AMHERST — In a college town where loud and often large gatherings can be a regular occurrence, levying fines is an enforcement mechanism for restoring tranquility to a neighborhood, with arrests also possible for those violating Amherst’s noise and nuisance house bylaws.

As part of an effort to give police officers and code enforcement officials more flexibility in their responses, a nuisance property bylaw, to replace the existing nuisance house bylaw, is nearing adoption by the Town Council, with a second reading and possible vote at the council’s Oct. 7 meeting.

At the council’s Sept. 9’s meeting, with a favorable recommendation from the Community Resources Committee, At Large Councilor Mandi Jo Hanneke said the revised bylaw will fix an underlying problem, namely those who are holding loud parties week after week and willing to pay $300 fines over and over.

“What we’re trying to do is make the owners and the tenants talk to the town, and actually have that conversation, because right now there’s nothing in any of our bylaws that whoever gets that fine comes and talks to us,” Hanneke said.

Under the current nuisance house bylaw, much of the emphasis is to control gatherings and underage drinking.

The nuisance property bylaw, in contrast, addresses a broader array of activities, while keeping the existing fine structure in place. The revised bylaw also states that, upon a third violation of the bylaw within a one-year period, any property is designated a nuisance property.

But the nuisance property bylaw aims to focus on corrective actions rather than penalties for when there is “unreasonable interference with the quiet enjoyment of one’s residence,” ranging from loud parties, illegal dumping and public urination to obstructing public ways and storing junked vehicles.

The revised bylaw also does not differentiate between a rented or owner-occupied home, clarifies the owner and manager responsibility upon a third violation, clarifies notifications, and provides a correction process and opportunity for the removal of a nuisance designation.

Over the past 26 months, both the Community Resources and the Governance, Organization and Legislation committees have worked on the bylaw, which has been reviewed by town attorney KP Law, and input has been offered by Police Chief Gabriel Ting and Building Commissioner Rob Morra.

District 4 Councilor Pam Rooney, who chairs the Community Resources Committee, said the revised bylaw will work in conjunction with the recently adopted rental registration bylaw to improve health and safety of tenants and living conditions through mandated inspections.

“The goal of this nuisance property bylaw is not to penalize people, but in fact to correct the actions that disturb the quiet enjoyment of folks’ residences,” Rooney said.

District 3 Councilor George Ryan said he worries about applying the revised bylaw to all properties in town, and is unsure the public understands the potential impact, with the potential for fines adding up, due to each violation of the bylaw being tallied separately, and the town maintaining on its website a list of nuisance property complaints, including dates and addresses, violations and town responses.

“What is the problem this is meant to solve? Ryan said. “Is there suddenly an outbreak of nuisance properties throughout Amherst that we need this draconian bylaw to address, or is this reflective of a problem we face always, which is that any given fall or spring there are going to be a certain number of properties that are going to be a nuisance?”

Provisions where fines could accumulate for a problem like sidewalks left covered in snow and ice during the winter is also a concern.

“It seems to me what this is really aimed at its a certain subset of properties in town, but for whatever reason it now applies to everybody,” Ryan said.

District 4 Councilor Jennifer Taub said the intent is to address an increasing number of homes with multiple violations through corrective action. Taub said she can’t imagine a homeowner on vacation in the winter would be fined thousands of dollars for leaving an icy, snow-covered sidewalk.

“I don’t think there’s any question that nuisance properties are an issue in our town, and this is a way to deal with them in a constructive way,” Taub said.

Rooney said the bylaw makes that effort to be equitable between owner and rental. Removed from the bylaw was the possibility of stripping rental permits when the designation of a nuisance property is made.

In addition, the nuisance property bylaw doesn’t differentiate between rented and owner-occupied homes, giving the town leverage over Airbnbs, which are owner-occuiped properties with rented rooms.

Council President Lynn Grieemer said she appreciates that the bylaw applies to all properties, such as the possibility of an Airbnb where people stay to hold a big party each weekend. “I like the fact that this is linked to rental registration, I like the fact that it comes back to the owner,” Griesemer said.

The punitive aspects make District 3 Councilor Heather Hala Lord nervous, though, reflecting on how at Townehouse Apartments in North Amherst, where she lived while in high school in the 1980s, hundreds of college students could be seen partying in fall and spring. “Is there a way without adding more fines and penalties to try work with people to increase their responsibility, their collectivity, (to the) community?”

At Large Councilor Ellisha Walker also was concerned about enforcement.

“If the goal is changed behavior, I think sometimes it’s important to understand that punitive control is not the only way to incentivize changed behavior,” Walker said.

Many of the questions centered on whether the new bylaw will lead to more fines. District 1 Councilor Cathy Schoen asked for clarity about whether the $300 fines included were per offense and per person, and whether there is discretion on issuing fines.