##VIDEO ID:pMbhDFgLXiU## it's all right all right hi everyone welcome to the uh oh my gosh what meeting is this the go meeting of September 5th it is 6 6:31 I'm going to call the meeting to order and check in to make sure um uh everyone can hear and be heard I'm gonna start with Lynn grimer present uh Pat d'angeles present George Ryan I'm present excellent and we have a special guest today and he signed on at the exact perfect time hello chief tting can you hear us I can can you hear me all right yes we can thank you we have one quick item um before we get to you if that's okay we just need to figure out our our next meeting so feel free to step away for 3ish minutes and we'll be we'll be right with you or you can watch that's fine too um so before we get to that I'm going to start by seeing if we any public comment um I know counselor Rooney has joined us for our later section but if she'd like to make public comment uh she can raise her hand public comment is an opportunity for folks to speak we allow up to three minutes and if you'd like to make public comment you can raise your hand okay all right so um actually why don't we take care of this well we're we're going to switch just because we do have both people here but um after we talk about the nuisance bylaw we are going to go uh we're going to talk about our next meeting date which conflicts with the block party we're going to see if folks would like to cancel or move that so um be prepared to think about that uh mle that in the back of your mind while you're uh while you're attentively talking through our nuisance bylaw all right so we have in front of us um in your in your I emailed everybody and it should have been in the packet a couple different documents um regarding the nuisance bylaw so I'm GNA bring Pam Rooney into the room to speak with us and actually Pam can be in the room because with counselor ET not here we do not have a quum of CRC um so there we always would rather counselor I here but that is a silver whining there um all right so our councelor Rooney is going to be joining us as the chair of CRC and um as reminder we are looking at the nuisance bylaw to determine Clarity consistency and actionability chief Ting is here because uh as one of the enforcement agencies is the are the police officers and so we wanted to confirm with him the actionability of this um and some of the questions that we had might pertain to other items that APD already talks about for example when they have their registration for parties um so we're going to start Pam with you if you'd like to give us an overview of what CRC discussed uh as a reminder this had come to go um when legal review came back there were lots of questions that go felt CRC was more equipped to handle so um CRC took another go at it Pam thanks so much for taking time out of your Thursday and would you like to give us an overview of what CRC talked about and also make sure we can hear you oh and you're muted so we can't hear you yet uh councelor Ryan you have a question before Pam starts yes you don't just a quick question as to what of the documents you have in the packet might be the best to have open um during this discussion um maybe if you could just help me with that um we have three and I just which would be the one that has essentially the CRC input based on the KP law comments is that yeah um I am personally I have the combined version up so that I can see what the initial comments were and then see the version that CRC sent us um that would be my recommendation okay all right thank you all right Pam Hi how are you thank you good night good evening uh that actually answers one of my questions and I was going to ask if you wanted me to step through the July 9 version that CRC produced as a clean copy or if you wanted me to actually go through the 52324 version which was which was Go's review with all of the input from Joel and and Town Council not Town Council Town K La KP law um do other members of go have a preference between those two options that Pam laid out and my only my only consideration is that if we went through the the version that came from go for review I can address how we changed those multiple comments I think I can do it from our clean version because I've cross referenced um but whatever is easiest for you all to understand if and when changes were made and why I think the first option of of talking through the questions that we had left remaining um if that's okay um and if you would like to share screen you can otherwise can pull that um be better for you to share it yeah all right give me one moment to just pull that up so that that is your 52324 version yep sorry word has been going really slow and keeps lagging all right so quick quick background for I guess it's simply George who was not on the go um when this I'm not either and Lynn thank you uh I'm I'm on go I'm not on CRC right the the the update of 3.26 nuisance uh bylaw came out as as sort of a byproduct of our review of the rental registration bylaw and working very closely with Chief Ting uh particularly on this one we have upgraded it and the the important point which may not concern you um as far as Go's duties concern um is that the the items that we just wanted to keep in mind are that this document does not differentiate between rented or owner occupied homes uh it clarifies owner manager responsibilities on a third violation it identifies a notification correction process which the current bylaw does not places violation lists on the town website includes activities deemed violation of state law which is possession and underage drinking violations of zoning bylaw things like excessive lighting and parking and general bylaws including noise Road Walk sidewalk obstruction littering and refuge collection so the goal is not here to penalize but to just correct actions that disturb the quiet enjoyment of of folks and their and their homes so that's kind of the background of of how that started um if we go through the very first the very first question that was raised is what is a what is a gathering this Gathering is VI is verbatim from our current bylaw and it was seen as um a pretty well understood concept it's it's not necessary to worry about it until it becomes an unreasonable interference with people's quiet enjoyment of their home so we we kept this particular uh definition in can I ask a question H actually I'm not gonna see I'm not gonna see hands because I'm looking so just yell okay so uh Chief tting this my question is for you as to whether or not we have any sort of definition of this phrase in any if if APD has any definition for this if there's just for kind of the consistency sake if if any of these but specifically that one has any sort of definition elsewhere we do not no we do not and we've been utilizing the uh this definition from our previous nuisance bylaw so that is consistent great thank you sorry uh councelor Ryan well that's fine so the comment from KP law was that you should U or they suggested or that you might wish to uh Define the number of people and um my I guess CRC just thought that they didn't wish to do that no it was based exactly on Chief Ting's response that we have been dealing with this definition we we as a town and especially the APD understands what a what a gathering is what a party a crowd or an event is that did really didn't need further definition thank you KP law didn't no that's that's all that's yeah I just again realized from our perspective we get the KP law comments and so what I would like to understand is in those cases where you accepted their changes while you did or in those cases where you didn't while you didn't or if you added anything new Once you'd saw saw KP LW so here the answer is you said we're happy with this definition we checked with the chief and we're not going to get into the question of how many constitutes Gathering thank you okay good I I didn't have the uh I don't have my reading glasses on I wasn't reading KP Law's exact comment um item number two was an infraction and it was it was that was also highlighted uh we used we used infraction and violation interchangeably throughout the document we have completely deleted the use of the word infraction and there are many instances where changes were made to replace infraction with violation and that happens throughout sry I'm actually going to change the document that I'm sharing because the the combined version we can see your changes and I think that might be more helpful for folks to um look at if that's okay because you're saying it out loud which is really helpful but we can also then see the um both the questions we asked and the updates that you made um okay sorry continue please so you check out and then for reference the clean version that uh CRC generated on July 9 is the clean version of this with these changes made yes okay moving down to uh let's see we're still in definitions number seven questions were raised about um questions were raised about a substantial disturbance of the enjoyment of private public property and we have we have corrected that based on this um based on this uh review to let's see where am I now um public nuisance is now considered the definition is an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public such as a condition dangerous to health offensive to Community moral standards or that otherwise threatens the general welfare of a neighborhood or the town in general and includes but is not limited to activities that could be deemed violation of state and local laws and local regulations and as further Define in section c.2 of this bylaw and that was a direct response to uh comments by go and I think KP law that we did include uh wordage from Boston and we also used the words unreasonable interference as a as a um a recommendation from Chief Ting um as that was simply more appropriate generally you also Pam I just want to bump up for a second you also added in the definition for occupant which I think was something that yes we um we had mentioned in the in the thing too so I just wanted to make sure go members saw that that was added in thank you okay Carry On okay um I think that was it for that now we're in C I have my two versions going back and forth to make sure I got uh number that's why I did this weird combo thing because I was trying to look at everything at the same time okay to C2 A1 Mass general laws it was recommended that we in fact strike the Mass general laws references and so we did we did leave them for the underaged person drinking with their parents mgl chapter 138 I believe yeah we left that one in I don't exactly remember why we left that one in and not the first one but it was it was felt that the the police department operates with these with these Mass general laws all the time we shouldn't be the the the people perpetrating a violation aren't aren't as concerned about the state laws that's a bad way to say it um anyway does anyone have a question about why we dropped the references I wondered whether or not frankly you just didn't remember to do it there it seems inconsistent it just seems inconsistent sure we could we can put it back in I I don't actually remember why we decided to take it out are you talking about this first one or the second one yeah the first one the first one I think was because I was uh this section of mgl was not called disorderly conduct um there was only a reference to disorderly persons but not the words disorderly conduct didn't appear in that the referenced section of mgl um that was something I think that came up at go and so I don't know that we were necessarily saying strike it uh I think it was more of just is this the correct section um because it didn't line up with what the the law was called I can look it up really quickly if folks would like that I I would look to Chief Ting perhaps he can he can direct us so that term is is pretty interchangeable disorderly conduct is relative to disorderly persons so really there's really no difference um in that terminology so in the court systems we use that termin ology quite frequently to Sly conduct in that's the correct mgl for that okay so it's consistent with pre prior use of this mgl absolutely okay thank you for clarifying that I don't know why this one was sto one of the possibilities could be that we want to make sure that other laws may come in that add to the definition definition these or they references may change over time so anything that we leave in a bylaw that depends on another uh reference we always want to make sure we don't have to come back and change the bylaw if the law change do people feel strongly about referencing these well I just yeah I just point out that they're they're all through this um there are a number of mgl references that appear um there's also references to uh our bylaws um and uh our bylaw numbering can change um I don't you know yeah I don't know what to say it would help cre inconsistency that's for sure yeah I think Lynn you probably hit it on the head we don't have the ability to affect um adjustments of state law but but the zoning and general bylaws that are local and locally controlled we can manage fairly easily also um someone being a property manager or whatever um actually has the opportunity looking at this bylaw to go see our the sites for all of these potential violations and I think um CRC felt that it was important to keep those in because of that fact also because we could rather easily update something because it's an our control yeah um if you're going to have mgl references and they are accurate and apparently the one in onea is accurate then it seems to me unless you have a reason for why you want to take it out we probably should leave it in I would argue I I'm gonna say everybody's got to start raising their hands again so okay if you're as long as you're monitoring thank you I am monitoring absolutely um and I'm going to just my comment initially was going be because we do this throughout all of our bylaws we reference specific mgl chapters I argue that for consistency's sake it is better to include this here and when State legislation changes when you look it up it references what the old legislation was I don't believe that it's going to lead people down a confusing Rabbit Hole um and I think for consistency we should we should keep it Lynn then if you're going to do that you're going to keep the one for disorderly conduct in but you're going to have to put a IG the statement and what the B what that law actually is called because the reason it was struck was because it's not called disorderly conduct okay I have no problem with that but I think we need to either consistently leave them in or consistently leave them out that's our job G can figure out what to um add in there thank you Pam will you will you decide later or will you decide now we'll decide later I think we're going to go through this line by line we don't want to you're welcome to stick around for that part but you don't but I'm gonna then I'm gonna put a question mark so that's fine okay and um Len I just made you co-host because I just got a notification that my internet was unstable so just in case something goes wrong someone else the meeting doesn't close that's why did you yeah do you have another question Lyn or okay sorry okay so moving moving into the into into two and three those are local bylaws and they are less welln less less um familiar to as I said the property managers we felt it was important to include those okay thank you uh let's see yes who did this nice job of of doing the the compared documents or the Consolidated documents this is really great that was me yeah I should have used your version um okay so 4B is that 4B it's the last one um we Consolidated actually B and C into one into one statement and those were the those were the chief of police's words uh and that's that um these are things that might a public nuisance include but is not limited to uh B is Gatherings that cause uh unreasonable disturbance and that was felt to be a much better um statement than listing out you know public urination and all the other things that why would we list just those few when the whole list above is a nuisance agree I'm sorry I keep shaking my hand my hand has completely cramped up I cannot oh no I cannot make my fingers move independently um so sorry yeah it's weird okay let's see we are now down to uh D and D right so you change infraction I think that was just yeah changing infraction to violation yes so we're throughout we have changed infraction to violation uh e persons uh person's liable uh someone asked uh does the does the um property manager get notified on the first and second violation and the answer is yes I just wanted to clarify that it is not just on the third violation um so per go we removed occupants from a property receiving the first or second violation someone who is liable we did re we took that advice from you and we removed occupants so it is the person who organized or sponsored and the person's engaging in activity and I think chief of police can can confirm that um we can account for that it is it is actionable um that persons engaging in an activity can be can be cited can be ticketed yeah that's correct so I'm sorry you removed the word occupants for property res okay yeah I think that our issue was not not the use of the term occupants but that it didn't have a definition in the definition section right and I if I recall it was that an occupant could be an occupant of an apartment complex and given the definition of property we stated that a property was the land and all of the buildings on it so that an occupant could be a thousand people thank you okay let's see um I think we're good there in section F under enforcement are there any that yeah we again we have a few violations instead of infractions uh under F enforcement and penalties number three we deleted in its entirety uh we we checked with uh the chief of police we checked with uh Building Commissioner and there is no desire to create uh or seek reimbursement for administrative costs we do not have a table for that we do not want a table for that there are so many there are so many calls by our by our Public Safety people that to call this out seeking reimbursement didn't make sense okay thank you uh let's see and again we we changed the word offense to violations uh letter G this is notification so this is this is where we begin to build a little bit more of the process um for handling it we we currently have notification of property managers those who those who sign up to be notified get a notice uh those who don't sign up to be notified in the under the current process don't get notified of violations so this is this is again the beginning of a of a new process so um the request or the suggestion by go was that occupants be notified by posting uh that owners get uh notified by certified mail and instead of writing it in that manner we combined it into one um into one um sentence saying uh let's see I lost my place a notification uh that so we added the sentence compliance with the section may be attained by email certified mail Andor posting the notice on the property giving flexibility to the enforcement agencies rather than locking them into a specific one can I ask a question of chiefting on that section is there I mean I'm I'm assuming this works for you is there one of those that doesn't work is there one that works better is there should it just would you rather have it just be one or do you is that flexibility necessary I like flexibility I like the flexibility simply for the reason that um you know sometimes uh some people like to play games and and they'll try and find other ways to avoid getting notifications so this gives us some additional options okay thank you thanks uh through number two the violations and then um under 2B we start with the use of the term enforcing Authority rather than the town or uh the inspection service uh Inspection Services isn't deemed the appropriate entity in this in in all cases so we we switched it around to enforcing agency excuse me enforcing Authority so even though the inspection services is listed as one of the two enforcement options so they can still seek a meeting with with Inspection Services or does it yes okay they can they can they can they can seek a meeting with the appropriate enforcing Authority and if it's if it's a zoning if it's a uh I see I see depending on you know noise uh not noise but but trash or or you know health and safety violation it goes to probably the building commissioner or inspection services and if it's a noise um complaint it goes to uh police department so we didn't want we did not want to specify okay thank you so throughout here it's either the use of the word violation and then the use of the word enforcing Authority that's throughout all of G3 G3 G3 blah blah blah that looks like most of that section I think that's it until I yeah and I so I uh was was raised by KP law and in this the Clause is that the you can read it the provisions are deemed severable and the point that uh CRC made Mandy Joe had had made this suggestion that it was not needed that this section is in fact redundant with what we have in our general bylaws so in fact in section one .1 General bylaw interpretive guidance letter I it states in our current bylaws unless otherwise stated if any section subsection paragraph sentence clause or phrase of any bylaw in article 3 General bylaws is declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason the remaining provisions of the bylaw shall not be invalidated we felt that that pretty much covered this one as well so we we elected to eliminate this paragraph I severability deleted it in its entirety all right um I'm gonna stop sharing Pam thank you for that rundown it was really helpful to kind of walk through what CRC had had responded to I want to give a moment Chief tank do you have anything that you would like to add or um share regarding this this bylaw no I think it's well written I think it's well thought out and um you know at first I wasn't sure how it would work because it it kind of combines Inspection Services onto one ticket um but I think it's it's clearly delineated and we have obviously a strong relationship with with Rob Mora staff so we'll be able to navigate it pretty clearly and to be honest with you it doesn't really change the way we operate that much with the exception of uh repeat offenders so this gives us additional tools for that so I'm I'm very happy with it and it's consistent with all of your policies and procedures that you do now it is great that's great thank you um all right any questions be uh for chief Ting or Pam and please use your Lynn go ahead I your at one point in the bylaw that we're still looking at you use the the word ten exists is that just an oversight and it should say occupant say that again please I didn't the word tenant is it it appears let me try to find it um yeah that would be great um I just had it um it's oh wait a minute I know where it is hold on there's a in E yeah e1c yeah it appears in persons liable uh persons liable person liable we removed we removed the the occupant line that was line a originally so that should there should be no reference to tenant or occupant at this point I don't see it I don't see it though maybe vers maybe I looked at the wrong version you may be looking at it earlier yeah the clean one doesn't have it that that clarifies it because um otherwise we didn't defin it okay um any other any other questions for either of our guests today um okay thank you so much Chief Jang I hope this is not the reason that you're still at work late and um thank you so much for tuning in on a on a Thursday you're welcome to stick around um in case we've got other I think Pam more so but you're you're also free to go if you would like to just sit in the audience thanks yes of course I'll you back and I'd like I'd like to express uh appreciation to Chief Ting because the input was consistent and valuable and really helped us formulate something that works we didn't want to just be doing something punitive I appreciate collaboration very much so thank you everyone y for being here can I can I just sit in the audience I'd love I'm yeah I'll bump you over thank you all right um okay there we go she's goingon to rejoin as an attendee there we go okay perfect all right folks so um now what we're going to do unless anyone has any um opposition to it I'm going to be pulling up the clean version sent by CRC back to us because that is what we are working with but you have as a reference point the other documents that um we used as well any questions about that the only thing is we may have I'm sorry go ahead the only thing is we may have to go back and see what something was said before particularly in that one where we want to leave Mass gener law in and cite what it really means this one yeah yep um all right so this is yes Anna just froze great um okay she's back hang second I'm sorry Lynn are you able to share without your internet going out because that seems to be what's with my internet let me go in and try to find it sorry about that every time I try to share my computer I had it earlier tells me I'm unstable which isn't a helpful reminder does hold on one second um any any comments or questions before we dig in I'm planning to do this the same way that we typically do Clarity consistency actionability just kind of running through line by line um unless there are any that so do you want the combined original and CRC updates nuisance or do you want no I just want the CRC it's like the KP uh 9232 it's the 709 as voted by CRC Pat what were you saying nothing okay but I was going to say if we don't have any questions and we're do we really need to go through it line by line again I'm gonna just say section by section no I think I'm gonna do section by section yeah not not line by line sorry I should I should have clarifi I'm still not sure I'm getting the right one uh at the top it should say clean 2024 709 voted as voted by CRC as voted by CRC okay then I'm ready to put it up on the amazing thank you thank you for doing that okay is this the right one yes yes yes yes all right Lynn would you like to um make the changes as we say them or I mean accept okay great um otherwise I'm happy to okay so it sounds like section A is fine um section B CRC was choosing to not Define this and uh that is in keeping with what the chief of police recommended so I'm comfortable deleting this comment unless other unless anyone objects I just need to figure out how to delete it the little three dots in the corner of thank you you can delete um we can accept I think accept those formatting changes uh later Bel yeah they added that in which is really helpful I think we can delete that comment and accept the change cool hold on I need to move you all so I can see the three dots uh accept change okay yep thank you yeah thank you for doing this all right uh section c any issues Pam just raised her hand oh I'm gonna Pam I'm gonna allow you to talk on second and then I have a question all right fam go ahead thanks I I actually don't see a definition in my version of occupant unless we somehow it's right add you look at the screen it's right there okay my version doesn't have it for some reason huh I wonder if maybe this suggestion got rejected at some point by accident there's a here no that was that's to add a com yeah yeah I I'm I think I'm comfortable with having it there um because we do in fact uh we do in fact contact the occupant it is used later yeah the version that we got from you Pam it did have that in there I don't know if KP law added it or you did but the the the one that I got back included it as a track change okay let's let's leave it but that that's unnerving um okay um all right uh the number changes are fine once we accept those for that wraps up what's happening oh Lynn you're in the not the offline version that's why you're still in the SharePoint version okay I'll I'll accept them later I think that's fine but yeah okay um in in C I don't know this is the small formatting thing I don't know why those numbers are italicized um on the left if you see one and two go back up no just go back up yeah I see them yeah I don't know why they're but if we can make them un italicized okay but the italicized A's are okay I don't know why those are italized either I don't either okay they're not I don't know why they're they're also not italicized in the downloaded version I have I'm not correct yeah why once I download it I'll see whether they're there okay so we're going to make sure nothing is italicized in the numbers okay um any issues with where are we we finished B any issues with C other than what we just discussed okay moving on to D nuisance property designation Clarity consistency actionability issues here uh Pam goad Pam you're unmuted I think you oh I I thought I had didn't see the invitation um if you go to uh the Mass general laws you were going to discuss should we keep the the references in or not oh that's right thank you um yeah so if we go back up to disorderly conduct um Lynn do you want me to just read it to you or do you want to copy it over from the okay it was mgl with periods between chapter 272 sorry you're good and then it says CH uh Capital C lowercase H period 272 comma capital S lowercase EC period 53 period so yeah the the issue is that that according to to KP law uh the actual mgl reference doesn't actually reference disorder that was according to us George that was something we noticed in the last one um so I think what Lynn had mentioned before was we could put in parentheses what the what the name of the law is and that is H okay it is titled penalty for certain offenses and it reference disorderly persons or disturbers of the piece and that's what Chief Jing was saying disorderly conduct is okay um and then B was uh same formatting mgl chapter 138 and it's secs 148 did you say uh 138 sorry 38 thank you and it's sections 34 and 34 C okay thank you do we say section 34 or or section 34 C it says and okay thank you and it it's secs there's two of them yep okay um all right I think that was it from those should we say I'm sorry should we say as set forth in no I oh I mean one option would be to put the whole mgl in parentheses and then that way you don't have to have the lead in sentence but in the consistency is how it's done in I in one here right here uh we have other sections where they just I'm below in three um yep you're right yeah so it's yeah so I should probably put a comma Comma just that's what they're doing apparently yeah okay does that meet consist thank you okay um all right and then I don't think I can raise my hand so I would need to ask oh yeah if we're going to D is it because they want us to put in nuisance bylaw property I don't think that's correct what if you click it it's a it's a word suggestion so um they just I I think you can just ignore it yeah they're they're just yeah ignore it's okay they wanted to drop the a yeah they don't know what they're talking about all right um so the E I would accept that I don't know why the crossed out it's not Andor is left in no no no no the one E I don't either I don't know why I'll make a note on that okay um I'm I'm fine with the Andor being added I think that helps to clarify it yeah I think this is all yeah yep I think these suggestions are good okay so um just wrapping up this part of this e section is there anything that folks do not believe is clear consistent or actionable this is where uh tenant is still in here Pam so I think is right there yeah yeah so if you got questions on that I think in this case I think it I think it makes sense I think it holds because an owner would evict a tenant not necessarily an occup like I think do you have something a tenant if if it's rented the occupant is a tenant and a tenant is an occupant so I think it should be why don't we say Lynn has her hand raised oh sorry go I was I was pulling up our definition of occupant to confirm and and Pat's Pat's absolutely right that that is how we've defined it so I think we could change that to Pam oh sorry Lynn and then Pam Lynn I was going to suggest we say an occupant in other words to evict it there could still be a rental if you say an occupant and so I don't want to use the word tenant here because it's not defined right I agree okay uh P agrees Pam do you have any thoughts on this now you can um I I just went back and looked at what I sent you uh in the email and in our definitions there was not the the definition for occupant I'm comfortable with it given how it's been used throughout and I think it plays a role I don't know who added it and it made me worried that somehow our versions are getting mixed up so I'm comfortable with it we'll leave it um and and while I'm while I'm on speaker um remind me the process of this um does does CRC have to again accept all of the changes that you've suggested no no it from here it goes back to the council okay and does it come back as a as a complete clear uh unmarked up versions okay okay okay so far so good only this I would have to the the reason the reason that we used tenant was obviously if you if it's an owner occupied home that's a problem or causing issue um there is not going to be an eviction process happening it was a it was sort of a protection of the um let's see how does it say um these are people liable uh if there they can't be they can't be um economically liable if in fact they're in the process of evicting someone and and I think if you say evicting an occupant that probably still works the usual word would be tenant but but occupant does work I think yes because the definition of document says a person with legal rights to it P to uh respond to your question the um version that I got came from Paul and it said attached is the CRC version of the nuisance property by law with comments from the town attorney so I'm not sure who put it in but I that that's where mine came from is it was from CRC with coms I never saw I never saw that final round from Paul and the and the town attorney I think it's because go had requested the um the attorney comments so we go requests the legal review um and so it comes to us once we have that so I think that the attorney had been sent the CRC voted language and um had added in the comments there great think that okay um so Lynn you can accept those changes that you just the occupant tenant swap I think you don't want me to leave these in because these are these are Go's changes okay okay in that case I think we should highlight that occupant was added because CRC did not add that technically we did as on recommendation from the town attorney so if it's in his track change it means we did see what's happening here is all of the track changes that came to us have been are we're accepting the ones we're adding are in red yeah but what what Pam is saying is that the vers the the addition of the term occupant was something k law added that CRC did not vote so that's our addition now basically that that's where that addition has been made as un when this F was underneath go does that make sense do this yeah I that's I'll I can I can put it in red later yeah that works okay does that make sense to everyone else in terms of that is okay thank you for validating all right so we went we made it through to we're in e f so now we're in E enforcement F yes um I think this makes sense as a town attorney Edition and I think we should keep it yeah but that was so Lyn I think in keeping with your what you just said though should we keep that as a track change because that was something that's no because we're accepting the track changes that track change came from the town attorney CRC did not vote it that's what I'm trying to say because we got new town attorney comments all right then I got to figure out how to put it back in and think if you can r z or edit undo contrl B no Z Z Z yeah got it okay y I didn't know that oh I love think of each thing all right it's a handy one for people who like me who constantly have to undo things that they did wrong all right um okay uh f f hold on oh you're good thank you again for doing this okay um all right so uh that on the first or second violation was the CRC ad I think we can accept that no no okay no thank you it's it anything that's track changes on this would have been a town attorney comment is that what you're saying and CC did not see them and so I did not see that um and and if I were to change it I would say on the he's just making a a new sentence on the first and second violations it's not either or it's both good okay okay should this also be third or sub and subsequent yeah I think it says it after that yeah so yeah and change or and and all subsequent y yep and what well it says and all subsequent violations a little later so I would say all there as well but maybe maybe not I don't know not important um the number one in two C should be spelled out not that one and two c yeah if more than one Provisions yes provision excuse me got it okay should this five yes because it's under but 10 can stay as it is correct that's the rule I always have known that two digits numbers okay right I think it's APA style um okay same five should be spelled out in uh 3 A1 top of that bottom page [Music] so do we have to change within 10 days within 14 days no because two digits and so two digits it's okay to have numbers oh I did all right I just learned something new you learned two things today this is like this is great what a day not bad for a 78 year old so we we I'm confused yeah yeah it should be left in as the word six right yeah it should be they're just saying number words haven't been used but they should have been used so we're we're doing it right we're making it better or consistent I don't know about consist not better we're not consistency doesn't always mean better you're right I you're right you're right fair point so Lynn can you take out their comment because that is not what we're not gonna yeah and then you can reject their change oops so that's interesting um that this change was not actually um deleted um so again that's it sounds like when CRC and P reject they deleted it's yeah let me just do this right again boy control x no contr z z yeah so you want me to reject what uh reject their change reject replacement yep it was initially spelled out they that was correct and then the KP law folks changed it got it right there okay um and then I agree with what Pam said about if our bylaws generally have the severability Clause that we do not need to put it in every single bylaw uh so I would reject that um what was Mandy Joe's comment with this Joe was saying what what Pam shared was that we have our entire set of bylaws at the beginning says every single basically every single bylaw has a severability clause if is this is deemed unconstitutional and it applies to every bylaw in the town so we don't need a severability clause in each individual bylaw because they are covered by that blanket statement and and my observation is that it sounds like CRC did in fact decide to delete this but it never it didn't get deleted yeah and so Lynn I would right now right click on your um I'd right click on that and I would accept that deltion yeah y one little more no worries got it okay um all right so with these changes are there any other comments are we ready to take a vote and vote this clear consistent and actionable with the changes made today okay no outright objections um so link you scroll up to the top of the document just so I can see the title I'm going to make a motion to find the um proposed bylaw 3 proposed amended bylaw 3 .26 nuisance property clear consistent and actionable as edited by go on September 5th as as reviewed by thank you as reviewed by go September 5th um is there a second Ryan second thank you I'm gonna call the vote uh Pat hi councilor Ryan hi and Lyn I all right it passes unanimously Pam thank you I am an i well you have to say it I am an no no no no I meant that as like oh my gosh I can't believe I forgot not that was not sniffy um iy even even though this was unanimous I we don't put first readings on consensus un consent yes right um so Pam thank you so so much I know this has been a long labor for CRC and so please pass our gratitude along to the other members of CRC as well um L don't know when thank you thank you Len I don't know when your plan is to put I can't remember when you plan to put this on the agenda um but it's on for Monday okay great so I have to write a report first reading um all right so I will write a report on this and um can somebody tell me how I download this um hang on one sec so click off that for a second oh save as file it as and then download a copy to your computer yep got it thank you and hopefully that works and hopefully this works and I can take it from there okay excellent thank and I will send it off to a I'll actually I will send it to the full council tonight and then Athena will post it tomorrow that's that's the instruction she just gave us excellent Pam did you have a question yes I did thank you um will you Lynn need a report on this for the first reading also for Monday which means I need to get it to you ASAP uh it was it in any earlier report I'm sure I'm sure it was but there it's you know it could have been last year fall I remember I think it would be best to have a report okay because it was referred back to you so yes the answer is yes and yes the answer is ASAP and secondly uh would it be possible to um to get a copy of this before it act well I'll see it in the packet right it'll show markups or no markups I I will send both one with markups and one clean okay and then the last question I have is just process um if I think we sent it from CRC to go we said this last Clause needs to be looked at we believe it does not need to be included KP law needs to weigh in and so that was the only that was the only um nugget that we really wanted we CRC felt was needed from KP law at that time and it I just I don't quite understand why CRC would not get um some notification that the pro you know that the document has been handed to KP law and KP law has come back with the following it just seems very vacuous and disconnected that's that's my general reaction but um I'm not upset about it I just it just feels weird and I made I made no note here about eliminating that I'm I'm happy it wasn't well it was required to be removed by CRC if that makes you feel any better it was requested to be removed hi folks I apologize my um my internet kicked me off um so I'm gonna join from my phone for a moment so I can reconnect on my computer so Pam is wondering if she said that um they wanted a see a KP law opinion as to whether that par RH we eliminated should in fact be eliminated and we went ahead and eliminated and made no note are you there Anna yes I'm here sorry I was jumping from device to device um so we can I think we can ask the question we have the text from old versions that we can add back in um and explain the situation I think the textt is very boilerplate so I'm not too worried about it in the sense of what did it right so we can just leave in and as a KP law suggestion and um we can strike it because we think it should be struck and leave it uh xed out and explain that it was a KP law suggestion does that work perfect I'm not sure it was a KP law suggestion was it yes it was yes it was originally so so we need to now um amend our Vote or something because this is different than um what we voted right yes okay I we can have a vote to reconsider but let's not be so formal just let's I'm just going to say that we're going to do a vote to accept this amended version as the clear consistent and actionable um copy of the nuisance property bylaw 3.26 and I will go through the full process again so can I have a second to Second a second again thank you um all right calling vote councelor Ryan hi Pat hi I am an i and Lynn I okay no more changes um all right thank you all maam thank you and I apologize that my internet just booted me I don't know why um we are good to go for Monday I will include this in my go report that I'm going to write tonight and I will send this out to you within the next five 10 minutes thank you Pam thank you everyone I really appreciated the the thought and Care on this and thanks especially to Pat for her two years working with us on this she's GNA celebrate by throwing a Rowdy party and becoming a nuisance property yeah I'll also send you a copy tonight thank you okay I'm out of here all right thanks um all right folks nicely done so one uh other order of business that I wanted to talk about our next meeting is set to be September 19th which is the block party um since I have been on the council had a meeting the night of block party and uh so you know this is a little bit selfish but also we're talking about how Council can best engage at the block party and the best way for us to do that is starting off with us being able to be there um so I wanted to check in with you all about what's coming up on our agendas as well as basically to determine whether we want to cancel that meeting outright or postpone it and if we postpone it does the following week um or does the week of the hang on I lost my calendar for a second yes does the following week work for folks so first off in terms of what's coming up for us go does have a couple things that have been on the back burner that we will be taking up um and that's not including any other bylaws that come through from the council the first is the uh timeline for the town manager evaluation Lynn would will as council president will be sending out a a copy of the proposed timeline um similar to past years we had initially been planning on looking at the full process for the town manager evaluation um and I know everybody did their homework on that we can still talk about that and we should but uh other things took precedent over that particular item and so we are at the point where we now need to talk about the timeline um in addition to the time oh sorry go ahead the problem is the timeline is supposed to go to the Council on the 23rd right and um when we discussed this in agenda review um Athena said she doesn't recall that we've ever had to go to go for recommendation of the timeline so it could still go to the Council on the 23rd but the whole thing was whether we were going to realign it with the budget process and stuff um so I'm a bit confused and that's what we started to do when we were looking at chadam and all these other places so I think that some things have just gotten mushed in here so um it say beyond that I mean it could be to be honest with you it could be that we were we just don't have the runway to change it for this cycle and we're proposing it for next year um and that gives people time to realign the rest of the profit cesses that would have to realign so we could still move forward with suggesting changes to the to the process but have it not be for this this cycle I think that makes sense oh you know it's just that it got bumped I know now in a certain kind of way no no shame no blame I am not doing that it's getting bumped again and my concern is will it be bumped again and I think no I think that's and I don't think I don't think we can do a good job right now I think that we're correct and let's leave it the way it's been so the timeline the timeline goes to the conso without our um comment it's just which is fine by me but in the meantime we are going to do what we can to um proceed with this and for the next iteration okay we really need to realistic I think we really need to and to be honest with you even I don't know how realistic the initial timeline was given that we were still discussing our goals from the last we are still discussing our goals so I think we just need to be a little bit more realistic and um talking about proposing changes for the next for the next cycle so and as counselors the whole Council needs to be more realistic about goals yeah yes and what are we really talking about when we're setting a goal and that is going to be on our plate very very soon because that does come to go so that I would like to kind of start having folks think about and all of that research that we did does tie into the recommendations that go makes for the goals so um it's not just the timeline it's honestly that ties in more so than anything else so we will be having that discussion but that doesn't need to go to the Council on the 23rd that I think Lynn typically goes to the council in in December so we it was on timeline to start talking about that in late September early October um and I'd like to keep to that if if we can so what else is on your list of to-dos the other big to-do that we haven't even touched yet is the legislative process guide um and we need to at some point talk about that it's not a pressing item but it was a carryover item um that that is on Go's plate um it could be great to bring that up and what go is doing is deciding what the council wants to do with this document we are not charged with enacting it we are not it's it's nothing like that it's basically this was put forward by a former member of the council TSO discussed it and decided that it really was um more about Council process and therefore should come to go so we as go are deciding is this something that is in enacted as a rule is this something that is enacted as a recommendation or a best practice we're basically deciding what do we do with this um and yeah so it is it is on our list to provide a report and recommendation back to the council has that already come to us have I missed it somehow that we cancel the I'm sorry Pat go ahead no that's fine I suggest we cancel the meeting on the night of the the party and that in October we focus on that that process so that November we and and begin discussion of the goals I'm fine with that my question my only hesitation is if folks can think of and and I guess Lynn and and other everybody here is on different committees which is really helpful um I just am trying to anticipate what else is going to be coming forward to us possibly in the next month let me look at that and tell you if I can see anything okay because I don't want to end up in another scenario where we're kicking something off um okay so let me just mention possible for us to set a meeting for the 26th and then if we don't need it because nothing's come up cancel it that was the my thought was to have a meeting to hold a meeting for the 26th if folks were um available that day uh and I don't need to fill the 26 with the legislative process bed it's not an urgent matter but Lynn unless there's something that you think is going to get referred to go at directly at the next meeting I think we could I'm looking at the agenda and I do not see anything and then I'm looking at the agenda for September 20 the items that are on for September 23rd and the only one would be that the council says we want go to look at this evaluation process I don't know what they would want us to look at but nevertheless okay so the only thing that we would be doing on the on the 26th is um is possibly the legislative process guide um I'm comfortable cancelling our next meeting would be October 3rd right does anyone have thoughts okay George or Lyn what do you think do you think we should add a meeting or reschedule the meeting to dig into the process guide or cancel [Music] it George Will you even be here that's why I'm staying quiet I I um I will be gone the last week of September and the first two weeks okay of October that missing you'd miss both either one so you're missing the third also yeah yes okay okay so Lyn let's I think I think Pat's suggestion was a good one let's schedule it unless something in case something gets thrown at us and um let's cancel it if we don't need it and then October 26 or September 26 no September 26th 26 thank you okay I thought we were saying we don't need it but I don't care I will come if we need all right so um what I'm gonna say it is not I was gonna say put it in your calendar but um I will plan on me emailing you if it's going to happen um because it doesn't look like anything's going to be sent our way ex yeah um that's that's why ready Joel if needed um so Athena watching this recording don't schedule anything right now uh I am going to unless I send you an agenda do not schedule anything okay um what I will say though is if folks want to look back at the old go carryover memo to um I don't know if the legislative process guide was attached it would be beneficial if folks could take some time and look through that given the length it between our this meeting and our next meeting um and knowing that that is something we will need to take up at some point it is a hefty document um and so I recommend folks I'm giving you a month to read it um I'm not saying it will I'm not promising it'll be on our next agenda but we will need to talk about it at some point so attached to what is it attached to Anna I was trying to remember if it was attached to the go carryover memo but Pat you wrote that so I think that if right I don't remember a document being ATT but I have no no no no I it was in the Tso carryover and that's where switched over so um the TSO carryover memo um I believe is where that was and uh it was then sent to go okay I'd like to request that the chair of go I find both documents and email them to the full committee am I allowed to to do that without placing them in the packet if you're not asking us to uh to debate you're just providing us with the inform oh great oh yeah okay then I'll do that I was trying to figure out how to off for that without okay I'll do that um no problem I will I'll make sure to do that all right any other questions before we adjourn and are people gonna fight me on the motion and vote to adjourn again tonight I will not have let's see let's see what happens all right Lyn made the motion I'm going to Second it and I'm GNA call the vote pass you made your did she second Lyn Lynn motioned it and I I seconded it want to be clear on the procedure pay attention Ryan all right H Pat abstains Lynn I thank you I am an i and George I don't know if we can abstain if we I don't know if we can adjourn if you abstains please I vote I vote all right thank you all we we are adjourned at 7:50 p.m have a lovely evening everyone you to bye bye thanks