We will call to order the October 8th land use and special studies committee meeting here at the Carmel Clay Public Library at 533.

First thing on our agenda is going to be ordinance D 2784-25 regarding rental caps.

Benjamin, can you just walk us through the procedure here in pertinent information?

Sure.

So it's back with this committee as a result of changes from recommendations from the department.

We had a land use and special studies committee meeting last week where suggested changes were heard.

I have added all those suggested changes into what is now in front of you as version B, yet to be approved for those amendments.

All those amendments that were discussed at last week's land use meeting are in highlighted colour code.

So those were recap the department of community services was concerned related to the requirement that a house possess a certificate of occupancy.

That is because there are certain areas and houses and residents within the city that do not have a certificate of occupancy based on when they were built and how when they entered into the city's domain.

So the language change there is on line 44, which is ready to be let for occupancy as opposed to possess a certificate of occupancy.

And that is that they have not been the subject of three or more civil judgments or one or more criminal convictions within the preceding 24 months related to residential rental, dwelling, or any other properties owned by the permittee, rental rights or other such related matters.

And so that was just changing that from citations and charges and bringing it more in line with what can be what has been proven.

And if we move on to line 163 and on from there, they have to uh affirm, continue to keep affirming when they are renewing that the information that they provided at application time is still correct.

Um at 166 um it is um we had a requirement for me.

I have a score copy if you would like to follow along.

Um such a request this is the direct determination to deny the residential dwelling.

Um what we've done here is bring into line, and we're at page uh line 166, and it's just to bring into line um the appeal procedures for each type of decision that's been made by the city.

So this is the appeal procedure for when they make a determination to the deny, um, and then there's the following the appeal, it follows the same similar appeal procedure for when there is a revocation.

Again, we've got language in there that reflects what we have on previous pages related on line 181 related to civil judgments and criminal convictions.

Then we move over the page to uh penalties and remedies.

Um the suggestion um was made by legal um that on um 4504A1 that the um violation be related to owners who advertise for rent and fail to register, and that will make it um make it easier for compliance from our code enforcement um to be able to know who is um a violator and make it easier for enforcement.

Um and um we have language there that it's common to use, which is each day constituting a new and separate violation.

The increase for the fine um past the initial fine is to 1,000 per day as opposed to 100, and that recommendation is based on um just the types of properties that may be for rent in Carmel and the amount of money that may be made from those properties with uh on a daily basis, and so wanting to make sure that um uh the the amount there properly disincentivizes those types of uh violators.

Then what we have um on line 221, um uh the violation continues to exist until the correction has been verified by the city's designated enforcement officer.

So, and that can um depending on it allows for flexibility, but there are individuals within the city that have been designated with that power.

Um we have our code enforcement, we have our community service officers, we have our police officers, um, we have code enforcement officers that exist within engineering um and um utilities.

So it it it it really that's you wouldn't expect that.

You would expect this to go to our code enforcement team, but you know, to the extent that um they need support or help, it allows for that flexibility.

So again, we have that same language on line 229, the city's designated enforcement officer may issue the notice of violation again on 242 contact information for the city's designated enforcement officer.

Um, and again on 245, we have the ability to appeal the notice of violation.

Um and that applied that will apply the same appeal notice uh appeal requirement for uh denials and revocations.

Um that um is tidying up uh on lines uh 251 down to 266, I'll just tidy up the language to reflect um the changes related to the appeal process.

These were the changes that were recommended by the department of community services and by the law department, were previously heard by this uh committee last week and uh requested that they be added in so that the committee could act upon it and they've been drafted in the form of a version B to the extent that this uh board would uh this committee would act on it tonight.

Um what I would do is uh and you were to approve it and send it back with a positive recommendation.

All I will do is I will add the date on the second to last line of each page to reflect the committee meeting where that change took place, and it would go back before the council.

Perfect.

And I would send it out to the council with um uh with those changes.

And just one question under penalties of perjury.

I'm sure there's a whole list of penalty, like what the penalties for perjury are.

Yep.

There are any of them revocation of permit.

Like we can say under penalty of perjury, but if it's not one of the outlined defenses, it doesn't mean they get kicked out.

See what you're saying.

Are you saying that to the extent that they lie on their application that that should be a reason for it it wouldn't be something that would be an automatic uh the penalties uh assigned to it are um are different.

That would be uh that would be, but is there it?

I'm wondering if there's anything else that um any broad language that we have for a violation.

Well, um on um line one, starting at line.

I'm just gonna use line 159 through 171.

So it talks about like I'll just use this as an example.

Um that no changes to the HOA covenants that introduce new rental restrictions that prevent renting from a residential rental dwelling.

So to Matt's point, I guess what I'm saying is I kind of agree with Matt because that doesn't necessarily mean that we we have to revoke their we don't the city is not not there to enforce their covenants, but we can deny their rental registration or permit or permit and then registration, right?

And then that would become a civil issue between the HOA and the homeowners association.

I but I I think that the point that Matt's making, I think is well taken.

Yeah.

What you're wanting to have here is language that says information, um wrong information submitted, um, intentionally submitted, shall be um cause for immediate uh revocation or denial of the permits.

Yeah.

Right?

Yeah.

Yep.