ORDER-2016-139 : Amending Melrose Revised Ordinances, Chapter 177 Peace and Good Order by adding Section 177-15: Chronic problem properties

Transcript (~32 min @ 19:20)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 19:10 John N. Tramontozzi: Understood. But that motion is on the floor. Can we have a vote on that motion? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed to that motion? Good. So we'll just move this forward to the full board, and at that time we can discuss it further and see where it goes from there. Excellent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. The second... Motion to suspend the rules, Mr. Chairman.

▶ 19:31 John N. Tramontozzi: Okay, very good. Let me read the order first. Order number 2016-139. It's Amending Murrow's Revised Ordinances, Chapter 177. Peace and good order, by adding Section 177-15, Chronic Problems Properties. This also was sponsored by Vice Chairman Francis Wright Alderman. Thank you for your excellent work on this. We have a motion to suspend the rules to hear from Chief Lyle. Second. motion by Alderman Mortimer, seconded by Alderman Forbes. All in favor? Aye. Any opposing? None. Chief, thank you for coming in at my request and invitation. Oh, you're welcome.

▶ 20:15 Francis X. Wright Jr.: Yes, Alderman Wright. Just if it's okay with the Chairman and with the Chief, just so there'll be some context for the other members of the committee and the public, I'd be happy to explain what it is the Chief is here to discuss and why I'm proposing it. I think we're all aware that there are certain properties in the city that have recurring issues and I don't want to name them because I don't think it's fair because I don't have a list in front of me and I I don't want to put down either the owners or the people who live there without having historical context so but but I think we're all aware that there at least is a feeling that there are certain properties in certain neighborhoods that have issues and I will say that Wyoming area is one where we've had a history of perceived problems so my thought with this is and this is another ordinance that I didn't invent it's it's used in other communities is that if we can have another tool in our toolbox to allow the administration and the police and this board to hold the owners of those properties accountable there are a lot of good people who live down that neighborhood a lot of young people who live down there and I think they have a right to have peace and order in their neighborhood and I would like to see the owners of those properties held accountable when they allow bad tenants to occupy those those premises and require continuous calls to the police to either deal with disturbing of the peace or drug issues or domestic issues or whatever but you know if we see continuous police presence in certain areas it doesn't do any good the properties don't get kept up necessarily it's not inviting and it's not a safe place necessarily for people to want to live that neighborhood should be a good neighborhood it's you know in this the age of transit oriented development that should be a an attractive place to live and yet I think to the extent Melrose has areas that that from time to time can be problematic that area is one that can be so my thought is let's provide a tool for the police when you have recurring problems at a particular property you put the owner on notice that hey you've had three strikes in the last 12 months we want to let you know that we've got this ordinance on the books and if you have three more we're gonna hold you accountable you're gonna pay for police response and if you don't pay it's going the collector will put it on your your tax bill and we'll collect it through that means so um i mean that's the goal here that's that's the intent um and i welcome uh the comments of the members of this committee and ultimately the board uh as well as the chief thank you

▶ 23:30 John N. Tramontozzi: chief good evening just maybe to uh just to start off a little bit i had a couple questions myself And, you know, without getting into details of any particular piece of property yet, could you just tell us a little bit about what you're experiencing in your department relative to problem properties? Maybe tell us a little bit about how they're handled and what you experience and whether or not this type of ordinance would be helpful and useful for purposes of tackling some of these problems.

▶ 24:02 Speaker 7: I certainly support the order. anything anything we can do in this community to improve the quality of life in some of these areas where they're multifamily dwellings non-owner occupied I am all in favor of giving the police department another tool I've gone through our ordinances on several occasions because of Alderman Infernus had some troubles in her ward as well and the only one I found was under chapter 164 and it was a stretch for a noise ordinance for properties where where there's excessive noise in apartment buildings. And I've used that tool, only one person I have fined, I'm not going after the tenants, I'm going after the landlords. And I told them flat out that I would go after them, because the tenants are tenants, they can move on if you don't take care of your property. I'm going to do everything within my power to make sure that you do. So I certainly support this order, and I commend the alderman for it. in his ward he has his challenge as well because the police department you can see our calls for service some of the streets and Alderman Wright Ward

▶ 25:07 Gail Infurna: Alderman Inferno you think I'm not a committee member so I certainly will yield to a committee member in the committee member that all the men's work

▶ 25:16 Michael P. Zwirko: on next all the men's work oh thank you first I want to say thanks to Alderman Wright there's a very comprehensive ordinance proposal I appreciate the homework doing this so and I'm also with respect that you thanks for showing up here tonight to answer some questions so my first question is a little bit basic I just curious as to why and maybe you could answer this Alderman Wright why six valid complaints within 12 months I mean generally speaking most leases are for a year in a tenant occupied property not much longevity there six seems very high to me I'm just curious as to where that number kind of was derived I had

▶ 25:54 Francis X. Wright Jr.: seen numbers as high as eight and i picked six uh you know it was i felt i wanted to be fair to property owners on the one hand but i mean they will get notice after three after i did notice that yeah um and my goal really isn't here so much to penalize the property owners as to uh give put them on notice that hey you've got a problem tenant you've got to deal with this you don't you most likely you don't live in melrose you're you're a non-owned occupier you don't have to deal with this we do the police do and we want you to get your house in order figuratively and literally yeah um and uh you know what we're looking here is uh for again peace and order in the community and not not the opportunity to impose a fine right um you know you've also got buildings as the chief indicates they're multi-unit um it goes to the property nest perhaps you know more so than than the unit and if you've got multi-unit building you know six may ultimately not be a lot at some of those buildings you know but i mean i'm certainly willing to keep an open mind i did send it to the city solicitor so i am interested to hearing and hearing what he has to say um but i know he couldn't be with us tonight you know and i

▶ 27:15 Michael P. Zwirko: appreciate the notification provision i liked how halfway through the owner was notified halfway through meaning if there was three incidents they were notified because a lot of times they wouldn't really know to your point they're living outside the city of melrose they probably don't know what's going on in their building maybe they're getting their check on time so they don't particularly care i guess i would ask that same question then to you chief lyle you know you probably deal with some problem properties does six seem like a little does it seem like a lot i mean we're talking over the course of 12 calendar months um i mean generally if there's a problem you might get six calls in one night at a very raucous party maybe so that's happened

▶ 27:52 Speaker 7: yeah let's be honest um i will say that the properties that we have identified through the police department for calls for service repeated calls for service i sent a letter under chapter 164 and i said i put the owner on notice i give them a warning and then i start levying the

▶ 28:13 Speaker 8: maximum the fines what i what i can under and has that has that proven has that proven effective

▶ 28:16 Speaker 7: i've only had one uh that i had a repeat the others have been compliant yeah they have once i put on my notice i spoke to the property owner some live in melrose some do not live in melrose

▶ 28:27 Michael P. Zwirko: and i've spoken to them all but again so six six seems like a fair amount to you well if you have

▶ 28:30 Speaker 7: if you have multiple multiple units in there and you know it's it's unit one and then unit seven understood in fairness we'll address each one individually yep okay well i appreciate it i have

▶ 28:43 John N. Tramontozzi: no more questions thank you mr chairman alderman mortimer i know you were up to thank you thank

▶ 28:45 Peter D. Mortimer: you very much mr chairman um this is a great audience i want to thank alderman wright for putting it forward uh high quality of life is one of the things that keeps melrose such a high quality community with our excellent property values and we want to keep it that way and his This point is very well taken, that for people who, in neighborhoods close to the public transportation, maybe just starting out in life or maybe empty nesters and coming to the autumn of their lives where they are beginning to live in a smaller space, they shouldn't be plagued with terrible behavior and all kinds of noise that disturbs their peace and quiet and good order. Great, great ordinance. Thank you, Alderman Wright, for putting it forward. It seems very appropriate at this time that we could mention that also another tool that our law enforcement personnel, our chief, who does an excellent job at keeping the streets of Melrose safe and quiet and in good order, is Chapter 239.

▶ 29:58 Peter D. Mortimer: Section 19 says that any dwelling, any rental property that is being used to distribute drugs, the lease can be canceled by the landlord automatically within two days. There's no need for the attenuated eviction process that occurs in the courts of Massachusetts. The lease can be canceled right away. You do not need the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of evidence that you have in drug arrest cases. You can use, it's just a preponderance of the evidence, which means more likely than not. So if a landlord brings, and I've used this statute representing landlords to evict tenants who presumably were dealing drugs, If you bring this to court and you can show that it's more likely than not that the tenant is dealing drugs, the lease can be canceled right away under 239.19. This is Chapter 177 of our city ordinances, but that's a state ordinance. And also, for landlords who are noncompliant, as Alderman Zwirko mentioned, people who may not be present in the community, section 20 of chapter 239 says that a landlord can be charged in court if a landlord knows about drug dealing activity in their property, in the property that they own, and they take no affirmative steps to see that it is abated or that the tenants don't move on. I can see that this ordinance is a little broader. It does seem to address the type of property that is turning into a frat house, which we don't want in Melrose. This isn't the place for it. So I applaud this ordinance, and I'd like to see it go forward. And I'd once again say thank you to Alderman Wright for putting it forward. Thank you. That's all I have.

▶ 31:57 John N. Tramontozzi: Very good. I'd love to hear from President Kahn.

▶ 32:01 Speaker 8: Thank you. Chief, based on your experience, how many, if this ordinance were passed, how many properties do you think, on average, it would relate to in the course of a year?

▶ 32:11 Speaker 7: I would tell you in my nine plus years as the police chief, there's six properties that we're dealing with. And of that six, I've had one repeat.

▶ 32:20 Speaker 8: Okay. And do you believe you'd have any problem tracking?

▶ 32:25 Speaker 7: No, generally when we identify a property as a nuisance property or under this ordinance, we would just start issuing police reports on every time we respond. So we build a track record and then it's very simple to move forward with the process from there.

▶ 32:43 Speaker 8: Just a couple of points and observations. This is a general ordinance that's going to cover the entire city. No specific streets or neighborhoods are going to be singled out. The other thing is, I support the order as drafted. I would not support the order if the number of incidents were ratcheted back to two or three. The other thing is, landlords of chronic problem properties are problematical and we want to deal with them. But, you know, we don't want to vilify our landlords here, and a landlord may have a situation where two or three criminal activities might occur in the course of a year, and I would not want to see the sweep of this ordinance cover somebody like that, who's being held vicariously liable for the acts of their tenants and may not have done anything wrong at all. So I would support this order as written. I would hope that the committee would not amend it. I would not support it if we decreased the number of incidents that would be the trigger from what is set forth in Alderman Wright proposal. I think this is a fair ordinance. I think if you telescope it down, it's not fair to some people and it's reaching people that we may not want to be reaching. And I think that's not the intent of Alderman Wright order. to speak for him uh but this is to deal with the less than 10 real problem properties in the city that we need to do something about to protect our citizens so that's all i have all right great

▶ 34:25 John N. Tramontozzi: thank you i think that was an excellent point um alderman inferno has been waiting patiently

▶ 34:32 Gail Infurna: to problem no problem as a non-committee member i did want to make a comment and i want to really thank alderman wright for moving forward on this um of all the ordinances that come down as a ward alderman i'm very excited about this one and i know chief flyer will um share that with me and um we we you know have had some issues and it is not just the wyoming issue by any means um but i think alderman wright alderman mortimer and i we do about that area and quality of life is very important throughout melrose um that area seems to get a little bit of a a grind periodically so I think this will be a good tool to have I also support having the six I wondered where it was came and came from so I think all those work oh for bringing that question up I think the response made it very clear and I'm very comfortable with the six complaints so I look forward with working working with you chief because I'm sure we will be looking at this tool come the summer time so that our neighbors can all enjoy their their outside time without being impeded upon by you know noise or whatever disturbances near them so thank you again alderman right for bringing this

▶ 35:56 John N. Tramontozzi: forward very good alderman's work all and then alderman Forbes because I want to go back to the voting members of the committee I withdraw my question but but thank you sure yep all right then we'll go to all of them thank you mr chairman i just have a

▶ 36:05 Scott M. Forbes: quick question just thinking outside of the box um how would you be able to differentiate maybe the case of problematic neighbors that may want to use this as a leverage play against the other you may have people that have been sitting next to each other for a long time they see the new ordinance and now all of a sudden it may be a tool that they may be able to exploit could you easily differentiate that and and kind of calm that situation down or if would you think that

▶ 36:34 Speaker 7: something like that would ever come up i i would never say no that neighbor versus neighbor never happened in this city before but um certainly uh would identify it very early on the situation going on in the neighborhood we've dealt with them in the past where neighbor versus neighbor and they found some tool to affect the other neighbor which isn't pleasant uh police would identify it would leave incident reports on every one of these events so that there is a record before any action is taken sure sure I do so always and always there'll be a letter from my office to that property owner and generally when I've sent out letters relative under 164 they've all been compliant with the exception of one

▶ 37:11 Scott M. Forbes: very well chief that's why I do support I do support the order I also do support the number being six because it will establish a timeline of accountability

▶ 37:22 John N. Tramontozzi: as well so okay thank you and just in just to an answer in reference to your point, Alderman Forbes, that the ordinance talks about valid complaints, and that's, so it has to be a documented, legitimate complaint as verified from Chief Lyle and his department heads and the patrolmen. So I don't think just a nosy neighbor is going to get away with just... Sticking outside the box, Mr. Chairman. Good point. Excellent point. Other members of the, well, I'll go back to Alderman Wright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just

▶ 37:52 Francis X. Wright Jr.: defer to you this so so it's clear what I'm getting at here is I'm not really that focused on noise we have an ordinance as the chief yes out and that's that's perfectly appropriate but I am more more the criminal element more the drug dealing issues we've had in these properties you know which require police response beyond noise is really what I'm focused on here because we have some properties I think across the city as the chief said you know even if it's only a half a dozen that's a half a dozen neighborhoods that potentially have quality of life issues because of it and those are the types of things I'm getting at is you know somebody comes out of a house on a regular basis chief you can probably talk about this off the record if not on where we have people go out to the curb and make drug deals i mean you know uh we had an arrest down in in my ward within the last month where that was the situation um if that person is coming out of that house in my opinion under this ordinance and going to the curb he's that's still a problem with that property you've got a drug dealer in that property and but between this and the type of statute that alderman mortimer refers to you've got an opportunity for the police to put that landlord on notice if he isn't out here she isn't already and then perhaps that landlord would say look i don't want any problems i want to get rid of this tenant i want to get good tenants in there i don't want any problems with the police i don't want any problems with the city i'll use the statute or whatever other tools i can legally to get that tenant out of there let the police do what they need to do and and let's get some good tenants in in that property so very good uh alderman

▶ 39:41 John N. Tramontozzi: Oh, McIntay-Margolis, I know you're a noncommittee voting member, but go right ahead.

▶ 39:48 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: Thank you. I think this is a good tool that I'm hearing the chief say would be great in his arsenal. I think I have a few questions about some of the details, and maybe I don't know if Alderman Wright can answer them or not. um this pertains only to um non-owner occupied property or not i'm not really seeing that so

▶ 40:20 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: i'm my question is i'm wondering if there's a resident who owns the property and it's a problem and you get six valid complaints is that included as well if you have if you have a problem with

▶ 40:33 Francis X. Wright Jr.: your property yeah you could still live in the property and own it and have a

▶ 40:39 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: problem and it can be a single-family home it's not necessarily an apartment

▶ 40:44 Francis X. Wright Jr.: building yeah yeah yeah I guess I don't know if this well I guess this this ordinance would potentially be helpful in that because you would have to pay for the police response after you exceed your six events but but my goal here is really for the the the non owner-occupied properties where the landlords aren't paying a lot of attention beyond collecting rent but

▶ 41:06 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: yeah it could be right and the discussion we've been having has been surrounding that type of property in that type of ownership but I think and chief maybe you can answer this from experience their owner occupied single family homes where you could consider this a good tool if the right situation

▶ 41:31 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: was was to develop yes absolutely okay and you also mentioned like if you had some places sometimes you've had six complaints in one night is that gonna count as six complaints or is that gonna just be like one complaint because it's

▶ 41:43 Speaker 7: I think you would have to take it on a case-by-case basis so if it's a loud party or family gathering or something that we responded I would think after two times that that house is gonna be empty by the police department right it won't be six but I would think it wouldn't be long after that if it was during the summer that we would be there six visits and my only other concern and

▶ 42:01 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: I know we have you know some residents in the community and some homes in the community that house people with various disabilities and mental illnesses and very often neighbors are frightened by that or concerned if there's an outburst how would you handle that would that be would that be under this kind of an

▶ 42:31 Speaker 7: ordinance I think those properties would probably be protected under on a state law I would think that that would be something totally different where there's a medical facility we'll say whether it's caring for people with challenges that's something totally different I think what Alderman Wright looking at is is problem properties where there's a legal activity going on

▶ 42:54 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: on an ongoing basis and my final question is is this I can't remember Alderman Wright if you said this was reviewed by attorney Van Campen city

▶ 43:07 Francis X. Wright Jr.: attorney or should we ask for him to review this yes I have asked him to do so he wasn't available tonight to come to our meeting but I expect he will either be at or send us his opinion prior to this going before the full

▶ 43:21 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: board I think I personally would be just a little more comfortable in that in knowing that there are going to be some safeguards for people who may have you know issues like disabilities or group homes or that sort of thing and it doesn't exclude that but I'm sure if he's familiar with the state laws that I'm I'm not familiar with it would be helpful to know that thank you

▶ 43:46 Francis X. Wright Jr.: I've been right I think you want a response it does talk about properties in which the police find there are miss you know offenses that would qualify as a misdemeanor or a felony yeah I don't know to the extent someone may not be happy because they've got somebody with a disability or some sort of a of an issue that requires a group home type setting I think that this ordinance would not necessarily apply and I think there are other protections as the chief indicates under the law for those types of facilities you know I would I'm a little hesitant to say this but as we discussed when I was had proposed the snow shoveling ordinance this kind of is the problem I had with snow shoveling to some extent at least in my ward and it's also a problem I had last year with some overgrowth issues where properties were non owner-occupied last year two properties I can think of right off the top my head where I had overgrowth where hedges and bushes were growing out blocking half the sidewalk and I had to get isd involved to come down and cite someone who literally told isd it was taken care of when he made the second call about it and isd went out and took a photo and told the guy you didn't take care of it because i called and paul came out and took a photo and said if you don't take care of it within the next 48 hours you'll get a 300 ticket that's what got the owner right to come down from cape and and cut those hedges back now someone couldn't have got by with a baby carriage or gotten by and pushing a wheelchair or a walker or whatever but that's was an overgrowth problem caused by a non-occupied landlord i had another property similarly i see those properties with snow removal and i see this as an issue as well potentially so i i have nothing against non-arc owner occupied properties i have nothing against those landlords but they have to be responsible uh property owners in our community just like single-family homeowners and um just like our tenants and all of our residents you know if they're going to enjoy owning property here they have to live within the bounds of uh peace and good order like the rest of us

▶ 46:04 Speaker 8: that you are president yeah um i'm not going to belabor this because it's clear that it's going to pass the committee but um you know i'm not a fan of overly over regulation and many of you have heard many times me say that government can't solve all problems so i'm not looking for over regulation of our citizenry but there's a couple of points here number one the trigger here is crime criminal complaint it's not you know noise ordinance violation complaint it's it's crime in order to become a chronic problem property and be subject to the penalties here you have to have six criminal complaints issue in a 12 year period a 12-month period it seems to me that if any property has six criminal complaints or more issue in a 12-month period that is a problem property to me so anybody watching us at home needs to understand trigger is crime not neighborhood disputes not noise violations crime six crimes have to have alleged to have been committed on a property and process has to issue from the courts so I don't have a problem with that number two my interpretation of this ordinance is it applies to all property and i would respectfully suggest that if my next door neighbor or your next door neighbor is alleged to have committed six crimes in a one-year period then that's a problem property whether it's an eight family house or a two-family house or a single family house so um again i'm going to support this order as it's written i think it is appropriate and i think that we should pass it i reiterate i do not think we should lower the triggering events but i think that this is a well-founded order and we should move it forward we're going to thank you uh

▶ 48:07 Monica C. Medeiros: alderman medeiros thank you uh mr chairman i'm not a voting member of this committee but in anticipation of our next meeting i would definitely like to have the city solicitor weigh in on this i think it sounds overall like a good tool uh for us to have and i think i agree that the number six is a good number of uh events with the warning after three that it's you're really getting the problem properties but in particular i'd like to see if the city solicitor could weigh in on um certainly there are problem landlords and and there are also landlords that that have problems that sometimes get a little bit out of their own control so I'd like to see if the city solicitor could talk a little bit about what kinds of things may or may not be grounds for what a landlord could do if for instance they had somebody not necessarily the drug dealer that that Aldrin Mortimer has mentioned but it could be somebody doing drugs or in possession of of drugs this could be a domestic violence situation I mean there's a there's a lot of possibilities that that might come up with an end you know if you have you know for instance a person who's a victim of domestic violence I might be easy sometimes with the right set of circumstances to get to six instances in 12 months and and what you know right the rights this is a very tenant friendly state in Massachusetts so you know what a landlord can do if if they find themselves in this situation to be able to rectify it I feel a little bit more comfortable to know that obviously you know we want to stop the the bad problem properties but we don't want to punish somebody either you know tenant who might be a victim or you know or others in that kind of situation I think

▶ 50:06 John N. Tramontozzi: that's a good point we'll get the city solicitor way in so he can have an opinion on the ordinance for our next meeting how's that just any foot yes I

▶ 50:18 Michael P. Zwirko: just want to make one point I agree with Alderman Medeiros on the opinion from the city solicitor I did want to just note that there is a carve out for domestic violence in the ordinance as written so that will not be termed a valid complaint so I appreciate the authorship of that noting the domestic

▶ 50:34 John N. Tramontozzi: violence provision so thank you thank you Alderman Wright has thought about everything right uh any further discussion uh seeing none what is the will of the committee

▶ 50:45 John N. Tramontozzi: have a motion to recommend motion to recommend second motion to recommend by all alderman's work or seconded by alderman forbes it's already been set uh i was second yes sir well thank you

▶ 50:51 John N. Tramontozzi: we had so much discussion i completely forgot then very good on the motion then all in favor any opposed seeing none that will be recommended to the board at our next meeting and we'll have further discussion i'm sure uh at that time uh very good we have a motion adjourned by alderman