Friday, December 26, 2014

Moultonboro Planning Board December 17th 2014


11 comments:

Joe Cormier/jcormier2@myfairpoint.net said...

"Amendment 5" (video) Article 6, I think, on the draft 2015 Warrant is table.

http://moultonboroughnh.gov/Pages/MoultonboroughNH_Admin/FY15%20Budget/6.%20Warrant%20Materials.pdf

Hopefully, there will be a motion at town meeting to "package"all of these articles into one vote, and get on with the meeting. The planning board and town planner have vetted these issues; nothing is perfect, especially laws. Judges anyone?

"Bedroom" ... 12 renters sleeping in sleeping bags ... but only during the night ... then the room transforms to the living room ... "primarily" :)

http://www.hollish.com/2013/05/02/what-makes-a-room-a-bedroom/

Septic:e.g., Mass. Title 5

http://www.maxrealestateexposure.com/greater-metro-west-ma-home-sellers/title-v-septic-system-law/

Maybe at the next public hearing, town rental licensing, and federal income reporting requirements, will be discussed ... just for the public good!

http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc415.html

Just kidding ... maybe! Wouldn't want any "dimes dropped" on "neighbors" to the IRS anonymously.

Eric Taussig said...

It is a real shame that the proposed amendment limiting the number of occupants in a rental unit to 12 was tabled by the Planning Board. The purported reason was that it was "discriminatory" in that it only applied to rental units and not other properties. The allegation that this is discriminatory is fallacious and a red herring. Owner occupied properties should not be limited, while rental properties are rented for maximum profitability. Landlords overload the properties without regard to safety issues.

The Town has the legal authority to regulate rental properties for safe occupancy and should not let the free market dictate occupancy. A limit of 12 is probably too high, but at least is a start. There should be occupancy limits based upon bedrooms and bathrooms, the septic tank capacity, as well as assurances that rental properties have adequate fire, smoke and carbon dioxide alarms.

I am sure the Town and its residents would not want a "Triangle" type fire to occur that perhaps would kill or injure multiple renters, nor encourage occupancy in excess of 12 in small properties where the renters create noise and pollution problems as they have for many years.

The tabling of this proposed amendment based upon the alleged discrimination against owners of rental properties is totally irrational and unjustified.

Anonymous said...

Mr Taussig, a few of our area Real Estate agents expressed concern over limiting occupancy of rentals. This may impact their ability to make a living. HOWEVER it may make for quieter evenings for us old locals.

Eric Taussig said...

To Anonymous,

The reason the amendment was tabled was some perverted idea that imposing a limit on owners of rental properties was somehow discriminatory as it didn't apply to owner occupied property.

In other words if this proposal comes forward applying to all properties, if you have 9 children 2 parents and 2 in-laws, you had better kick one person out of the house.

The rental proposal would have limited the OWNER OF A RENTAL PROPERTY to 12 guests, a more than reasonable number. The brokers objected as the rates owners could charge might be limited, and commissions might be reduced (unless they raise their rates). I have seen 4 or 5 families with 15 to 20 members split a $3000 a week house 5 ways ending up paying $600 a week or $85 a night..

A rental property is not a family home. That distinction must be made and remembered as a rental property it is a commercial operation. This discrimination argument is malarky!!

Joe Cormier/jcormier2@myfairpoint.net said...

I agree with concepts presented @
December 27, 2014 at 12:03 AM.

There can be debate about specifics, but comparing a "home" to a "rental property," and saying they are the same, is ludicrous.

I've got rental property, in Concord NH, but I don't consider Concord, home. I pay taxes, follow Concord, and Federal regulations for rental property etc. (yes, I'm familiar with NH regulations regarding property management; had a license in the mid-80's)

"Discrimination" is not inherently, evil! Towns discriminate between residents and non-residents; taxpayers v. residents; renters v. taxpayers, etc.

"The law" discriminates against on who can vote ... you have to be a resident and register ... GOOD! There are logical reasons!

You need a town sticker to legally use the town beaches, or the town transfer station (dump). That's legal discrimination ... and glad it is!

There are other possibilities to "favorably discriminate" for/ not against owners.

"Permits" by the town to owners, for more people or more time, as long as the owner is present, to name just one.

Renting property is legally discriminatory. It is called law and regulation ... not a constitutional right, nor violation thereof.

A House is not a Home!






Anonymous said...

We have a big house being used for weekly rental located across the cove. 3 bedroom, sometimes rented by a family, sometimes rented by a clawless army. When they backed the pick-up truck over the flower beds to beach, so they could have a week of Salsa music from the boom box, serenading the entire cove, we rejected their multi-cultural advances. Thank god for the MPD.

Moultonboro Blogger said...

The proposed Zoning Amendments will be on the ballot on Tuesday March 10th.

Anonymous said...

The rental proposed revision should require rental real estate agent to register, with the P D, name and cell phone number of responsible party who signed rental agreement. I ask renters who their agent was, nice to know who to call at 2 AM.

Job for the Paparazzi said...

Don't know how the 12 person rule can ever be enforced. People lie about their immigration status, under report income to the IRS, falsify voter registration, etc. You think renters are going to be truthful about how many people are sleeping in a rental?

Joe Cormier/jcormier2@myfairpoint.net said...

"The proposed Zoning Amendments will be on the ballot on Tuesday March 10th."

Great news! On the ballot, and not have to endure at the town meeting on Saturday.

Kind-a-like what SB-2 could do for all the other issues.

Lawyers Field day said...

Read these four code revisions, and then recall that selectman Wakefield said at a BOS meeting that this was just housekeeping. He is going to have to read them, and see if he will say that again. Have to ask him to explain # 2. Asking the public to vote on an issue that can not be explained to them is aragance.