Town of Mansfield
Committee on Community Quality of Life
DRAFT
Meeting Notes of June 4, 2009
Council Chambers, Audrey P. Beck Municipal Building
Members Present: Joseph Briody, Denise Keane, David Morse, Elizabeth Paterson,
Stephen Rhodes
Staff Present: Matt Hart, Curt Hirsch, Mike Ninteau, Gregory Padick
Guests: James Hintz
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 PM. Due to a lack of a quorum, the members agreed to discuss issues but not to take any votes or binding actions. J. Briody agreed to serve as chair; M. Hart agreed to serve as recording secretary to take meeting notes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Due to a lack of a quorum, action on the minutes was deferred.
OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE COMMITTEE
None at this time.
CHAIRPERSON’S REPORT
M. Ninteau reported that work on the statewide housing code was progressing. If adopted by the legislature, the state code will supersede all local codes. For this reason, Mansfield should consider codifying legislation that might differ from the state code in a stand-alone local ordinance(s). E. Paterson asked if there are elements in the state code that would be damaging to the town. M. Ninteau replied that for the most part this should not be a concern, but our fee structure could prove problematic. J. Briody asked whether by and large Mansfield’s housing code comports with the new state code. M. Ninteau replied in the affirmative, although the state code is more rigorous in some sections, such as regulations pertaining to the exterior of a structure. D. Morse asked if the state code would regulate water and septic. M. Ninteau answered that the state code would regulate these sections only in a very general fashion and these are the type of provisions that Mansfield may wish to incorporate within a stand-alone ordinance.
ITEMS OF BUSINESS
6(a) Discussion on Mansfield 2020 vision points
S. Rhodes and J. Hintz presented a report on action steps 8 (continue to increase education of landlords and off-campus students, particularly with respect to expectations and ordinances) and 9 (encourage UConn to update and strictly enforce the student code of conduct, particularly with respect to off-campus activity). (See attached handout detailing progress that UConn has made to address these issues and its plans for the next academic year.) E. Paterson asked what could be done with more challenging landlords. S. Rhodes explained that there are limits to the university’s authority with respect to private landlords, and that this lies more within the town’s jurisdiction. He added that the university does have a clear interest in student behavior. M. Hart inquired about orientation and other programs designed to highlight neighborhood expectations and local ordinances. J. Hintz replied that many of the current initiatives address these topics. He is also looking at a workshop format, but it can be difficult to achieve any significant attendance. J. Briody asked if the Office of Off-campus Services had the promotion of off-campus housing as part of its mission. J. Hintz explained that he has taken the approach that a number of students are interested in living off-campus and it is the responsibility of his office to promote services, not living off-campus necessarily. Also, previously the university hosted housing fairs to provide a venue for landlords to interface with students. The focus of the housing fairs sponsored by his office has changed to include a host of non-property owners, such as the town’s Department of Building and Housing Inspection.
D. Morse posed a series of questions:
J. Briody asked to what extent the university can communicate with the town regarding student referrals. J. Hintz explained that in 99% of cases either the town or the landlord is aware of the problem first. Working with town staff, he has developed a protocol to facilitate communication between the town and the university. There are also procedures in place to notify the landlord or property manager as appropriate. Student privacy laws do limit some communication.
S. Rhodes added that there are a good number of parents who look at what UConn charges for housing and decide to invest in a house instead. By renting to additional tenants, this practice minimizes the housing expense. The committee should discuss this practice at a later point. E. Paterson concurred and stated that this was a more recent phenomenon, and asked whether the housing code could require a certain percentage of ownership in an individual property in order to prevent the landlord from taking advantage of the registration exemption. M. Ninteau remarked that this latter point was a legal question.
D. Morse facilitated a conversation regarding action step 2 (enact ordinances to require behavioral expectations in leases; fine landlords whose tenants violate ordinances and occupancy requirements) of the neighborhood preservation action item of the strategic plan. (See handout labeled “Specimen Leases for more detail.) He explained that many of the landlords do have somewhat “draconian” provisions in their leases in an effort to control problematic behavior, but to what extent are these provisions enforced? J. Hintz clarified that the UConn police department has primary jurisdiction for Celeron Square Apartments. J. Briody asked if Mr. Morse had noted elements in leases that would enhance town ordinances. D. Morse referenced the provision regarding escalating offenses that Celeron Square incorporates within its lease. E. Paterson stated that most of the larger complexes are not problematic and questioned what distinguishes tenant behavior at Carriage House and Celeron Square.
D. Morse raised the issue of whether the committee should convene a public forum to allow the public to vet its concerns. C. Hirsch commented that the complaints we receive have more to do with parties and tenant behavior as opposed to occupancy. J. Briody stated that there is a “sense of helplessness” on the part of neighbors and year-round residents. He does think a public conversation would be helpful to help identify creative solutions to protect neighborhoods in a more proactive fashion, as opposed to addressing problems after they occur. On a side note, this coming year the Hillyndale neighborhood will see an increase from one rental to three. M. Ninteau advised that the community needs to look at a multi-pronged approach. As long as there is a financial gain to be realized, landlords will continue renting to students. Much of the problematic behavior is law-enforcement related. If we reduce the number of unrelated persons that can occupy a single-family dwelling, we may have to grandfather in existing properties. J. Briody concurred with Mr. Ninteau’s assessment but remarked that we also need to consider new, bold and untested measures to decrease the likelihood of single-family homes converting to rentals. We can’t just focus on these properties after they convert to rentals. E. Paterson asked if we know whether other university communities have successfully implemented a more proactive approach to control the conversion of single-family homes to rental properties. M. Ninteau explained that in his research no community has resolved the issue. G. Padick commented that we have been researching this issue for years. Mansfield is different due to its lack of public water and sewer infrastructure and the inability to build with more density in key neighborhoods; this factor makes the older single-family homes more attractive to investors. J. Briody summarized the discussion on this point and asked the committee to review the material that Mr. Morse has collected. Staff will prepare a comprehensive response to the Town Council’s referral on elements of the strategic plan.
6(b) Review and comment on residential parking regulation draft language provided to committee
M. Ninteau and G. Padick reviewed the draft recommendations as prepared by staff. There are three suggested optional regulations that could be adopted individually or collectively. (See staff proposal for more detail.) All three options are limited in their applicability to rental properties subject to the provisions of the rental certification zone
The proposed 302.8.1 Parking Permits regulation would ostensibly serve to limit the number of cars that could be parked at a rental dwelling at any one time. Another benefit would be that the town would have a means to collect contact information for individual tenants living at a particular address. This section would be very labor-intensive to enforce, and the town would need to hire additional staff to be successful with this effort. The proposed 302.8.2 Parking Space Requirements regulation would require the submission of a site plan, and would enable the town to better control the location of parking to mitigate neighborhood impact. The approval of a parking site plan would be a condition for obtaining a rental certificate. D. Morse inquired whether the fee structure would cover the cost of enforcing the 302.8.1 Parking Permits regulation. M. Ninteau expressed doubt that the fees would capture the full cost of enforcement. S. Rhodes asked if such a regulation would be legal. The staff stated that they believe the town does have the authority to enforce such a regulation. J. Briody asked how the parking permits regulation would be enforced after hours. Staff explained that outside normal business hours this responsibility would fall to the police. E. Paterson commented that we do not want to pass a regulation that we cannot properly enforce. S. Rhodes stated that he would support starting with the proposed 302.8.2 Parking Space Requirements regulation; he is concerned that 302.8.1 would prove too onerous to enforce. M. Ninteau concurred and suggested that the committee start with the 302.8.2 Parking Space Requirements provision, and consider the 302.8.1 Parking Permits regulation as a future step. Also, the proposed 302.8 Motor Vehicle regulation may be desirable as a general blight provision. The consensus of the committee was in support of this recommendation, and staff was asked to do further research. In the context of the proposed parking space requirements regulation, staff should look at limiting the number of parking spaces.
6(c) Discuss language required to define “family” in town regulations
Discussion of this item was postponed.
6(d) Ordinance regarding training of alcohol servers
Discussion of this item was postponed.
Summary
J. Briody summarized the meeting and discussed next step. At the next meeting the committee should plan to: 1) complete the Town Council’s Mansfield 2020 referral, including a review of reports from absent members; 2) review and comment on the proposed 302.8.2 Parking Space Requirements regulation; and 3) review the composition of the committee. Future agenda items include a review of the definition of family under town ordinances and the proposed alcohol server ordinance, as well as ideas of how to more effectively engage the community in the committee’s discussions.
Opportunity for Public to Address the Committee
Ms. Susan Schmerl of 20 Little Lane commented on the work of the committee and asked whether the names of landlords were public information. Staff explained that landlord names and addresses collected by the town under the landlord registration ordinance did constitute public information.
Mr. Gregory Sotzing of 144 Hillyndale reviewed some of the challenges associated with living next to a student rental, including problems with garbage strewn around the neighborhood and exposing children to poor language. He worked previously in Gainesville, Florida, which is also a small town but has other outlets for students. He thanked the committee for its efforts.
J. Briody read a letter from Mike and Jane Howard, who emphasized the need for the Town Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission to collaborate on developing real solutions to the problems the neighborhoods are facing.
Adjournment
At 10:00 PM the committee adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Matthew W. Hart
Town Manager