Member present: Planning Board members, Keriann Roman and Bill Epperson as well as Planning and Zoning administrator, Kim Reed, and Building inspector, Peter Rowell.
Keriann Roman, Chair of the Rules and Regulations Committee, opened the meeting by stating that it was an extra meeting for the public to voice their concerns and to provide comments. She stated that she had put a lot of time in drafting this amendment, along with the Committee, and that she would not allow any attacks of this board.
She further responded to concerns voiced by the public at the December 8th, Planning Board Public Hearing; namely, regarding the fact that the drafting of this amendment had been poorly publicized and that there was a lack of public involvement. (Editor’s notes: Keriann Roman did not attend the December 8thnor the December 22nd Planning Board meetings when the Zoning Amendment was being presented for a vote to the public via a formal public hearing.) She stated that the work of the Committee (Rules and Regulations) is not on everybody’s radar, however, that they had done their usual process in regards to posting meetings. (Editor’s notes: issues with the posting of agenda for the Rules and Regulations Committee meetings are discussed under RCL notes for the December 22nd Planning Board meeting.)
Bill Epperson, the Chair of the Planning Board, invited two members of the public, Jennifer Madden and Dan Philbrick, to provide comments as they had voiced concerns at the December 8th Planning Board Public hearing. (Editor’s notes: Jennifer Madden, a Rye resident and real estate agent, wrote a letter to the editor in the Portsmouth Herald, which was posted on December 12, raising concerns about the amendment “Proposal could impact property owners in Rye.â€Â In an article dated December 14th, the Portsmouth Herald wrote an article “Proposed zoning change causes concern in Rye†following the December 8th public hearing reported Dan Philbrick’s concerns. Mr Philbrick is a native of Rye and owns many rental units in Rye.)
Jennifer Madden stated that she did not have anything to say at this point.
Dan Philbrick voiced concerns that the Town was trying to make “those historic properties†comply with building codes. He referred to tourist cabins, cottages, and motels, as “historic gems.â€Â He was in agreement that safety is paramount, however, in his opinion, it was not the right way to go about it. It would be impossible to look at one single unit to make it comply with building codes without having to look at the whole building. He stated that he would be willing to participate in a workshop to implement safety measures within the realm of existing state laws.
A resident complained that the amendment was singled out renters.  In his opinion, many homes in Rye do not comply with codes, and it was unfair to target rental properties.
Another resident, who lives on Parson’s Road, and who is also a builder, reiterated the fact that the amendment was unfair and targeting renters. He complained that the Certificate of Occupancy is not the correct tool for going about insuring safety. In his opinion, what should be issued is a certificate of safety. It should be fairly applied to make all residents safe in Rye.
Jonathan Murphy, who owns two properties in Rye, one on Gray Court and the other on Ocean Boulevard, stated that he was in favor of a safety component, however, the amendment should be revised to determine its scope. Foremost, he felt it should be determined how many rental units there are in Rye. According to his estimates, there are more than 100 rental units and that does not include all the rental units that are not accounted for and not paying taxes. Everybody in Town should come forward to register their rental units. He wondered what were the real issues and that he was concerned that it would put rental owners out of business. He felt that they all should be in agreement before this went for a vote in March.
A resident who lives on Sagamore Road asked if they would be an inspection component to this amendment. The board replied yes. The fire department and building inspector would be inspecting properties. Resident raised his concerns that the Town would need to hire more staff to inspect properties.  Resident had another question regarding a meeting that had taken place the day before. Bill Epperson stated that it was to clarify some issues with the building inspector, namely that safety codes do not apply to existing buildings. The Building inspector, Peter Rowell, stated that very few building codes are retro active.
Planning Board Chairman Bill Epperson stated that the amendment had been modeled after the Town of Hampton.
Jennifer Madden asked to clarify the “grandfathering†of the amendment. Bill Epperson stated that his statement had been incorrect at the December 8th meeting.
Peter Rowell clarified the meaning of “grandfathered†by stating that it would apply to everything that precedes the Zoning Ordinance, which was adopted in the 1950s.
A resident asked if there was a real problem arguing that it was perhaps about the money. Was it about hiring more firemen?
Keriann Roman stated that there are units that are unsafe and as a Town they have the responsibility to keep people safe.
Bill Epperson stated that this amendment has nothing to do with money.
Keriann Roman stated that it would apply to units that are being substantially renovated or new.
Peter Rowell stated that they are two issues in regards to the “grandfathering†aspect: one is the use and the other is the building code. The use is what they are talking about in this amendment, as the building code cannot be retro active in most instances.
John Mitchell, owner of two properties on Washington Road, one at 201 and the other at 560, the latter an apartment house, complained that the amendment was too general and broad in nature as well as far reaching. His rental property is not a vacation property. He brought up the Airbnb aspect of rentals, which is not included in this amendment. He felt this amendment was a can of worms. How was this amendment going to be policed? He would like to know why is this amendment being proposed and that it should be specific and the process transparent.
Keriann Roman stated that significant work went into this amendment and that few people showed up at meetings. She stated that many valid comments had been made that will need to be addressed.
Charles Hoyt, who resides on Ocean Boulevard, agreed with prior comments, and more specifically that the amendment needed to be revised and that it will put rental property owners out of business if the Town was going to apply this verbatim.
Kathleen Mahoney, who owns a rental property at 53 Foss Circle, stated that she has never had an issue and would like to make a philosophical comment that this was an extreme example of government overreach.
Keriann Roman disagreed with that statement.
Peter Rowell stated that he has dealt with rental properties, as renters would come to his office to complain, which is the wrong way of doing it. Having rules in place would help ensure that those properties are safe.
Jennifer Madden asked what was the purpose of the meeting and if the Chair wanted the public to specifically identify the problems with the document. She also complained about the difficulty of finding the notices for the Rules and Regulations meetings. It was not easy to access the notices according to her experience with the site.
Keriann Roman encouraged the public to view the Rye Civic League as they do nice write-ups about meetings if they wanted to be informed. She suggested that if the public had specific language to bring it to the next public hearing but she was not sure if it was going to help, but was offering to it as a suggestion.
Frank Drake, a Rye Beach resident, was not in favor of asking all rental properties to be registered. It would be in his opinion to put “a star†which he corrected immediately by saying “a mark†on rental property owners. He felt the amendment was discriminatory and that it will require hiring extra help and as a member of the Budget Committee, he is very concerned about increases in the budget. He would like to see a declaration of intent regarding this document asking where this was coming from. The board replied that it came from the building inspector, Peter Rowell. Who planted the seeds for this amendment? He felt that the public could rewrite this amendment and email it to the board. As a former Chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment for 15 years, Frank Drake stated that he has taken many arrows and that the board should not insulate itself from legitimate comments.
Dan Philbrick, stated that there were already rules in place for the seasonal permits process, which are not being enforced. He was concerned that we should not introduce a new ordinance until we are enforcing what was in place. He asked Peter Rowell what are the State rules and if they govern all of this. His other question was regarding where this amendment was coming from stating that the question had been asked repeatedly during the meeting. He went on to say that he had been involved in a lawsuit with the Town of Rye around occupancy on cottages on Cable Road stating that the lawsuit ended up costing the Town “somewhere around $50,000 dollars.†(Editor’s Note: per a Right to Know request made by a citizen, the costs of the matter were quoting the Town Administrator: Legal fees according to the town attorney were $14,908. The Building Inspector spent about 39 hours on the case. (Town Administrator) spent about 19 hours on it. Estimated other cost would only be travel at approximately $100.) According to him it was crazy because his cottages were perhaps the only cottages in Town that meet all the new codes. He stated that he had since bought 17 more units and had some under contract. He has wondered for some time if the amendment had derived from the fact that the process did not go so well with the units on Cable Road. He asked again where was this coming from and this in like manner to other members of the public. (Editor’s notes: see April 28, 2014 RCL notes: “Enforcement action approved for cottages at 32 Cable Road, which are occupied year-round despite apparent lack of approval. Selectmen Joe Mills voted against and state that he will be on the other side in court.â€)
Keriann Roman responded that this amendment was not based on one single issue but it had been on the radar of the Committee for quite some time and became a priority this year. This amendment should have been implemented a long time ago. As a former renter, she has had concerns at a personal level. As a coastal community, there are many renters that need protection and that the amendment was not meant to target individuals.
Peter Rowell stated that he agreed with Keriann Roman and that this amendment was meant to locate all rental properties and that they would be a mechanism for rental properties to be safe.
In response to more criticism from a member of the public, Keriann Roman stated that if the public had specific comments/language, they should send it to the board. She said that the public would help the board by providing specific comments/feedback. They also have taken notes of what has been said at this meeting.
Lucy Brown, 505 Washington Road, stated that she was not a renter and decided to attend the meeting after seeing one “itty bitty notice.â€Â A property next to hers has been rented as an Airbnb and she has called Peter Rowell a number of times. In one instance, she had 10 kids in her yard at 2:00 am in the morning. She felt that this was a much bigger issue and it was very complex. She stated that this was a very complex issue and that indeed it was about money looking at the public in the audience, as there was money to be made in renting properties and that there was a cost in regulating those units. What was a business and was not a business?
Keriann Roman agreed with Lucy Brown about her statements.
Peter Rowell stated that he would like to have a clean set of rules for him to do his job.
Keriann Roman closed the meeting.
