get better at track changes because that was a that was a that was a a comment with the the sign bylaw.
I need to I need to I need to improve I need to up my track changes game. >> Just make sure you turn it on. >> All right. Fantastic. That's great. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you everyone.
>> And I mean I would hate to do it but if we needed to add like another just quick meeting just to go over anything if you needed before the 9th >> that week before. >> Yeah. >> Sometimes we would have just a short short just meeting just to
>> Sure. >> vote on or something if we needed to discuss it. >> Okay. Okay. Yep. To get a quorum and maybe even just online potentially. probably we won't need to. I think it's going to it sounds like it's going to work with >> with the timing because >> we would like to have this pretty
tightened up before >> starting to send it out because that's when things get confusing for more committee if there's changes made and >> Right. Right. Absolutely. >> And and to have anything that's potentially if there are any potential tweaks with zoning that's going to have
to get synced up too >> because that those those zoning amendments will have to get submitted as well. So, >> will you will you be able to draft that? I think it's a very simple amendment for the MBTA communities for the 15%. >> Yeah, I was going to just take a quick
crack at it and then just and then just send it to Carolyn. >> Okay. Um >> because we should vote on that at our next meeting too because that's you want to see what that >> Yeah, I think that I think that was it that that that would be that we'd be you'd be teeing up for
>> because I had the recottification the 15% and then I think we already talked about the exterior stair question. It sounds like there's a desire to sort of continue to have conversations back and forth in terms of the rules and regulations and sort of see how that's
kind of playing out as opposed to moving forward with a zoning change. >> Right. >> Right. That that was my understanding. Okay. Um and so yeah, so those were those were the items that that I had flagged for for fall. >> Okay. Anything else on that?
Okay. We can uh now move to item um agenda item number five master plan committee appointments. Um everyone received uh the list of applications and um the folks who have already been appointed um I have to say you know I
think in the town of Milton we are so fortunate to have so many really talented people. I mean the people who come forward and put their names and go through the process of applying I we have just a tremendous amount of talent and community. So I just want to thank
everybody for their applications. Um what >> can I make the first nomination for our own representative? >> Well can I listen I just was going to talk about so do our I think what we were I was just going to say have our planning board representative first and
then we'll do the two others. Um, and I would just I would take a >> Well, I'd like to suggest or nominate Hal because Hal expressed interest in this when we talked about all of our committee assignments. Um, and he's got
requisite qualifications for it. So, how are you interested in it? >> I am interested in it. I would I would be interested in serving on the committee. Um,
so I was going to nominate Shawn to be the planning board's rep. Um I think with his experience the past several years um on the planning board and just his u
experience in his professional four years of construction and um he has a strong understanding of land use and infrastructure and um he understands people and
um you know I didn't know Shawn very well before um the planning board, but I found him to be very fair and extremely respectful and a true consensus builder.
So, I was going to nominate him. So, I was also thinking of Sean um and I just with the other candidates, I just wrote down a few um notes, few notes on this just to
remind myself. Um and I appreciate, you know, and I value everyone on this board um and the talent. Um Sean I think comes with an understanding of real estate constru real estate and
construction issues. um environmental impacts uh the economics of Milton's town budget coming from a a financial and e economic um perspective which uh and and really
you know I I hear you often speaking on the costbenefit analysis and development impacts such as what required infrastructure would be um impacts of traffic you know issues that our town you know really suffers from as we've
seen uh development projects come in. Um an understanding of the importance of preservation of historic assets and open space. um looking at um sustainability but yet also the co cost impacts to a developer
on with stretch codes and balancing um those um how we work with both um I think John you have um strong communication skills and in the an
importance of understanding the process when providing updates to the select board and the planning board as well as recommendations. I would feel um you're very would have very strong communication skills. Um
that's been something that um really and and I got and how you know as an architect as a you know you have some great things um that is we do have an architect on um Rob Levash who's on who I think is going to be bring a great
perspective for um you know looking at development projects um or recommendations but also he has a parks and w um you know he's been working on that. Um,
so I would second Maggie's, but I don't we haven't seen, so um, >> well, um, I appreciate the endorsement and the kind words and I appreciate your offer to do
>> the, um, I I I definitely am interested in and I'd like the position, you know, if the board um, is inclined you know, to uh to endorse me as the as the candidate, but
I I think I've learned and although I've lived there for a long time, um I think my the beginning of like really understanding probably started me really understanding probably whatever I'm in now my 15th or 16th year as a town
meeting member and that's when I really started to understand what was you know what was that town was if you don't get involved in town meeting it's really hard to or get involved in the board. But the past four plus years with you
guys um and the others that have served uh I think has informed me um in a way that would be very helpful you know to participate plan committee
I I promise I believe you did it promise >> no one wanted a one year >> is that right four years in a row and nobody else wanted to take it. So, it was only got we got close to the end that I wanted to make sure I saw it through. But
>> yeah, no, you know, I mean, you were dedicated to it for so long and I think one of the challenges in town is volunteers willing, you know, to take on some responsibility, I would. And if the
board sees me as a good candidate, then I will do it. So I have a question for you. The MPC issued a report and it has a number of recommendations in it. Do you see that report as the
stepping stone of what needs to happen next or do you think that report needs to be revisited? Um I I don't >> there was the work of a committee of what six people over
>> six to seven people over 10 years >> putting their cumulative experience on that committee together. I would want to see you answer yes. You see it as a as a kind of a roadmap forward of what needs to be done at least as a starting point. Yeah, I think it is a starting point and
I do think it is, you know, it's a roadmap that's been identified and I think how we get there is really the challenge. You know, the the one thing that I I clearly recognize as a town is whatever we do and I've said this for probably the the time that I've been on the board, we have to be able to do it
in balance. You know, I mean, there there are so many priorities that we have in town and we can't accomplish all of them and all of them to the full extent that we want to accomplish all of them. So, I I accept what's been created and I think it's going to take obviously there's nine people, right? I mean,
there's a there's a group of people that consensus is going to have to be achieved in order to, you know, accomplish what's out there. But I'm I'm not I'm not looking for a role to start over. You know, I'm looking to participate with a group of people and figure out, you know, how can we
accomplish what's been, you know, identified and and can it be can So I Cheryl, if you if your thought is, you know, am I interested in, you know, turning the table over? No, I'm not. I'm
not interested. >> I know you're unhappy with the way we arrived at the recommendation to go to town meeting. I recognize that that process that many of you were unhappy with, but I also
want you to appreciate and respect the work that the committee did. I'm one representative. I was happened to be the chair but I uh represented the the wishes of the entire committee and you know um I think moving forward um of
course things should be reviewed and see if we if the committee you know um work is continues to be justified our recommendations continue to be justified if new recommendations surface um but I would say you know I I would
respect find it respectful if you agreed that that was your starting point is to understand everything that went into those recommendations first and then see where there may be improved upon changed or what have you but not to start day one to say we're going to revisit it
>> I I don't have any interest in in abandoning or revisiting and starting moving forward that's that would be pointless you know and yeah I I think what I had said um you know prior to
that town meeting is is absolutely how I felt. I um I am a I am a uh an advocate for open communication constant communication and dialogue and I just felt that was missing. You know
that the reality as I remember when we passed that in town meeting um that committee was to make recommendations to the plan that was that written into the bylaw. That was it. So, and that's what I said. I I felt that if a new committee
was going to be formed, we should have been informed. That was the consensus of that committee. Um, so if I'm anything, I'm a communicator and I I I'd like to think that openminded and fair, you know, you have strong opinions and I have strong opinions, but you know, I'll
I'll commit to as a participant on that committee if if I'm chosen, um, I will be, uh, an open, you know, candid, honest, um, communicator. So, one thing you know that
we all agreed was that any change to the master plan comes through this board, right? And so, it's really um the the plan being 15 years old and the housing section really need we identified things that we really felt like needed the updates. Obviously, the housing section
is going to be informed by the housing production plan, the econom the open space and wreck by the the plan that's on underway. There's so many plans that are underway that um it I think >> climate action plan >> the the committee will need to be on top
of all of those plans in order to be able to make the recommendation and and that's part of why um you know it couldn't be decided exactly what needed to be updated until those plans were complete otherwise we'd be getting ahead of the work of those committees. Um, so
if I'm being asked to to to uh you know since uh the votes are such and no one second my nomination for how then I want some a reassurance uh about your um you
know you the way you see your role u and the way you see the work and the report that was done by the committee. And just as a followup, I see um Sean as um that he approaches different issues in a very
calm and non-confrontational manner. Um I I feel like he's he has a strong conviction, but he also recognizes when there's um
uh an an opportunity in a necessity for compromise and especially when the compromise is in for the best interest of the residents. And I feel like he's always willing to
um work with others to find common ground and that every decision and he said it constantly is guided by one simple principle and it's what is the
best for the people of our town. So I think that he will not um you know want to throw everything away because so much good work has been done and I think I have recognized how much good work has
been done and I think um he Sean just has um so much respect from the community and because of his professionalism and his integrity. So, I think he he's a
very thoughtful leader and I've come to really appreciate sitting next to him and I think if he's willing to step up. Um, I was a little afraid to nominate you because I just wasn't sure what your time commitment was. Um, but I'm glad that you're
interested in it. Um, because I think you really are a great asset to the board and to the town. >> I appreciate your kind words. I'm only one of nine people if if I'm chosen. There's eight of the people. I just happen to be on one ninth that
committee. >> So I would like to have Hal have an opportunity to speak. I mean we both spoke at length about with Sean because we've been on the board with Sean. We're all very new with working with Hal and don't have maybe as
much information about Hal's background, his interests. Um, and so for the public who might be watching and and seeing who the candidates might be, I'd like to thank >> Well, I think I think that uh you guys
have laid out um why Shawn should be on the board or why why Shawn should be on the committee. Um you know, I think that I bring a different perspective and that's u I think important. I think that uh coming from P7 and having a young family is something that would I would be bringing. It'd be different, but um you
know, I don't disagree with anything that you guys have spelled out for Sean. I appreciate the nomination. Um you know, I think that um Sean on your time here, you've you've been able to um offer a lot more comments than I have in the the few weeks I've been here. So,
you know, I look forward to continuing to prove to you and and to live up to the things that you've said that Sean has been uh showing for the last four years, which is which I agree with. Um, you know, do I think that I could bring a different perspective and and
um something to the committee? Yes. But I understand that, you know, the votes are going to be what their votes are going to be, and that's that's fine, and I support it and look forward to, you know, hearing what you bring back to this board and and discussing it. So, I appreciate the the nomination, but if
you would like to I guess it didn't get second, so it's not a it's not a thing anyway. So, um yeah. >> Yeah. I I um I am Thank you. I I appreciate that, Hel. And I am 100% uh and I think that expression is only
used that way. But I am totally committed to communicating with the planning board, you know, from everything and anything that comes from that committee. Um I obviously I'm a member of this board with you all. So I have a tremendous amount of respect for
the planning board and the the role and the duty that planning serves. So um if there's anything that I will um if there's anything that I'll guarantee I'll guarantee communication from that committee to the planning board and all
of you. Um, you know, and if there's any matter that's discussed in that in that committee that I feel, you know, we all should be aware of as planning board, believe me, you you will hear about it. I'll I'll be totally committed to bring
those two groups together. I uh there's no further discussion um we first motion and a second. Um we'll do um all in favor for Sean nominating the nomination. Sean >> I
>> thank you. >> Thank you. >> And so now we have two other um two other selections to make and I just would like um for anyone to go through and um express your thoughts and and
again looking at the candidates. Um, >> so I would would just like to bring up um just a couple of things that were set as criteria >> to make sure we're getting the diverse geographic region and the diverse skill
set. Um so if we look at the geographic we now have two precinct 9, two precinct 6, one precinct 2, one precinct 4A and one precinct 10. So there's some
sections of town that are not covered. This was something that the community spoke quite a bit about u because um we've we've even said at certain parts of town um there's a lot less participation in town government. Um so
I'd like to nominate Robert Lynch from precinct one. We've talked about wanting to um put some planning effort into that part of town. He emailed us recently about that. Um he's been a town meeting member
from uh from precinct one. Um younger by comparison to some others that are I think that's another part of the diversity. Uh Hal touched on it, but I think that you know younger families, people who've lived here um are starting you know whether they're starting their
families here, they have a long future here. Some of us have been here a long time. Um and so um you know he's uh an attorney. Um we we have one other attorney in our select board member Pete Overbershimer,
but I I don't uh necessarily think that that would um be something which would um let's say disqualify him, you know, from from being a strong candidate, a strong member of the of the committee. I also
believe he's been member of the broadband committee for a number of years which looks at townwide issues. I think that he would be someone that would be uh beneficial to the board. So I don't know if it's appropriate to second it or >> why don't we just go through like who
all of our candidates are or like the two that you would recommend or if there's others too because then there's >> you might have more than more than two and we'll sort of try to find >> I just want to mention one that's that's in It's intriguing because of age.
Um Anderson Lamaro, you know, being um a youth bringing a youth perspective. Um when we think about sort of planning for the future uh you know a lot of people talk about um
you know whether their kids are going to be able to you know stay or come back to this community the community that they were raised in. Um also you know what kinds of activities are available to them like whether it's open space and recreation
uh uh sporting activities or other things and um I think we all like to think as as adults who raise children that we have all the answers. Um, so I really kind uh was intrigued by um Anderson Lamro's interest and his it's a
young resume, but it's an interesting resume of of involvement um in local u government at the state level as an intern, but also in uh leadership um in supports and in in school. So um I
wanted to highlight that. And then also Benzo's precinct 5. Um it's a part of town that also is not covered by others. Uh he certainly has um a unique perspective as a former select board member. Uh so I would like to um to
raise his as well. >> Do you how do you want to continue with um any others that you like? >> Yeah, I top list because I I think we all >> Sure. I think that Anderson for the same reasons that Cheryl mentioned were were intriguing. Um, you know, I think that
having um diverse perspectives is something that is important and having someone that's just out of high school is definitely a diverse perspective compared to um other members on the the the uh committee right now. And I think that that uh
generational difference would be uh something that would benefit the town. Um and then additionally I think that uh uh Melissa Olsen Olsen um she's in P3. She um has been uh communications director and press
secretary for um u politicians and for university I believe uh San Diego. I think that uh she could bring a different perspective and maybe uh be able to communicate the work of the the committee um to the the to the town and the public uh would be a
a benefit to uh the committee. >> Well, I it was hard um to narrow down and unfortunately I wasn't able really to narrow it down to two. Um, so, um, the first one I thought was really
interesting was Nancy Bonds. And I I, um, I didn't realize that what she had started, you know, many years ago. um
for for personal reasons for her daughter. I really enjoyed reading her narrative and um she got involved started involved because of a personal issue when she started this great program girl power and so in her
narrative and I can't seem to find it at the moment but um she talked about the importance of what's going on in the healthc care um realm these days and the importance of um open space and access
to open space, not just for kids, but also for our older population. And I think um that's something that's missing and some it could be argued that
it is not on our um list of um experience. Um but I think that was a an oversight. I think um you know we didn't quite get a chance to offer our input on all the
different types of experiences that are really valuable to have on this committee. So I know her experience isn't listed but I just think um it's really a valuable experience to have. Um
the other people were um Mark Kristo. We've come to know Mark Cristo. He is right on top of all of the issues in town. um he is very um active in the whole NBTA discussion
and so he you know has um he has great experience as a property manager and working with all those other um um committees and commissions in Boston
was was really impressive. So, I would support him. Um, also Jackie Bosworth. Um, you know, she has an interesting background. Um, you know, she was born into a family of developers and then
married into um um developers, but she also grew up in town. and so she understands the importance of um of um providing new opportunities. She's
got four kids, you know, who are now just growing up and she understands just the need um um for different types of housing in town. But she has had an extensive career um out in the
professional world, you know, and anybody who's a chemist is brilliant in my book. But um and then >> I'm sorry, is that >> Jackie Driscoll? Jackie Driscoll. >> Jackie. Yeah. Jackie Bos. Yeah. And then um
Lindsay Sams. have come to know her um through the campaign that she just ran for planning board. And I think her work in um the energy sector um and sustainability
um is really interesting especially since we you know recently passed the advanced stretch code and um she is an attorney as well so she can um help write and interpret um uh legal ease.
So, I think those are my four that I'm kind of looking at. >> Sean, do you want to go? >> Sure. Um, you know, some to be honest, some of the candidates I don't know. You mentioned uh Robert Lynch. I I don't know Robert. Um, so he's he's new to me.
Um, there's probably half I know and half I don't know. I always mark in town. I know Nancy on but to be honest with you, I the the
I maybe I didn't do the homework assignment properly, but I kind of narrow down my thoughts in terms of one candidate of this group because we're not we're only going to be able to pick one out of here. So, >> two two >> vote two
but Lindsay Sans I think is a is an excellent candidate in in my opinion. She's a P2 person which gives us some of that geographic balance. >> You're going to have one P2. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um
but she also uh um you know she is a sustainability person. That organization that she's been part she's been part of for a long time. I think 12 13 years something I don't know a lot about it but right at the top of her resume. So, it's something that she feels wrongly
about. I like uh the skill of um legal minds. I think they they think differently than a lot of Well, they think differently than me, but they, you know, they just they bring a
different perspective, you know, to whatever committee that they're part of. Um and I think that's sometimes really really valuable. uh she was obviously a person that ran the tank, right? Um and
although she didn't have votes held in uh but she had a lot of support in town she had she had a lot of people that felt strongly about her as a candidate and voted for it. Um so she's she's been
able to present herself to the town and get some thousands of votes. tell Michael about wrote how many votes she had. Um so it and she was committed to serving uh for three years and I think if you're if you put yourself out there
to commit to serving a role for three years um that is an indication of a person that's making a significant commitment. Um I love him as a person. Some of the other candidates I I know personally but
I should be and and I you know I haven't thought about if I had a second you know who would be um >> if you want we can come back think about it and you can further it >> um because we do get to choose two two
this evening. Um, so again, I I agree with a lot of the things that everyone other folks have said and there were some really great um applications and the time that people put into, you know, filling these
out is greatly appreciated because it does help. Um, and for me, two rose to the top. Um, although I, you know, there are there were many others who I highly respect. Um I would Lindseay Sans um she
was a she's a previous town meeting member um with a clear understanding um in running of the the work of the planning board um and the importance of aligning the work that the planning board does with the master plan. Um she
understands the importance um in the master plan of the way the master plan is written is balancing economics of new development and p and preserving the preservation of open space and the quality of life and physical the
historic character of Milton. Um she in her resume uh coordinates with um municipal and states uh state officials quite frequently. Um, and I actually am going to just pull um
just, you know, a little bit from some of the things she wrote, which again, the ability to evaluate complex um commercial um I'm actually going to read from this because um evaluate complex
commercial operational regulatory, procurement, capital projects, and financial issues in a disciplined and balanced way. I feel her approach and you'll see throughout um what she wrote is seeking a approach in
a balanced and thoughtful way. Um she working with commercial uh finance operations, commercial human resources and executive leadership um to assess risk and understanding trade-offs. Um she in her work frequently coordinates
with municipal and state official and agencies um which is one of our um things that we look at. Uh much of her work involves balancing competing priorities including cost certainty, flexibility,
legal risk, operational impact and long-term value. Um there were a couple of things that I just also highlighted. Um in her legal experience um in her current role supports operations
growth governance and strategic initiatives. Um she has in the past supported the launch of her company's net zero carbon steam products. Um advising on commercial structure um so the sustainability piece. um she's clearly
been quite involved with and she also has experience uh previously um in housing um and she currently serves on as a board member of a community focused sustainable development nonprofit supporting
affordable housing, community development, energy efficiency and decarbonization initiatives. so much of that that that she checks so many of the boxes of things that we're we're looking
for. Um, but I think um really um in in getting to know her um the way she listens to all perspectives um I think she would bring a lot to the committee and um just her background in in
evaluating environmental um infrastructure and impacts um would be significant to the board. Can I can I just say one thing? Um >> in fairness to all those who have applied. I >> I don't know many of these folks and I I
I don't want people who are watching to think because we know that don't know them that they're at a disadvantage. >> Yeah. >> Um I I think we need to to think about everyone who's applied whether we know them or not on on an equal basis. And I just want to >> and I don't know Lindsay well. I mean I
will personally I'll say I don't know her well but the depth of and that's why I've always whenever I've evaluated candidates it's it's a resume and it could be you know it's the depth of the
resumes that I in my um in my approach is looking to all the different qualities and and background and experience professionally and personally. Um, so
you know, I I just um >> because I just want the the members the folks who applied who may be watching, I just want them >> to realize that um because we don't know them doesn't mean they're not going to get, you know, the same consideration as
those that we do know. And I just want to get that out there. And there are value there a very variable um depth of experience you might say in certain areas and I think that's what I'm trying to which is what the charges
>> to the point that you were making Cheryl I don't know Lindsay Sans at all I've met her a couple times I think I know my Christo and Nancy much better than Lindsay Sans but I you know and for those other candidates um I I
want them to know that my um my endorsement has nothing to do with personal relationship. It has to do with the qualifications that I see. Um and uh and that's why I said what I said earlier. I think as
it it would be it would be terrible if we had this process and it was all about personal relationships. Like I said, Mark's probably watching tonight and NY's probably watching tonight and I enjoyed both of them very much. Um I hope they're still friends. Um, but for those that have listened to what you
said, I want them to know that's >> Well, then I'll go in on like my my other the second person who to me >> just in looking at sort of an overall holistic view of the master plan. Um,
one of the areas um that um I feel like really um some strength um is is from Mark Kristo. Um Mark has a deep understanding of the work being done by that planning board. He I think
attended every meeting during the MBTA zoning. um just had thoughtful, respectful comments in understanding um and I think he has a clear understanding of of um of the importance of
implementation of the goals in the master plan and adhering to those goals um of what is our current master plan. um in addition um to being very involved with the MPT zoning um
and the challenges and he really recognizes I think the challenge to limit the impacts while creating new housing and and and expanding new development. um he there's strong um value of historic assets and
the need for preservation planning which is in the master plan but I think unfortunately this has been a an area of the master plan which is really um implementation has been lacking on this and I think there's a lot of work um
that our town um should be doing and what other communities are doing that I think um that would be an area of the implementation I think he could help the um an example he used he looks at you know adaptive in his own personal
professional um work adapted adaptive usage of period buildings how to reuse some of our you know older existing buildings um property man he's involved with property management um housing building renovation
um again historic preservation he understands the importance of working with to architectural commissions. He has to go before so understands the importance of having some sometimes um historic um architectural review um
possibly the local historic um something that we're looking at. Um he looks at the market analysis and trends which I think is very important just from an economic standpoint for our town. analysis of municipal property as um
assessments um experience in public outreach which we are very involved with um in in town when we're looking to implement um some of these projects. Public outreach to um with the stakeholders to um have a
positive impact on policy. um assessing a building's function, current use and condition, trends, and potential future growth. And I just wanted to highlight um which I really
liked just his closing comments. I continue to build upon a lifelong passion and appreciation of the built environment from design and function to the historic preservation of structure including the selection of suitable
building materials and composition all key elements in ensuing compatibility to one's greater surroundings for the benefit of the community. So >> what I couldn't quite tell what his professional background is.
>> He is a he is a real estate property owner. So he owns a lot of investment property. >> Okay. So >> in Boston and >> that wasn't >> I believe in Milton and I think in Balman um in different geographic areas. So he intersects um and he deals with
tenants. He deals with a lot of housing issues um as well as development issues and just he's he's really a I learned so much about how our our train system initiated in Milton and what was at one
time, you know, they were going to bring um highspeed rail through, you know, through um through Milton and elevate platforms and um I believe it was his father who was maybe involved you know with um with
that originally. So he just has a keen understanding of how do we grow, how do we change but yet what are mistake you know are there mistakes that we have made in the past on a historic p you know perspective or you know as we're
looking at you know our taking down some of our municipal buildings how do we how do we encourage preservation of these structures? I mean, I if I've heard I don't know how many times, we wish we still had our town hall. You know, it's it's unfortunate that that was lost. You
know, I think having what's in the master plan actually being implemented, he would offer an area that's it's I know you have some goals in this area on some preservation that work that the
master um did, but I haven't really >> Yeah. So the master plan outlines, you know, has a historic preservation section as you know. >> Yeah. >> The implementation of the historic preservation aspects of it following the historical commission and and others um
who have done some work on it. As you'll recall, the implementation committee wasn't responsible for actual implementation. It was responsible for tracking it >> and then uh it was responsible to make a recommendation over the plan should be updated and it was there were the
recommendations on historic preservation largely remained the same but there were some things that have changed substantially you know um in terms of um climate change and sustainability in terms of >> demolition delays there's been
demolition delays I'm sure that's >> and so I just want to bring back to our other one of the other charges with the um selection which is geographic diversity. The two that you mentioned Meredith are
both in precinct 2 which would bring the total number of people from precinct 2 up to three. So fully a third of the membership of the committee in a very small geographic area. Um and >> and I did take that into consideration. That was something >> I don't support that myself. Well, I did
I did take that into consideration and part of my thinking in um in not only the depth of the applications and the way that I feel that they would fill voids that are current that would be on the committee
is that the west side of town is going to be um where the focus for our new development projects are going to be and possible new growth. And so I think it's not a bad thing to have representation
from precinct 2 when when when this is going to be something that we are going to be looking at closely and will be an area that we'll we'll be seeing potential um new development and new projects. >> I didn't realize that we're focused on
new development in West Milton and I didn't necessarily think that precinct 2 was the focus of it. I thought precincts one and 10 are the focus of west considered melan as well as precinct 4 and 4a >> I think 12 I think when you're looking at the you know there's brook road
there's there's a lot of areas that I think >> too though >> well in a in a you know and close to that area I should say I lived in precinct 2 and so I felt like that was my neighborhood I would go to the food mart all the time you know it was so I I
just to me the the depth of the applications overcame that you know are we just doing it to plug precincts I I I think that's but I think it should be a consideration and I have taken that into consideration
but I I still feel these are two very um and they're all I mean these are some great candidates everybody's discussed >> I I would just like to advocate again for Rob I think that Rob uh you know practically reached out to us about the planning But I also know that he also
reached out to me about the um Boston Blue Hills. We had some conversations about that, about the uh the program that was um brought before the board before I was on. Um I think that uh having someone in P1 would be a really
big benefit to your point, Meredith, that we're going to be one of the long-term goals of the firm of the of the firm of the um board is to focus on the west part of town. And I think that having someone on there would be beneficial and not to discount and not to pull it all down to geographics. Um,
but I do think that each part of town experiences living in town a little bit differently >> and I think that having that perspective um would be beneficial to this new committee. Um, I know I obviously um ran
against uh Lindsay and ran with her. uh Mark I've seen on you know coming before the board a lot um not to discount them but I think that having Rob would on this board would be on this committee would be a real benefit. So strong. >> I also think it would show the part of
Milton that feels as if they've been under represented and under resourced that we value a member from that community um in particular around where Blue Hills
Parkway, Blue Hill F um and Tri Parkway come together um to really have um a seat at the And I just realized that that we've heard not just from the planning board, but it if you look at the community
health assessment, it was pretty clear in there that folks in that part of town feel as if they are under represented. And uh I feel as if we would be saying if we appoint two people, three people
from precinct 2 um that that would be an indication to folks in other parts of town that there's a higher value there or there's a a higher importance and I I think that doesn't send a message that I would like to send. So um
>> I I think there's a lot of good candidates here. There's a lot of good candidates here. So, I think we can get geographic diversity and we can get a seat at the table and still get some of the other skill sets that you spoke about. >> So, I'm I'm glad you brought up the
community health assessment. And so, that's why I think Nancy would be a great candidate. As you know, I think the board of health has written a letter to our um you know, the the the state of
requesting a healthc care capacity audit and um I think the the health commissioner of the state replied and said, "Yeah, we we are not prepared. We have too much density. We don't have a
plan and our um in our region is um not being well served in by um health. um were not prepared and I think with NY's background um um reaching out working with Milton
Hospital, getting grants with Milton Hospital and um really advocating for the health of our residents in all areas of town u the youth and also um the older population. So I think she brings
a very unique um perspective That would be three people from P6 at that point then just to echo that. >> Yeah. And I'm not as focused on um geographics. I I don't think that that's
quite in in my view is important. We all uh to quote a um former um select board member, we all live in 02186 and we're all neighbors and we all um have different views and perspectives.
And just because you live in one area, it doesn't mean that your outreach is limited to that one area, um having uh friends and family members across town. Um different age groups. Um many of
these um applicants have um children um who are high school age, college age and so we are all concerned about the affordability and h having the opportunity for our kids to come back and live in town but we also have our
parents in town. So um we we we have to service many generations of people. um the generations who have come before us um are struggling now to stay in
um but yet they want the best for their children and their grandchildren. So I think having multi-generational um people in town is hugely important. So I'm not as focused on geographics, >> but geographic is part of the charge
that was passed by. It says sh um what did I read because I looked at >> shall be a consideration >> um >> yeah membership shall be comprised by
not more than nine people and shall also consider consider so I considered it I'm I've done my duty checked the box I've considered it and to me personal experience and
professional experience outweighs geographic um location and people can move. You know, I've I've in I've lived in five different houses in Milton in my short term um of being married for 25
years. So, I I move around town and all these people have probably moved and just because they're currently living somewhere, it doesn't mean they don't have the experience of living in a different location. >> Maybe we could add more if you want. >> The geographic distribution really is
about that different parts of town are quite different from other parts of town. You know, the area around Belvoir, for example, is a lot different than Hillside. It's a lot different than East Milton. and having folks who when you know I was u campaigning also um this
year and was door knockocking in many different precincts. You know um the area precinct one there were issues that that were raised there that were a lot different than issues that were raised in other parts of town. And so I'm sticking to my guns on really um
suggesting um that we have um representation on the committee as ge as geographically diverse as we can and I think three people from any precinct is too many from that precinct whether it's two whether it's six whether it's nine
or something else when we have other alternatives and I think uh you know the uh whether folks have attended a lot of planning board meetings or run for office. They've all expressed an interest in being on this committee
which I think you know is of value. Uh that means they understand what the the value of the plan is that they think they have something to offer and um you know it's our job to bring together as a diverse group as possible too uh because
then they're going that the committee will benefit from that. I mean having the diverse opinions is is very valuable and so the people who are in all in the same precinct will have their same daily experiences but those will be different
than people from other precincts and it was one of the things that some members of the Empic were very adamant about wanting to include including Dick Burke who's a member of the committee that's steering forward into this one. In fact, he was very clear that he wanted that included in the article for town meeting
and so I just raised it because um I do think it's really important. >> Well, I was going to say unfortunately the planning board didn't have a say in the makeup of this at all. So, we were not included in that conversation because I would actually
have loved to have maybe added a couple more people because I feel like we do run into this that I if we could add, you know, a few others, I would I I don't disagree with you on that. But we're limited to a number of nine which
town meeting voted on and this is what we're and in and certain background and professional experience is required and I'm that's what I'm trying to look at the charge look at what the planning board has you know the responsibility
that we have um and I think you know I if there was more room I would I would agree and add more but um >> but I about having more room because there was the suggestion that the committee be larger. It's it's harder to get a quorum for meetings. You know,
when you have a very large committee, >> was the planning board ever asked that? >> The people who were serving on the committee for many years. In fact, that that committee's composition remained very consistent because >> no, you know, the people who were on it
continued to volunteer and there weren't new applicants for it each year either. And so it was something um that that committee that had served um had discussed. And so um you know I I think um it's a bit of a disservice to the
that committee that spent the many yeah at least once a month meeting for 10 years um to say that you know their recommendations weren't well thought out. They should have you know thought about. So >> I'm not saying that they weren't thought out before making >> That's not what I was saying at all.
That's not what I'm saying. >> It's just about the numbers of people. That was all you were talking about. >> No, I was talking about the the competition >> and the background. Yeah, >> we're limited to we're limited to nine, but I and I understand >> and the professional experience,
>> but um I don't know for me I I I hear you on the geography, but I don't think I would make a decision based on the candidate. um with geography being a higher priority than what I view as qualifications
because because let me finish you and I live about 800 yards from each other. So yeah, we're both living in precinct and we live very close to each other though we bring different perspectives. So just because we live in the same precinct doesn't mean that we share the same
point of view. Um, you know, it's so I I don't know that it's great risk that we have three from anywhere. You know, I I I worry less about having three people from my precinct. Um, I think the the
qualifications I think in my opinion are more important than >> So Mark Crystal and Lindsay Sands live about two doors down from one another, right? And they both spoke out pretty strongly against MBTA community zoning. So, we're not getting diverse perspective and diverse geography with
those two nominations. >> They completely have different backgrounds and professional experience. I disagree. They couldn't be, you know, >> they they I agree that they do. >> I but I again I would argue that someone
who lives in P1's experience and I hear what you're saying, Maggie, people can move, but someone's experience in P1 is totally different than people in P2 or P7. And I I'm not trying to discount Lindsay or Mark, but I think we would be doing a disservice if we didn't try to
include a diversity of opinions, whether it's MBTA or other, but also the daily experiences they have in town with NB with the the master plan of the future of the town. And so again, I I yes, Lindsay has a lawyer
background in energy and Mark is a product a property owner. those are diverse. But I would also argue that someone like Rob who's got a young family who's spoken out about these kinds of things and reached out to us proactively and lives in a different part of town would bring a lot of
benefit to this committee. Um I just think that we're going to we're going to we're missing a chance to be able to to bring in that part of town that's something that's meaningful that's that has expressed a desire to be part of decisions and made in town.
appreciate that. >> I kind of was disappointed to see that um a um an elected member was appointed to this committee because as an elected we
have our opportunity to around the table to you know frequently to voice our um points of view. So >> Pete >> um >> he's a selecter. >> Oh >> so so um the other thing I sort of
looked at was who are not town meeting members who actually don't sit on boards who might bring a a different perspective. So um Nancy is a town meeting member. Uh Jackie Driscoll is a town meeting
member. Lindsay is not a town meeting member and Mark is not a town meeting member. So, we're giving opportunity and we're giving voice to these two people who actually don't have an opportunity
because they're not elected officials. Um, so that to me I I found kind of interesting when I was um like looking at all different um all different perspectives. Um, so that's why I had a hard time narrowing it down to two and I
kind of settled on four um um candidates >> because it was very hard and it it is hard not to be chosen and appointed sometimes. My first goaround volunteering for a committee was um the
shade tree committee and I wasn't picked and you know I could argue that I was probably one of the most qualified people and I wasn't and I don't know you kind of say okay I'm disappointed I felt like I could have offered a lot but I
moved along. Um, so you know, I don't know, we all we all bring something different um to the table and different perspectives to your point and um and and we were just so lucky. I just feel like we're so lucky as a town that
we have so many people willing to step up >> and who have such great backgrounds. And I feel badly that people aren't chosen, but I don't want them to feel
badly for not being chosen. Um, so I don't I don't have the right answer. >> I know it's we should we should >> or we should just sun's not down enough Los Angeles. >> Well, I mean, why don't we just
>> World Cup is just starting, right? >> I know it's 25 minutes. Yeah. Can we just maybe take a piece of piece of paper, we write down two names, and we put it forward and whoever gets the most votes, that's just what it is. >> That's
probably going to be the easiest way. And just give >> We don't have to like >> I don't like getting taught to vote. >> I know >> like publicly. I feel badly, you know, >> all um you know, I just feel uncomfortable doing that. Um I because I
know I don't like getting talked about. Um, >> yep. >> So, I don't know then if we just write down two names and then >> Does that sound good to everybody? And we'll just give it to Liz who our two. >> Sure.
>> Top choices. Does that sound good? >> So, so how's this going to work? The person that gets the most votes gets >> the two most votes around the >> two most votes around the committee. >> Okay. To make it easy for Liz, we put a name on a single piece of paper. Give her two
pieces of paper. That way she can just >> It is 10:45. >> I know. >> Give to All right. Two pieces. >> Anyone else? And you don't have to read >> and then you probably still will have to move to a point though. >> Yeah. And you don't have to read out the
>> Okay. >> I don't think you need to just read out the two names. You have a hat right now. >> How much discussion did you anticipate elaborate tonight? >> You know what? I feel like we discussed that so thoroughly with the slipboard.
Um Um, I felt like our discussion was was a really good discussion with the select board on that. Um, that we sort of gave them sort of what we were looking for and what our interests were. Um, the one
thing I was thinking is um if we could uh communicate with the school committee or the school building committee and um and kind of just be kept a breast of
what they're thinking um and what they're seeing because if they're like seeing that there's real good viability or if they're getting questionable viability, I think could influence how quickly we think about addition on anything.
Um, so you know to the point of the questions about you know what's a plan B or what do we do you know when offers do like it seems to me like if any if there was any influence that could be had with
lab or Curry about their timing if they would postpone their you know date their time that they're going to last accept offers that would be the best. Uh, but even if they do,
even if a school project moves forward, like the neighbors, wouldn't they want to know like if you're doing a prek, kindergarten, like is everybody being dropped off by their parents and how much how many cars are those because right now that's distributed across four
elementary schools and now you'd be concentrating in one place. And you know, like I know and Sean knows if you try and go out of where I live on Cantonav at 7:45 in the morning, good luck because of all the cars going to the high school. So there are those
kinds of things that should be talked about with the school. Um because Adam Street is the only way to get into that uh property. So even a school I think we can start I I wa I watched the tape of the their discussion with the school
build you know with the chair of the school the school committee and with the superintendent >> and they talked about how far they are from really having much information >> um and how they only had funds for one
scenario for their architect so it's prekk but that doesn't mean that they might not want to consider a different um grade there. >> Um and if they need different grades, do they need fields? Do they need a
playground? You know, what's the pickup drop off if it's prek versus grades seven, eight? >> I just think that those are site planning issues that we should at least express to the school building committee. like those are things that
should be considered and thought about and talked about with the the neighborhood. >> I I agree um completely. Um and Liz, you know, you're in touch with Nick quite often. >> Um maybe there's a way to um
you know, I follow I've been following the school committee meeting, you know, the the building committee and the um some of the discussions around this. So, but we would like to I think if we could be helpful in any way, we would like to
do so. Um, and have an understanding of of where they are in that process. I'd like to, you know, the number one goal should be to secure the pro to secure this the property and the site. Um, because I think once that happens, it would afford us time to have that
process. Um, >> my concern about if you're going to you're going to have to go to town meeting and to the town overall to secure a site, you need to have an idea whether what it's going to work for because it's going to cost a lot of money. If Sean's correct that the the
minimum bid is $10 million, you know, $10 million is a lot of money. It's a lot to bond um for an unknown. And I I just think if I'm the town meeting member or the voter, I want to make sure people have done the due diligence that there if it's not going
to work for one use that there's an opportunity to recoup that money or to have it go to something that the town knows what it's going to be. So, >> so it's interesting in my survey for the past two weeks I've been doing about um
um short-term rentals, I've been asking um about Labberet and um the overwhelming consensus is we should buy it. They're okay with not knowing what
it is only so we can control it. And if we realize um that it doesn't work for the town in of Milton in some way, then the town can then sell it and recoup their um funds, but in the meantime,
they're they're controlling what goes there. So I I found that kind of interesting um because I know that people are not always quick to um you know support spending more money
especially on an unknown but I was really kind of surprised it it came came down to control and I think it was the timing of all the 40bs going up and the sense of we didn't we haven't had control um right and so this just gives
us the opportunity So I found that interesting. >> Yeah, there there is um there is risk. >> Yeah, >> because if the town were to acquire it and it it for whatever reasons doesn't work out to contribute to the schools,
any developer you're trying to sell it to knows that you only have alter >> and you could end up in a pretty challenging negotiation. whatever that is. >> It's just the reality of you know the
developer might offer on these terms. >> I thought it was interesting. I'm sorry. I think sorry. >> No, I'm done. >> I thought it was interesting um I think it was Pete um brought up at the select board about how should we be exploring a plan B and I know you you said that
developers are developing the plan B which I agree right there. There are a lot of I'm sure there are a lot of people that are >> burning oil to try to um figure out how to make it work. But should the town I think we should the town spend some time
and effort to develop what plan B could be if it's not the school because to your point if the school doesn't work out there we want to be able to say to the taxpayer and to the residents there are viable options out there. we're not gonna be stuck with this and like you said the poor terms that could result of
that if we don't do our homework now. I I know there's not a lot of time but seemed to me like we'd be doing a disservice if we didn't at least >> that whole process is hard though you know it's not like we're private enterprise we can just decide to hire
you know engineer architect instead you know having them you know sketch out schemes. So I said we should I told him we should have a sharet. We've got plenty of architects and engineers in town. We could figure out what could fit on there. >> Architects love drawing stuff and spending other people's money. I just
>> we would do really well at that. >> It's not mine. I wasn't going to volunteer. I had too much respect to doing that. But >> that could be a fun little contest for the architect. >> Absolutely right. >> The cheret would be inclusive. You're
doing it all together, >> you know. So you're you're locking yourself in a room for a day and you're just kind of running through it. >> But >> I mean that's a thought. But in all seriousness, >> waiting I think just leaves us open to
the 40 beat risk. and and that's and I I know that um I can sound like go gung-ho gung-ho on new development, but I am mindful of the when you when you have a piece of property and the price is set
as such and your zoning only allows such that you have that risk and until I know people say we're at close to 10%. But until those are occupied, we >> even if we had only 10 units short, somebody can come in with 400 unit
application and and you can't say no to the application >> because you're not at that level. I I just want people to understand it because it it's a I see it as a huge risk. >> Yeah, I agree with you. I I you know, if I were
>> if I were uh voting for what to do, I don't want to make the risk and acquire the land because I think that's that's the message. >> Even if it didn't work out, I think I'd
rather take that chance. So, >> but but I really do think it it is even if the town does buy it and take that risk, I do think people need to be aware that there will be another kind of use that we'll need to go in there and you
know we we control that use but there's are we going to leave five million on the table and sell it for 5 million so three houses can be built there or you know that's a discussion that people need to know that it has to happen. Yeah, I we could talk about this for a
long time >> and hopefully it does work out. >> One other thing tonight, but I'll catch up with you outside of we're going to have a 4hour meeting close by way. >> It's really ambitious. >> It's so ambitious. But um this this
matter and uh when we ask about where I would get >> every single time no matter who answers >> it's too general for me it's too general an answer. It's too arm wavy of an answer. >> My feeling is
>> You mean like with the 10%. >> Yeah. We should know exactly where we are >> and and that should be updated weekly. And I think if we build an Excel matrix, it's going to be easy to update it weekly, you know. The way I look at it is there are a number of units that are defined
>> as affordable housing units that they're not changing their status >> and then you have those that have received a comprehensive permit >> and then we have those that receive a comprehensive have a building permit >> right so we have these categories and we
should be able to understand how many do we have in total and I know when this expiring dates on >> you know permits that then the number changes but >> given the risk that we're And you know exactly what you're talking about. We should we should know
>> uh we should know >> to a number, >> you know, and with the building department able to tell us every time he issues a building permit, we know when a building permit's issued. It's >> Yeah, this there's some work involved in it. There is, but I've never heard anybody, you know, be able because I'm
not Maybe there is something major out there. Maybe somebody has one, but >> because that will have to go into the housing production plan. Yeah, I think I think we I that that this is a really good topic for for our meeting next month with the housing production advisory committee because I just I just
received it. Yeah, I mean I just received an updated SHI um like a week ago, >> right? So So you can request them you can request some from the state, you know, that and and things things will be changing potentially. Um so but I Yeah,
no, I agree. I think I think we should I think we should we should have a a tighter a tighter understanding of what status you know what what's the status of the various projects are they falling off are they getting are they coming on are they falling off like what's the time frame um I think a little bit a
little bit of it is a little loosey goosey like at the levels above us yeah >> right so um so yeah so I think that's a good I think that's a good topic to to um to try to and use car Karen Sunborg's expertise on that as like what's her recommendation? You
know, the best way to track that and make sure we're staying right on top of that as best we can. >> It it is it is the guide to the housing production plan committee. We have to know where we're at. I mean, I couldn't imagine how do you how do you
have that committee and not know where you are? Well, I think Liz's point is that it it's dependent upon the projects and whether they move forward or not, they get their building permits or not, their constructions, right? So, it's it changes.
>> Um, so that's from what I heard you say, I hear you say, um, Meredith, is that some of those, you know, aren't going to come online until spring of 28. Even the matrix you put together, right? It's in a it's in a folder and you identified the projects and you identified what's
completing on what date, right? So many of those already have permits. They'd be in their category, right? They have a building permit. >> So they get so when the comprehensive permit, this is my understanding, when the comprehensive permit gets issued, they they those can get added to the to
the subsidized housing inventory. But if they don't get under construction within a certain time period, then they fall back off, >> right? I think if the building permit isn't issued one year, I think it's one year from >> that's that sounds right. >> So if it's not issued within one year, then it falls off. It's no longer unit
582 lab came on and it fell off. >> Yeah. >> But that's it shouldn't be difficult for us to track that. You know, we know the date when it expires and then all of a sudden the number changes, right? So it it it could be changing daily, but it it certainly could be changing weekly a
month. >> Yeah. Yeah. quarterly anyway, >> right? >> It's important, >> right? Um, you guys want your numbers? >> So, the top the top votes were for Lindsay Sans and and Mark Crystal.
>> So, do you kind of need to make a motion to appoint them, right? >> Yes. Can I have a motion to appoint Lindsay Sans and Mark Cristo to the master plan committee? >> Is there a second? screen.
>> Okay. All in favor? >> Thanks. >> I'm going to abstain. >> Okay. >> I I I'm going to say again, I'm totally against putting three people in precinct 2. Um and I already have a message from someone from precinct one who's not
happens and that's not the person who's the candidate. >> So, this board make everybody happy. >> It's not Well, this board is not >> living up to what it says its priorities are. Okay. I'm going to have to say it. >> Okay. All right. Um, so with that, a
motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to >> second. >> Second. All in favor? All right.