Laserfiche WebLink
There being no further comments or discussion, Mallory Langler moved to approve the Commercial Site <br /> and Septic Plan with the added variance of the Soil Absorption System below the parking area and with <br /> the following conditions: 1) the standard commercial property conditions apply to the property; 2) <br /> individual vents for leaching and reserve areas be added; and 3) bathroom plumbing for individual leased <br /> units be provided. Motion seconded by Laurel Almquist, VOTE: Unanimous(3-0). <br /> OLD BUSINESS <br /> 1. Discussion of short-term rentals and proposed Assistant Health Agent position. The Finance <br /> Committee was clear that they weren't willing to fund the new position because the revenue <br /> stream had not been demonstrated, Mr. Harrington felt that, if the board waits until May to <br /> propose the bylaw again, there would be a whole year's worth of data to consider—specifically, <br /> the revenue from the rental tax. Chair Baumgaertel suggested there is a risk to waiting until May, <br /> in that unallocated funds don't stay unallocated very long in government. Mr. Harrington <br /> suggested that,if the short-term rental bylaw or regulation were adopted,the Health Department <br /> could attempt to handle enforcement, and the new position could be proposed again when the <br /> demands of enforcement became a dire need that could no longer be met with current staff. He <br /> stated that the permitting piece was not a concern, due to the new permitting software, and <br /> permit fees would be another revenue stream. <br /> Chair Baumgaertel asked if there was any requirement to have a short-term rental bylaw versus <br /> a regulation, and Mr. Harrington answered that it was within the board's purview to adopt and <br /> enforce a regulation should they choose to. Ms. Langler stated she was not sure there was any <br /> benefit to making it a bylaw versus a regulation, and reminded board members that it would be <br /> much easier to make revisions to a regulation. Chair Baumgaertel stated that the regulation,as it <br /> was originally proposed, included long-term rentals and most of the opposition was from people <br /> at the public hearing who were renting on a long-term basis. He suggested holding another <br /> hearing to feel out the public on a short-term rental regulation only. Ms. Langler asked if there <br /> was opposition based on the permit fees, and Mr. Harrington answered in the affirmative,stating <br /> that the proposed fees were the same for hotel/motel permits, but the public still objected. Chair <br /> Baumgaertel asked, if the board went with a regulation, would funding for the Assistant Health <br /> Agent position still have to go to Town Meeting, Mr.Harrington answered that the Town Manager <br /> puts all proposed new positions before Town Meeting. Chair Baumgaertel suggested the position <br /> be part-time initially and, once there is a demonstrated revenue and the need for additional <br /> enforcement staff,a full-time position could be pursued. Board members agreed. Mr. Harrington <br /> suggested that inspections could be handled with the current staff initially, because only 60-90 <br /> additional properties are anticipated in the first year. However, it would be extremely difficult to <br /> do the identification and initial notification of those properties, and he stressed the need to <br /> request funding for the monitoring company. He stated that the Health Office should have no <br /> trouble maintaining the short-term rental list after the first year. <br /> 2. Review and discussion of draft Poultry Regulation. Ms.Almquist opened the discussion by asking <br /> about the purpose of the requirement for roofing, and what materials were acceptable. Mr. . <br /> Harrington answered that the roofing is intended to protect the poultry/fowl from hawks and <br /> other predators, and that it can be constructed of netting, chain.link, or a solid material. Mr. <br /> Harrington advised the board that the variance section is important because the regulation <br /> restricts roosters to properties that are five acres or larger, but there are residents with smaller <br /> lots who have roosters and, unless our office receives complaints on those properties, we want <br /> to give those residents an opportunity to be heard and to retain their poultry. <br /> 4 <br />