Good evening. It being 6:36 p.m. on Thursday, March 26, I'd like to call this meeting of the finance committee to order. Tonight, we'll be following the published and posted agenda. will be uh live broadcast via Chancellor Tele media and YouTube and available for f recorded available for future viewing.
The first item on our agenda this evening is approval of minutes. We have minutes from March 12th, 2026. Everyone had an opportunity to review them. >> Yes. >> Yes. Do I have a motion? >> I make a motion to review the minutes of the chumps finance committee from March 12th, 2026.
>> I second to review or approve. >> To approve. and I second the approved. >> Any discussion? All those in favor? >> I. >> Seven in favor. >> Next this evening, we have a presentation discussion of the general and zoning bylaw amendments for warrant
articles 27 and 28 regarding outdoor lighting and outdoor illumination. With us this evening, we have Kelly Bey, who's a citizen petitioner, and Christopher Heravali, the chair of the planning board. >> Thank you very much. Um just to begin when I was here this time
last year about the earlier version of this we had an extended discussion and I want you to know that um in preparing this version I went back to that meeting I took notes I made changes and it's a much better uh bylaw presentation
because of your interaction with me. So thank you for that. Um just I want to give you a little bit of background about as I did last year about this about the existing bylaw that we have in town for outdoor lighting which has been in place since the year 2000.
And one of the uh important points of that is that it was it was a first cut. And uh one of the things it did is that it it uh it required that any light emitting more than 2,000 lumens. Lumens being the measurement of how much light
something puts out had to be fully shielded. Everything commercial, residential, everything. So we're taking actually uh uh you might ask why do we need to change that? And that is almost entirely because of LEDs. Let's see if
we can go to the next one please. Um uh LEDs have been becoming ubiquitous in our society and um they are a really a dramatic change in technology. The problem is that they can be very bright. They're very inexpensive to use
and they get used almost with abandon. Um, and so the other thing, the other reason for having a new needing a new one is that the first bylaw, as many are, was complaint driven. And what ended up happening is not very many
complaints were issued or or raised when bad lighting got put in. And so our town is now a wash with bad lighting. And so that's the primary reason uh for uh moving to a general bylaw over a
zoning bylaw which existing one zoning. I'm going for general. We are going for general so that we can uh primarily institute a uh get rid of the grandfathering that exists for all of that bad lighting that has been installed and give the owners of that
lighting 10 years to bring it into conformance. It's a pretty generous uh what we call a sunset clause. Let's see where we're at. If you can go to the next one, please. One of the big uh issues with LED lighting and and how bright they are is
the amount of glare that it produces. So, this is lighting. This is light that hits you in the eye uh directly and actually makes it much more difficult to see well at night. Um, it's especially a problem for older citizens and and uh
even for our public safety officers trying to see what's going on on a property if there's a light shining in their face. the um the American Medical Association has raised has had two health policies that they've uh in the last 10 years or so about outdoor
lighting and u and if you might think I'm here because of light pollution that's a very small part of it but I will say that uh such a study published in science in 2023 uh determined that the increase in light pollution nationwide is increasing at a
rate of 7 to 10% per year. That's a pretty unsustainable amount of light pollution and I hope that we can do something about it here. So, our proposed live bolon, if you will, the next uh panel uh really concentrates on uh both the glare that you see there and
the uplight, the amount of light that goes up in space, but also especially the glare because that glare is the key to quality lighting. This is not, this bylaw does not uh ask that no lighting be used, but that it be good lighting. And so if you go to the next one, this
is a case study I want to show you from Nantucket. This is a school with uh a private school with lights on the outside. And you can obviously see the glare that's created by those lights. And uh Nantucket has a very very strict outdoor lighting bylaw. And if you go to
the next one, all they did was point those lights down. did not change them but pointed them down and the quality of the lighting became much much better. Uh something else that's new uh since the initial bylaw the original one 2000 is
that we've become aware that blue light is a very bad thing to have at night and blue light is measured in a number of ways if next panel please. Um, but the most common way for consumer use for sure is something called color temperature. And essentially the lower
the number, the less blue light there is in that fixture. And science has shown that blue light at night is the worst for light pollution is the worst for glare is the worst for nocturnal environmental disruption for human circadian disruption. How how you how
well you sleep at night. Uh, blue light is the trigger for all of that. So, next panel, please. Uh this is the framework for the bylaw that we're proposing. Uh as I mentioned, it's a general bylaw rather than a zoning one. Um uh and what we did a
change from last year is that we've segregated out for ease of of uh and clarity uh the residential and commercial sides of this bylaw. And u and so if we can go to the next one, please. I'm sorry. Oh, yeah. Oh, I'm sorry.
Sorry. Back up for just one second. Right. Uh the bylaw has some compliance triggers. People are allowed businesses are allowed 10 years to come into compliance. But if something happens before then what I call a compliance trigger uh that would necessitate an
immediate conversion. One thing I want to mention is the second bullet there. The change of ownership on the commercial side I think is a good idea, but in discussions with uh Evan Bolansky and others and town council, we realized that it was very difficult to capture
all of those uh property changes and so we've removed that from the final wording of the bylaw. That's not that trigger of change of ownership is not there. Last uh next one, please. One of the things that this general bylaw uh includes is is uh some
strictctures for the for the town and for anyone who is uh installing lights in the town. And in particular, the section here on the public right of way really is for two entities. Our municipal street lights as opposed to
the lights that are on town properties. Those are not in the public right of way. and the National Grid lights that it installs for the benefit of whoever wants one on a on a pole. The the lights that are the National Grid lights that
are on the poles right now are horrible lights, but they are not LEDs. And I think that probably within the next two years, I've not actually spoken to anybody from National Grid, but I would not be surprised if within the next two years, National Grid comes in and replaces those all with LEDs. And when
they do, I would like to capture those and make them better lights. That is the whole point of the uh public uh lighting in the public right of way. It does also apply to our town street lights. And one of the problems with the re version from a year ago
>> is that uh it the public street lights that we have now are really high quality LEDs. I like them a lot. The one thing that I wish they were different would be to have a lower color temperature, to have a slightly warmer light, but they're not bad. So, in discussions with
Christine Clansancy about this, we realized we thought that the street lights that we have, which were installed more than a decade ago, would likely need to be replaced within this 10-year time period, and that would be, you know, a reasonable thing to do. However, when we looked at it, when she
looked at it more uh in more detail, it it came to light that replacing our street lights would cost about $2 million. And and although we may have been end up having to replace them anyway, having to do so because of this bylaw, was not a particularly good idea.
So, we we fine-tuned the public right ofway wording so that the color temperature, which is the only thing that our existing street lights don't conform to, is no longer there. And so this means that there will be no need to change the street lights but still have
some guard rails up for any other lights utility or otherwise that get installed. Uh next one please. Right. And so uh this is this is my last slide. This kind of shows you in in in short
form what's changed. We've separated out the requirements for commercial and residential to make it easier to understand what's what. the the the residential, I should mention, we removed the requirement for controlling uh lights brighter than 2,000 lumens.
It's now a a recommendation. And so that's actually something that's been uh eased uh for the part of the of the residents. There are but there are recommendations for how to have shielded lighting, how to have uh low color temperature
lighting that are not enforcable but are there as a sort of uh suggestion box for the residents. The the commercial terms are basically unchanged from last time. Um and then the last thing that's significantly different from last time
is we have uh we had a really uh had a a really complex enforcement framework uh which was a challenge uh would be a challenge to to follow. So working with the building inspector and working with
town council we came up with a uh a far less structured uh enforcement scheme. It's still there. Uh we still want to have enforcement if needed and uh but it's now at the more at the discretion of the building inspector as to what
happens whether uh uh discussion can change it or whether uh some sort of fine or other punitive measure is is needed. Um I'll mention that uh we the building inspector and I have had many multiple conversations about this. We
went out on a winter night and did some measurements with with the meter to sort of uh get a get a framework for him. He's very uh now well aware of this uh and really embraces the idea of of uh what lighting control can do to improve
the town. And I think that's about it for me. >> And then I just want to add that the um companion article to this one is that uh is the next one. And if this if 26 were to pass, um we would follow up with 27
to essentially uh delete the um the bylaw in the zoning article in the zoning bylaw and replace it with the reference to the general bylaw. >> Okay, any questions? >> I have a couple of questions, please. >> Yes. Mhm. So you mentioned on slide five
uh medical uh American medical association and you say and others. So two questions on that bullet please. Um who are the others and you cited studies are you able to present those studies? >> Sure. Well let me just take the last one
first. Uh the the article from science in 2023 was uh from lighting professionals uh around the country using uh groundbased measurements of light pollution to determine how much the light pollution is increasing. You're probably familiar with pictures
from of Earth taken at night from space. Turns out those are not good for determining how much light pollution occurs on the ground because that's really only measuring the light that's going straight up and out of the atmosphere. Uh, and so I can I can give you the specifics of that if you'd like.
It's it was from January of 2023 in science. >> It might it might be good to maybe footnote it on the slide perhaps. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. And and uh so you mentioned uh when you were just speaking a medical American medical association, you you said two studies there.
>> That's right. They put out two separate policies on outdoor lighting. The first one was generally uh calling attention to the uh uh the disruption of circadian rhythm that light at night can cause that. The studies show that uh
people who are in working in emergency rooms or graveyard shifts have substantially higher risk of developing cancers both men and women than others. And so that's that's one study. And the others besides the AMA is the illuminating engineering society which
is the standard setting organization for for all kinds of lighting throughout the United States. And they also have come out with policies. They have what they call five principles of responsible outdoor lighting that were developed in concert with Dark Sky International
which is the nonprofit organization that is sort of leading the fight against light pollution. >> Okay. Thank you. We do plan to have an FAQ uh handout for town meeting as well and I'll make sure that we put those references on that. >> Thank you. >> I I think that's a great idea. Right.
So, and here I think you're trying to make the point. We're trying to help you make the point clearly >> human health is harmed. Right. It's a very generic statement. So, if you can be s more succinct and say we want to help you sleep better, >> right? >> Because that's really what we're trying to do here. Right. >> Right. And then the second piece is I
think more of a subset of the town, but really that applies to the whole town and just, you know, having some footnotes there provides some credibility. >> Thank you. Well taken. >> Well, it doesn't deal with the car lights at all. Is that correct? >> Unfortunately, no. If it were my job, I
would definitely deal with the car lights, but it doesn't. Uh, that has been a really controversial issue. Uh, the National Highway Transportation Safety Council, I think that's what they are, um, is only now beginning to hear from all of us who find those,
>> oh my god, >> uh, obnoxious. You know, I have to say, as just an aside, it's a double-edged sword. Those lights are very bright and they produce a lot of blue light, right? And that's what hurts our eyes when we see them. But that blue light is what
our eyes are most sensitive to at night. So from the standpoint of a driver on a lonely country road, you know, using those lights, you can see farther, you can see more safely. But at it's a zero- sum game. Whoever is coming toward you
uh has less visibility because their eyes shut down. They can see very poorly, as you know, uh when they're coming at you. >> How do you know why? >> You wouldn't have asked that question if it weren't for that. But but it's definitely a an issue that has gotten a
lot of press. Uh this doesn't address that. Couldn't possibly address that. >> But they're probably the single biggest issue in terms of what's going on in terms of the damage or um
>> they certainly are a major certainly a major source of glare. Uh but it's also the case, you know, and those if you happen to live near a busy street, that's going to be a problem. Uh if you but on the other hand, the glare from
building mounted fixtures or street lights is going to be constant for you. Um uh and and also, you know, we have situations in town where there are residential uh residential districts right up against commercial districts and the
spillover from the ladder onto the former can be can be really disruptive. And so that's one of the things I'm I'm trying to capture, especially with this 10-year grace period. I should mention I have had discussions with the Chancellor Business Association. I knew somebody was going to ask that question. Although
they are not actively supporting this, uh they're not opposing it either and they've been ma I've uh I have kept them fully informed about this. >> So I do have a question about change of ownership. So >> that's off the table. But yes, >> it's off Okay, it's off the table. Okay,
that's good. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I I mean I you know I still think in my heart of hearts I still think that would be uh a good way. Remember all if if this passes uh all rights that are now not in conformance will need to be brought into conformance within 10
years. What the chain of change of ownership would do is that if somebody sold their property before then it would it would trigger an immediate conversion to compliance but I've removed that >> thing. Yeah. Okay. I understand. Okay.
Thank you. >> Thank you, Kelly. And you did answer one of my questions. Uh getting back to the subject of mitigation and enforcement, you had a slide and you showed us where a facility in Nucket where the situation
was uh corrected simply by turning the lights down, which seems to be a pretty uh non-impactful uh way to resolve the problem from the standpoint of the property owner. So in in your travels around town, can do you have any sense
of um when mitigation is required roughly what percentage of mitigation would be in that very simple category as opposed to a more drastic uh mitigation, >> right? So, uh, when you're installing a bright light, this applies to both
residential and commercial, a security light on the side of your building. Uh, you're generally trying to illuminate not just the side of the building, maybe the entryway if you put one over a door, but you might be trying to illuminate a parking lot, for example, with this
light on the side of the building, and you're necessarily shining the light out sideways. often those lights are on gimbals. And so that's what happened here. And they could simply turn those down. And there there's something that I think gets lost, but let me try to to
show you. When they turned those lights down, they did not decrease the amount of light coming out of the fixtures. They simply changed its distribution. So instead of being one blast coming in your direction, it now washes the wall.
and that entire wall becomes the source of illumination for the foreground. It's basically the same reason why you have lamp shades on your lamps at home to distribute the light in a more uh even way. So if you have a gimbal, you can
just turn it down. Many lights, especially on commercial buildings, don't have that option. They are what we call wall packs. They are slapped up onto the side of the building, permanently installed that way. and those lights shine off to the side. I
will tell you that if this bylaw passes, those will need to be replaced over a 10-year period. >> So, not not to I don't have any more questions. >> No, no, >> not to jump in, but >> would this now be in compliance because I don't think that that meets your new color correlated temperature.
>> This wouldn't this wouldn't. So, in addition, these would have to have a lower color temperature. You're correct. >> Okay. because that looks like it's around 6,000 based upon your next your next slide. >> I I I wouldn't uh this is actually uh the one with the staircase there. That's
a that's a just a um it's a madeup illustration. It's not the actual color temperature curves. You you'd need to go in and look at the curves. But but you're right, most especially early adopters of LEDs, all that was available was LEDs with very high color
temperatures, 5,000 Kelvin or something, you know, even higher. When we installed, as an aside, when we installed the street lights that we have now, uh this was under a contract with Johnson Controls. Um the the street lights that we almost had installed were
5700 Kelvin which have would have been uh very harsh, very blue, and we ended up with 4,000 which was what we could get at that time much better. And so um again to your point, there are some especially commercial fixtures in town.
The residential fixtures that you might buy at Home Depot, I I actually did a couple of checks on this. uh those are all like about 4,000 or lower for if I were going to buy one today. So the early adopters, the businesses and the
homeowners who put up uh LED spotlight uh security lights five or 10 years ago will probably need to replace them depending again if they they need to be over a certain brightness over 2,000 lumens. So, if you're we're talking
about somebody's porch light, they're going to be fine any any way and will not be subject to the compliance, >> but as a resident, they wouldn't be subject to that any way. Correct? >> That's right. >> Okay. I I have a couple of of questions. Um,
so my first question is, and I understand you uh chose a general bylaw rather than the zoning bylaw because it you don't have the existing non-conforming ability. You have this 10-year sunset clause. Was there any thought process on retroactive for
historic uses? Um because one of the with luminires you're talking about any any shielding above and a lot of uh colonial lighting does not have shielding above. So you'll have businesses and in in industries that will have to replace those. Um so is there is there was there no thought
about a carveout for anything that would have any historical uh significance? Um, so if we're talking about there's I can imagine two kinds of lights that would fall into that category. >> One would be um uh like um uh coach
light at the right. Those are rarely that bright. Um and so I'm I would be more concerned about lighting that's on what I would call facade lighting. um that washes the sides of the building, the the historic buildings that we have.
Um and those do tend to be quite bright. And I think that facade lighting is I'm not sure. I I'll have to check. I'm sorry. >> That's okay. Uh my next question is regarding um in the commercial section
the height restriction for 25 and 35. So it's saying that a no bigger than 25 but requires a a permit from the planning board for for 35 and 35 is the ultimate limit. So 25 is about two stories, 35 is about three stories. >> Um but there's no existing
non-conforming portion for this. So if you have a building that's three or four stories and it has lighting on it, are you saying that they're going to have to immediately remove that >> or remove it within the 10 years? So, for instance, the Alexen, uh, which is the property of UMass West campus, has a bunch of four-story buildings. Are they
going to have to redo all of their lighting because there's no carve out for existing non-conforming? >> No, they're not. They're multif family. >> Multif family are considered residential. >> Oh, that one. Yeah. Okay. Unless I'm
reading this incorrectly. Yeah. >> So, my concern is we have a whole bunch of apartment buildings or buildings over two stories that are all a sudden going to be non-conforming and are going to be subject to this bylaw and have to remove anything below 25 ft or go get a
retroactive permit from the planning board for anything above up to 35 ft and then nothing above 35 ft. I don't have a good answer for you at this time. I'm sorry. >> That's all right. Uh in in the residential portion, um thank you for taking the residential out of it. I know
there's a big issue with our with the last goaround. Um what I would say is that in all three 4.31, 4.32, and 4.33, it says for after 2,000 lumens shall be
fully shielded. But this is a a preference, not a requirement. Shall has meaning legally and it it means it's mandatory duty or obligation require it's required, not permissive. I would recommend just removing the word shall. If we're going to make this a um
a thing that the town prefers but does not require. Additionally, at the end of 4.33, it says may be used for 4K. simply removing may be used in putting is recommended would take care of that uh that conflict of the language.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Um for light trespass um under glare 5.2. >> Yes. >> It says causes intense discomfort to occupants of adjacent properties. >> How is that going to be quantified? Because it's very subjective.
>> It's quantified under 5.1.1. So 5.1.1 it doesn't so you're saying that that >> intense discomfort >> just say as background >> sure >> glare is a problem that's very difficult to measure quantitatively all the lighting people that I've talked to
about this that they they know it's a problem but they it's a very subjective it's in the eye of the beholder literally >> and in fact in the original bylaw uh the original bylaw has a a a nod in this
direction, you shall not have light, you know, uh uh on a neighboring property sufficient to to cause disclaime or or um >> I have to look it up to see the exact wording, but it was really vague. And so
what this does under 5.1.1 try to establish some kind of limit uh so that when there is uh clearly overlighting of a neighbor's property we have some way
to quantify it to as a starting point for whether action needs to be taken. So rather than having that such objective language as causes intense discomfort to occupants on adjacent properties, wouldn't it be better just to reference 5.1.1 definition?
>> I guess I would say no because we are that what you see there as these definitions are are in sync with what the lighting industry is using for the definition of glare. They don't have numbers associated with it like 5.1.1.
Well, I I understand that, but you're you're looking to now enforce something upon people and and by using something so subjective as causing intense discomfort to occupants. Well, my intense discomfort may be something very different from somebody else. And that that's my concern is that because it's
so subjective, you're now enforcing something upon someone based upon subjective analysis. I take your point, but the lighting professionals who are making these definitions would if we change this because that's what I'm
following the established definitions that the lighting community uses for these. And so the fact that glare can't be defined precisely is is not that's above my pay grade. And so what
we're doing here in instead of saying as our existing bylaw says, you can't shine a light so much that you're, you know, causing a shadow or causing discomfort, we're trying to quantify it in a way that at least uh establishes a a
threshold that most people would consider excessive. The onetenth candle is the brightness of 10 full moons roughly. And so if if you have a situation where and and I know of people who are in this situation, they have
light trespass coming onto their property that's so intense they have to install blackout shades on their windows in order to get to sleep at night. I would say that's excessive and and potentially harmful.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that the I I it's the glare portion. So, so it's it's I guess I I guess we're going have to agree disagree on that. >> I I mean, if you're saying that under the definition of glare, it should say C5.1.
>> I I'm saying it's what what's there is very subjective. >> That's and and as I thought I explained, glare itself is very subjective. But you're using but so so so my concern is you're using something extraordinarily subjective to enforce something against
a neighbor against a neighbor. That's that's where my concern lies. >> Makes sense. >> That that's that's my concern and I think it's a valid concern. >> So um I guess my my analogy would be the noise
bylaw that the town has. The noise bylaw is very very vague. There's no spec specificity to it and yet it exists. And so in that you could say the the by I don't have it chapter and verse. I don't have that next
>> but but it says you know you can't be uh you can't generate noise uh that's disruptive to your neighborhood. And then you say well how do you measure that? And what it says is it can't it noise is too loud if it can be heard from 300 feet away.
And that's a number doesn't do much for the neighbor who's right next to the party that's going on because it's obviously going to be noisy there. So yes, it's that there is some se subjectivity here and and I don't I'm
not here to defend the lighting industry, but the lighting industry itself has not has yet to come up with a a really good measurable definition for glare. What we've done here is to try to
find a a measurable level that according to other statutes that I've seen elsewhere is used as a kind of standard. What this said last year, just just to make a a mention here, it said last year was onetenth of a foot candle at the
property line >> and you've adjusted to 15. And so there is a movement to say, well, let's let's actually move that to where it's going to be impactful. And so it's either 15 ft inside or at the building at those
windows. Uh whichever is closer. >> Yeah. And I'm not Okay. And I'm not taking issue with the 5.1.1. So I I think we're we're not going to reach reach an understanding here on that particular section. I mean, would would would it be useful
to you if we ended the definition of glare after the first sentence? >> Well, it's it's one it's one sentence. Do you mean after the first clause? >> No. Glare. The intense harsh light emitted by luminire that reduces visibility and creates visual
discomfort. for the excuse me for the for the name for the definitions above >> I'm sorry >> I was I was looking at glare as it's discussed in 5.2 too. I was looking at the definition. >> Okay. >> So, your initial concern was that the
that under the definitions it was pretty vague and it's vague for the reasons I mentioned. Maybe it would be less specifically vague if we got rid of the two uh subdefinitions for discomfort glare and disability glare. But I I'm
just here to tell you that's what the industry uses. I'm gonna I'm gonna leave it there. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> I I I I guess I appreciate your argument, but I'm not sure where I can go with it differently to make it better if I if I change the definition of
glare, then I'm running a foul of what is established. >> Well, I'm not asking you to change definition of glare. I was I was pointing out the the sub the extreme subjectivity of causes intense discomfort to occupants adjacent properties under 5.2. too. >> Oh, I see. Oh, all right.
>> Yeah, that's what where the subjectivity is. >> Just makes it harder to enforce. >> It It does actually. Yeah. >> Well, I may I disagree. It doesn't make it harder to to enforce if we have a standard for for making that
enforcement, which is in 5.1 uh 1.1. Uh otherwise you you lapse back to what we have now under the lighting bylaw which is there is there is a you know there is a u
a definition there of of what I'll find it for you. I'm sorry I Dear, >> would it be more helpful in that 5.2 if instead of saying
is declared to be a lighting nuisance when it exceeds the standards in five.1.1? >> I think that's what I said 15 minutes ago. >> I just wanted to clarify. >> Yeah, >> I'm sorry. I I I must have picked that up from the wrong end because I thought
you were talking about the definition in the definition section. Oh, okay. >> I apologize. >> That's okay. >> Yeah, >> that's why I said we we weren't we weren't understanding the same thing, I think. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Okay, >> perfect. Um just just a couple more
questions. >> So, we'll make that change. Um, so you mentioned that the uh lighting public way is going to is going to apply to the town and to the into the the lamps are going to need to be replaced over the next 10 years or so. And so
there's a the only issue that you have and there's been an adjustment I think to the wording that's currently in the warrant where it's only going to be related to the color temperature and nothing else for those particular lamps for the town's purposes. >> No, it's kind of the other way around. We took out the color temperature requirement. >> Okay. so that the town's existing street
lights would conform. >> Oh, okay. All right. Good. >> And so it's it's a double-edged sword because uh if if National Grid comes in and wants to replace all of its uh polemounted lights with LEDs, they will
not be bound by a color temperature requirement. But it's >> got it. Um and then for prohibitions you have um the the the clause except for Holly lighting or asart by public safety personnel. Would you consider public
safety personnel to include public works? >> Yes, I certainly would. >> That's a good point. >> It's it's identified differently in other other portions. I just that's why I asked. Yeah.
>> I I don't know. >> Okay. did. >> Evan, do you have >> I think the wording that we have there came from town council, so probably make a quick adjustment. >> Okay. >> Include it. >> To include that. That'd be perfect. Yeah. >> Um
and then just down to enforcement. My last couple questions. Um so you mentioned that you've had discussions with um the with the building inspector and uh you've gone out uh enforcement. We had this discussion I think last time around. Um, you don't believe
enforcement is going to be necessary during off hours? >> Not initially. I mean, you know, let me back up to the the noise pollution again. >> Sometimes enforcement requires you to be out whenever that incursion occurs. Uh
and what my take from my discussions with the building inspector is that he would understand the need to go out to use I've given him a meter actually uh to make the measurements that are necessarily to determine whether there's
compliance with 5.1.1 uh but he's currently not allowed to uh acrew over as I understand it maybe I misunderstood him but he says he's he gets comp time but not paid for overtime. Although he works plenty of
emergencies where he's out on in when he's shouldn't be. So I think that's an issue for a for a different venue than this. He he understands the
lighting issues. He is prepared to much better prepared now to address them if needed. uh if he needs if you go out during the daytime um and again I'm not completely attuned to the legalities of this. If there is a
if a neighbor complains about another neighbor's light, what is he allowed to do? He can go on to the uh offending neighbor's property with permission as I understand it. But in the meantime, he can do that in daytime, determine the
lumens uh on that lighting fixture and what direction it's pointed and make a qualitative estimate of whether or not it's a problem light or not. And you might recommend since we're talking here mostly about residential, I think the tenor here is mostly residential. Most
residential security lights are gimbled and so they could be pointed down. And I think a simple solution might be to recommend to the homeowner with those lights to point them down instead of out. >> Okay. >> And I think my take on this is that that
would probably end the the uh the disagreement because again it's really less about the intensity of the bulbs, but it's about their directionality. And if that bulb is pointed directly at your
property because you're trying to cover a whole acre with it or something like that, then it's going to create a lot of glare. >> Okay. Uh I think this might be my last question. Um for uh section 9.3 on
submission of plans uh regarding the bylaw and and proposed work that's going to be done for additional uh lighting. Uh 9.3.2 Two, it's talking about descriptions of aluminires, fixtures, lamps, supports, reflectors, both existing and proposed. So, are you
requiring an existing plan with lights that are going to be removed or are you are you are you pointing out existing lights that are going to remain on the property because it's that couples with the with part B of my question. So in
so typically what we do um in the planning board which this would probably follow is we have an asis and then what the proposed is so it would probably follow the same. >> So so that that leads to my part B. Um,
it's looking for uh description including but not limited to specific data, illustrations, manufacturers, things like that, lumens, things of that nature, which may not be available for existing fixtures that have been on there 15, 20 years. And so, I'm wondering how that's going to work.
>> Typically, we don't always need that. Um we usually look at the uh current we look at the current scenario mainly in terms of where it is what the um the
blast radius is for the the lighting um what the coverage is and then what the new one would be and it would be the new one that has the um the details of the fixtures. >> So you're not looking for the details of fixtures on typically we don't. >> Okay. I would I would hope not. I was just it was I wasn't that's not the way
I was reading it from that 9. >> Typically we don't have that on any of the plans for planning board. >> Okay. And so photoometric site drawings would not include that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> All right. >> Thank you for your time.
>> Thank you. Moving along, we have a presentation discussion of zoning bylaw amendments warrant article 29. Uh I'm not going to read all I read them as we go through. 29. Reszone certain parcels on the official zoning map.
Okay. So, uh, this is a followup to the work that we have been doing to reszone, um, parts of town. Uh, this area specifically is the Middle Sex, uh, Mills area, uh, that we are looking to,
uh, reszone that area. Um, you can go to the next slide. So in 2022, uh we worked with NIMCOG to identify a number of uh zoning areas in town that are conflicts. Um part of the discussion
that we had at the time was different ways to mitigate. Um, and what we found in Kate's Corner as a model and, uh, this area that we're talking about today was a, uh, another test case that we did
um, briefly uh, at the time. And then we after the, uh, zone was approved at town meeting, we went back to this area uh, to reconfirm all of our initial assumptions were true. You can go to the next one.
So, we did create that CB light um zone at the uh last town meeting. Uh we are using it as a transition zone between IIA and other zones like residential. Um we're using it as a replacement in some areas for IIA. Uh we did apply it to
Kate's Corner. Um and as I mentioned, we use this uh landing at Chford Mills as a stress test. Um and now we're going back to that area to make sure it's it's uh still applying. So these are the summary of the CBLT.
I'm not going to go through all of it. Um hopefully you remember all of the changes that we did. Um but that is the summary. I just wanted to highlight the uh the ultralight manufacturing definition and then the updated light manufacturing
definition. The uh dark uh text is really the focus of the changes that we did. Uh so we really were focusing ultra light on the highv value production the precision fabrication intricate assembly uh small scale um and you can see some
of the examples there highlighting that light manufacturing this is a little bit more um less intricate a little bit less fine-tuning a little bit larger scale. So, these are the parcels, the current
zoning um in these parcels. And at town meeting, I will have another handout uh that gives the zoning abbreviations. Um I forgot to send that to to the chair ahead of time. Um so I will review them
um here. So CD is the general commercial district. RM is the residential multifamily. RC is the medium density uh residential. Uh CD general commercial and IIA is
industrial. CB is uh on the right side and that's roadside commercial district. So these are the uh zones that are currently in place. Uh and then if the next slide is the are the changes that
we're proposing. So up at the top um underneath the word parcels I'll start there and kind of go clockwise around. So top left that we're proposing to remain CD which is general commercial.
Uh the RC uh that's in there now is uh CD. So we're going to propose to change those to residential which is what is in place on the ground. Then we go to RC which is medium density residential. Uh
that is currently IIA and then we get to the um the waterway area and that we're proposing to go CBLT. Those are the train track areas. So that whole industrial area in there
we're proposing to change to CBLT. Continuing clockwise, um we have more CBLT. Uh and then more towards the middle of the slide, there's industrial uh properties that are actually residential. Uh so we're going to change
those back over to residential. Uh, and then there's a little sliver between the RC and the CB that um is uh going to switch over to roadside commercial. Then um the mill property in the uh left
center of the slide that is currently industrial and we're looking to change those properties to CBLT. If you notice in the little bit top left of the CBLT area in the mills, there's
an RM stuck in the middle. That's a multif family um that is currently in industrial. So, we want to keep that um multif family. So, those are the changes we're proposing. Um this is a summary of of
the parcels that are changing, uh what they currently are and what they're changing to. We had uh multiple um meetings on this uh both informal discussions and uh formal uh public hearings. We had a
couple um property owners come out ask clarifying questions um but uh one of the property owners was actually excited about the change uh and uh no people coming out in opposition.
The CBLT allows for restaurants and things like that. Correct. >> Yep. So, the mills that are on the >> owner side >> is exactly what'll be allowed. Well, not exactly. Uh it's going to be a little bit different because it's a different uh flavor zone. Um but the restaurants,
the shops, all of that will now be allowed in that mill area. And you presented this at the Chsford um North Chsford. >> Oh yes. Um thank you. I did present this at the North Chsford uh uh
>> final square action planning. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Um and they're they're in support of this as well. I presented to them multiple times. Just curious on the thought process on, you know, when you look at the area, is
it that you're trying to create a more dense village area, um, or is you you're just simply trying to reflect what's there today. >> So, we're trying to do two things with this, well, three things actually in this area. Um, some of it is trying to
reflect what's there now, uh, specifically with the residential. um never a good idea to put residential in an industrial area. So we want to reszone that um residential. Uh the other thing is for especially the
mills to more accurately reflect what's there now um as opposed to what used to be there um historically and also to allow them more growth and opportunities for uh new businesses to come in. um they actually came to us and said we
really want to be part of this zone. Uh so they have some opportunities that they want to bring in different types of businesses than they're allowed to do right now in industrial. Uh so they they really wanted that change. Then for the
railroad areas, we technically could leave them IIA. Um but if those ever change over um the potential impact of IIA in that area to not just the residences but the waterways uh could be
significant. So we wanted to minimize the uh negative impacts in that area as well. >> Chris, quick question. On the bottom um left corner where it says remain CD and then there's a little yellow box. It looks like it's residential. In the
previous slide, it's marked RC, but but here it's not marked at all. >> It stays RC. >> It stays RC. Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. For the most I think for the most part, the light yellow, >> if it's RC, it remains RC. >> Yeah. >> But that's that's a good point. It's not
marked. So, >> it's not marked. >> Yeah. Um, yeah, I think it makes makes sense with the with the um mills across the street being able to do the same thing that the mills across the street can do. >> Um, I know that the uh I'm sure that the
school in the dance in the uh dance academy would be happy to have have the options of like a cafe or something in that building. >> It' be great buildings to have that kind of stuff in there, too. Well, you think about um in LOL a lot of the LOL mill buildings that have that type of stuff
in there. You can't currently do that in that bu in those buildings there. >> What were you saying the >> No, I was just saying that's a great place to have like a cafe in those buildings. Like >> the other thing that is in some of the LOL buildings that is not permitted in IIA are the artist Yep.
>> shops. Um so that's another thing that could go in there. Now, >> any other questions? All right, moving along to the next article regarding uh community enhancement investment overlay district for the CEO.
>> Okay. Um so for this one uh if you go to the next slide. So for this one there are number of different changes that we um went through on this one to uh update to
clarify to uh do a whole number of things. Uh so for applicability we want we're looking to add the the text underlined here um to not only take into account the gross square footage but also the square footage of the building
footprint. Um if you go to the next slide, this is the reason why. Um so for if you only look at the uh gross square footage, the top scenario is permitted.
Uh so you have a footprint, you have two floors. Um if the uh developer wanted to come in and do what's on the right, um that is permitted. if you do not take into account the
building footprint. And yeah, um the other the bottom one is also permitted. Um so you might have a shorter building or taller building, but the current bylaw doesn't take into
account um either of those conditions and with that expanded footprint. Next slide. The proposed bylaw actually takes into account the footprint. Um so for the change from two floors to one floor, you
can actually um keep it as high as the two floors. Um but you are limited on the footprint. So you wouldn't be able to put a larger footprint on the property, >> which we believe, you know, really was the intent of this,
but we wanted to make close this little loop. >> All right, next slide. Use regulations. Um, so this came up in in a couple uh potential projects that came before us
where the overlay allowed uh residential projects in addition to other projects um in the underlying zoning. Uh and what we wanted to do here is to make sure
that if there are two uh uses combined into a single project uh that it comes before the board uh for a special permit. The reason why is because we don't want it to be a buyight scenario where we might have a residential area
and uh or residential part of the project with some uses right above it or next to it that might be detrimental to the residences. Um, one potential example that we uh started to look at, but the project was was uh withdrawn was
the beehive on 129 where you had uh residents on on top and then uh contractor indoor contractor yard on the bottom. Some contractors would probably be fine, but if you had others with uh hazardous
material or uh big equipment, that might pose some challenges to uh residences in that same building. So, we wanted to be able to look at these projects um and determine based on the uses and the proposed uh mitigations
uh what the uh potential solutions might be. performance standards. Um, so this change allows the board to uh potentially uh request um technical
information that might be needed. Um mainly around noise. Uh if there is a proposed use like a car wash uh near residential, um maybe the board might need some more uh detailed information
and a noise study about how loud the vacuums are um right abudding the neighbor area. So this allows us to request that technical evidence if needed depending on the project. Um same thing on this one. Uh it's a
little bit more detailed on the special permits uh for uh some of the uses for this one. Um we are proposing adding the word or structure um because we we realize that someone may put up a
building or another type of structure and it wasn't technically a building. So, we wanted to make sure that all our bases are covered on this. For this one, um this is related to
really looking at the uh submission material that the applicant is submitting to the planning board. um what we've been historically uh provided doesn't necessarily uh show how
they're intending to meet the performance standards. We often talk about it in the meeting. We often get to it eventually, but this uh really requires them upfront to really lay out how they're uh intending to meet the performance standards. It'll help save
some time during the uh hearings and really be able to have uh specific discussions on some of the points on the uh next change we're proposing is to add uh another um trigger in here for
substantial changes to storm water system or site elevation. We realize that uh they might be able to uh change site elevation and changes to the storm water uh without coming before
us. So we wanted to make it clear that those substantial changes needed to come before us require a public hearing. >> How do you how do you measure substantial changes? >> That's a good question. Um often it is
the uh Evan Blansky's judgment. um on what is major, what is a minor change, what's substantial, what's not. Um and he'll often uh consult with the chair of the of the board to see if it's something the board wants to really look at.
>> It is a judgment call. Um and it's a pretty uh common one for uh plan changes, >> but you're making the judgment call. So, I don't I don't understand how you can do that.
>> Usually, Evan um airs on the side of caution and has the the applicant come before us if he's aware of it and if it's a change that he feels the board is likely to have questions on, >> but the change has no measurement to it. >> Correct.
>> It's so it triggers review but not in not necessarily enforcement. Correct. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, just review. >> Oh, yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It's just whether or not they come before us >> and you could say we don't agree with it. >> Yeah. >> And they could still go forward with it.
>> Well, no. >> No. If if the parents not issued, then they have to they have to appeal it. >> But there's appeal there's an appeal set appeal process already already codified to do that. >> It's still back to no measurement in my
mind. I don't get where the measurement is. I get your point. Thank you. Yeah. >> And it Yeah, it is it is a common it's a common thing in the bylaws for for zoning as you notice uh
>> why the land court exists. >> All right. Yeah. If you notice uh number five which is now six and six which is seven also has that same substantial >> that was already there like
>> okay pretty common >> case law. >> All right any questions on the on the previous changes uh for the CIOD? >> No. >> Okay. >> All right. Next article is a review of
a warrant to revise the definition of boarding house. >> You can go to the next one. So after the last town meeting where we redefined uh the zoning definition of family, um it uh was raised to us that the current zoning definition of
boarding house has some inconsistencies with that uh the wording. Um so what we did is we rewarded it for additional clarity. Uh we included the state licensing reference which wasn't in the the prior version
and uh we provided uh distinct descriptions to uh separate it from uh the definition of family and family units. So this is our current definition uh for reference
and we are um looking to replace the entire uh definition in two pieces. So the first section is referencing the facility licensed under the state uh general laws. Um and then
we wanted to clarify it a little bit further for our uh purposes in town. Um, and that is the section that distinguishes it from uh the the family definition, the family units. >> So, I'm just going to see if this
simplify it in my head. Um, family is four guys who went to high school together and they really get along and they're want a room together and they sign a single lease, that's cool. But if it's the landlord contracting with each one of that each
one of them individually, that's a boarding house >> typically. Yes. Okay. >> Yep. >> They have separate agreements, separate fees, um very separate um agreements. Any other questions?
All right. Our next one is an warrant article regarding adding the new definition for bed and breakfast and adding to the use table as well. Okay. Um, so as the discussion went on at the last town meeting, um, people
were looking up definitions of different things and, um, someone pointed out that there was no definition of a bed and breakfast in our in our zoning bylaws. Um, and so we said might be a good idea to define it. um potentially see if it
could fit in um our town in different zones. Um so the planning board did take a look at that and we um looked at it in relation to the hotels, motel and boarding houses. Uh and then also looked
at the business model of a of a bed and breakfast. We looked at other towns. Uh we looked at um sample uh definitions around the state and came up with a uh proposed
definition. Next slide. It's a private dwelling uh that provides transient overnight accommodations in not more than three guest rooms. Um as defined in again it's a state defined uh use that is owner occupied and used for
the as the owner's primary residence. Only breakfast may be served and it may provide exclusively to registered overnight guests. Guest rooms shall not contain individual cooking facilities. And uh we wanted to separate it
distinctly from all of the other similar uses that we have defined. >> So what is an Airbnb would fit in one of these things or Verbbo? So those are not bed and breakfast. And I we had this discussion at the
planning board and I it was a while ago. >> So area B is like you're renting you're just renting your house. Like >> yeah it's a separate it's a separate type of agreement >> like so for >> in short lease. >> Yeah. There short-term leases. Like for example like if you have a vacation like
there's a like beach beach areas, right? People own those houses. There are people that live there year round. There are people that there's the second home and there are pe and then there are businesses that own those houses that rent them seasonally weekly to to renters, right? So those are
short-term lease and I think the Airbnbs are defined as shortterm, but I don't know what >> because Airbnbs verbos usually you get the whole dang house. Airbnbs you can rent a room. So that that's why I'm asking because that could kind of fall. >> Yeah. And Evan reminded me in our
bylaws, we do not allow those short-term in any residential area. >> So, uh, so short-term room rentals or short-term house rentals? >> House. >> House. >> Okay. Well, I've seen some, so that's
interesting. >> Okay. And sorry, I might be missing something, but um as I as I look things, I try to think about things as simply as we can. And so we're adding a bit more complexity here. Again, what is the the thing that we're solving for? >> So the opportunity to provide additional
revenue um to uh residences, additional options for uh development and uses in town um to stimulate the area. >> Got it. So the idea is that it's not permitted today. So people can't create a bed and breakfast today. Correct. So we're just creating opportunity for
people. >> If if a use is not specifically mentioned in our table, it's not permitted. >> Gotcha. Okay. So someone could theoretically now this change have a bed and breakfast in town that they could not legally have prior. >> Gotcha. >> And a bed breakfast has to be registered with who?
>> The state. >> The state. But no, no Airbnb and no no Verbbo pursuant to our bylaws. >> Correct. >> I agree. Interesting. >> Interesting. Yeah. Interesting because I've seen some. >> Yeah. Same.
>> Um, next slide is the use table. >> Go back. >> Oh, sorry. Yeah. Um we are proposing that it be allowed um in the commercial area in the commercial zones uh by special permit.
>> Okay. >> Okay. >> Any questions? Any additional questions? >> All right. Next article is a review of the uh use table for commercial parking, garage and
structures. As we are going through the CBLT um zoning, we realized that the um current use the parking garage ststructure um is uh and the accessory parking garages
which are industrial line 17A um are not quite aligned with our uh accessory parking lots that we uh put in. So what we did is we looked at aligning those uh to planning board
approval. Uh go to the next slide. The parking garage structure are currently ZBA special permit approvals. Um but we had the parking lots as the planning board. So we're proposing to change these over to the planning board special
permit to keep it in line. So all parking structures, lots go to the planning board. >> So it would be um still review but slightly less restrictive because for a ZBA you'd have to have a a a reason to
be granted >> you likely have to have the same type of reason for the planning board. Um it's a little bit less um >> it's still a little less restrictive under a special permit than a Z than a ZBA. Sorry. Going back two slides. Um the bed
and breakfast um >> the where it's allowed. >> Yes. >> So what's the prevalence of a house with three bedrooms in a commercial area versus a residential area? Because I'm trying to like the intent is to allow
people to start up a bed and breakfast. But if there are no single family homes with four bedrooms in a commercial area, then doesn't that >> we do have quite a few? >> Okay. And you could al build one too. It allows you to build one.
>> Okay. Yeah. I mean that it just seems contradictory. That's all I'm trying to think about. How do you create cohesion in between the purpose and intent of the bylaw versus, you know, where it's where it's allowed here. >> Yeah. And and if we see that it there is a demand for the residential areas, we
could also take a look at uh down the down the road allowing it in the residential areas. Think about even in the center of town. We have a couple of like multif family old Victorians that are multif family. Someone may buy that in the center of town and make it into a turn into a bread of breakfast. >> Well, you only could rent out three rooms, right?
>> True. But but my point is like there are structures that we don't think about >> like in areas that got >> someone could or someone >> could take even on um >> they could also be unoccupied. So you could have the three guest rooms plus an owner occupied section in a kitchen
>> in a dining area rather than you know four apartment type things or something like that. >> Okay. >> So there the opportunity is there. It's just >> you're right it doesn't you look at go okay how many people going to do this? I don't know but now it's allowed. >> Yeah. This starts the conversation.
>> Yep. >> Okay. Thank you. Do >> you have a lot of Parker Rogers in town? I can't think of one. >> Don't think of >> research.
>> Oh, 10 research. Yeah. Yeah. 12. Sometimes we pick out things like what? We don't have one. Yes, you do. >> Was that that parking garage was done as part of the development though, right?
Right. They did. Right. Yeah. Any other questions on park garage structure? All right. The final warrant article I believe that you're reviewing. >> Yes. >> Uh zoning dimensional table changes minimum depth from zero to not applicable.
>> Actually I think the summary needs to be changed. Nope, it's a zero. Okay, so um if you go to the next slide, uh right now in a number of our uh I'm not going to go through every one of these
tables because it's all pretty much the same. Um but I'll use this as the example. If you look at the dimensional requirements right now, we have a number of dimensional requirements that are zero feet. doesn't really make a whole
lot of sense to have zero feet. Um, so the depth is uh we're proposing to change it to non not applicable. Um, in some areas the depth was not applicable. In some areas it was zero. So we're uh
proposing to put it all as not applicable. >> More of a housekeeping >> article. There you go. A whole whole lot of >> bagging >> whole lot of slides to show we've changed from zero to non-affordable. >> How long do you think we'll discuss this
at town meeting? How many questions? >> Oh, there's going to be a lot. >> There's going to be a lot. >> I'm going we've just gone through all the general zoning bylaw amendments and it would took about an hour and 10 minutes. So, multiply that by three. >> You have 165 zone land use and zoning
experts at town meeting. Just remember that. And only a handful of them are actually on the planning board. >> Oh, yeah. >> You will. Yeah. Yeah. >> All right. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Sounds good. >> Uh, want to take a brief brief recess before public comment?
>> Well, if that's the case, >> Sure. A brief recess right before public comment. Oh, I'm sorry. I I I apologize. I thought Elena come back in. Scratch that. All right. Like to call this back to order at 7:53.
Next item on the agenda is public comment. And we usually we have uh two items of public comment. one before we start our review uh discussion and votes on recommendations for the for the budget and uh warrant articles and then we have another opportunity after. Um is there any public comment at this at this
point? Seeing none and none in the Zoom room, we'll move right along to a review discussion and vote on recommendations for the fiscal year 2027 budget and the springtime meeting warrant articles. And so, uh, as we typically do, uh,
we'll run through, we'll do a, uh, we'll have a have a motion, a second, a discussion on on our on our review of the article, and then a vote, and we'll go 1 through 36. >> And Cindy, are you >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah, sure. >> You ready to go?
>> Yeah. So, article one is the report of the town offices and committees, right? >> And so, there'll be no action on that. It's simply a report. Yes. >> Okay. All right. And what we have two consent agendas. Um >> consent agenda two. What's the vote on that? Because the first one says consent two/irds vote. What is the second one?
>> Majority. >> That's going to be majority vote. Yeah. So the reason why the the second consent agenda is as it is is because those require twothirds vote. So they couldn't be lumped in together with the or you don't want to lump them in together with a majority vote. >> Yeah. Okay. That just I would love it to say majority vote for the which one's
it? It's it's assumed if it doesn't not my presentation, but we certainly certainly >> I'm just saying you know >> clarity clarity one last time. >> Sure. >> Yeah. >> Sure. All right. >> Tech writer, can I tell >> and Jim, we're we're um walking through each article in the consent agenda.
>> Yes, we are. >> We're not going to we're not vote independent. Yes, we're going to vote on because there may be votes where we don't it may be consent agenda but we have a different vote. We could have extensions. We could have things like that. So typically what I will do when that comes up at town meeting at the consent agenda and asked for after
reviewing those articles I'll say how we vote on each separate se separate article. >> Yeah. >> And if there's a difference on one of them some certainly someone will ask us. >> Okay. >> So the first article uh for review would be article two. Before we give a vote on this however uh we do have our Darlene
Lucier, our town accountant in the audience. Um and she uh uh is going to just update us on the now that we have the numbers uh that they've come uh for this particular article. >> A little more information about where these numbers come from and why we're requesting them.
>> Um on the um admin uh municipal administration, we need to do a budget adjustment for the town manager's budget u because he'll be leaving in u May 25th. So, we need to pay out. He does have a payout of of his PTO. So, we're
going to be um there's $45,000 that needs to be paid out there. Um and then we're going to be probably bringing in an interim and then we'll just I'm going to add a small amount of $5,000 for um a stipen for the interim person. That's going to be the town manager for the interim until they hire a new town
manager. So, that's where that 50,890 comes from. Um that's going to be in the salary line. So we just can't you have to salaries are salaries and expenditure expenditures you can't cross lines. So they have to be um put into those categories. Our legal costs extremely
high this year. Um probably one of the highest I've seen probably in 10 years. So at the end of March we're already in a deficit of $89,000. Um we just received March's bill today. Uh but March, April, May, June. Um, we
have four months of bills and we're I the estimated runs around $36,000 a month is our as our legal bills. Uh, so that's about $144,000. We're already in a deficit of 89. So that's why you're asking for the um the $230,000
we need to get in that account to to make us whole. >> Given our size, at what point do we look at at a legal department? >> Hopefully not. This is extraordinary sense. It's the highest in 20 years. land use. >> So we're thinking this is not going to be this is an aberration. This is not
going to be a trend. Okay. Okay. >> Okay. >> Well, I'm going to knock on wood and cross my fingers and toes. >> Uh we are um on public safety line items. Um the fire department uh they
just had a retirement resign of their their mechanic. Um so they've been using the DPW mechanic to do any um small repairs on their vehicles. The big repairs the trucks have to go out. They're actually outsourcing um a vendor
to fix them. But so he does he is needs to increase his overtime uh for that line item. uh his utility cost, you're going to kind of see this. This is kind of um repeats in other departments. The electricity costs has skyrocketed and
when we budgeted this a year and a half ago, um you know, we didn't expect what we we're seeing for the for the increase in electricity costs. So, he's asking for an increase in his electricity and his natural gas.
uh vehicle maintenance again. Um he's outsourcing some of those the larger trucks have to go out if the ladder truck or anything like that has to be um repaired. He did just have a truck that went down that needed to go out. Uh so he needs um a $50,000 increase there. He does have some equipment repair. Um and
you'll see there it's basically um a $30,000 there. The safety satellite communication system um is on one of the roofs that's actually being uh replaced. So, it needs to be um taken off that roof and put back somewhere else. So,
there's a cost to do that, the vendor um to do that. That was kind of a unexpected cost when we when they were doing the budget. So, that's his um so he's going to be needing u some money there. So, again, there's $20,000 worth
of salaries and then the $92,000 worth he needs for expenditures, those line items. uh police, as you know, our police chief is res is retiring as of June 30th. They'll be doing an assessment center. There's a cost of that assessment
center. Um and it runs it runs around $20,000 or so for assessment center. That could be just a little bit high. He hasn't gotten a bid yet on the on the assessment center, but we just want to make sure that he has enough in there. And then we had, as you know, and you
probably have seen a lot of new re new hires in the in in the police department. Um, he's fully staffed, but we when that comes to that, we have to um recruitment supplies. These guys have to be fitted for all of their equipment and everything like that. So, he needs an adjustment there for uh $20,000 for
equipment. So, he's asking for um a $50,000 um uh line item there. Um uh public works as you know snow and ice winter was really bad. So um
we just um we're currently to date we're just just at we're about $600,000 in the red. Um I am processing tomorrow a couple more uh salt invoices uh that
total about another $50,000. So there's the invoices are still coming in for this. So we're just kind of doing an we're doing a little bit of estimate. Um we've looking at about $425,000 for contractors. There's um when the
budget for that line item was only 200, we right now it's we've already spent $425,000 on um on just contractors, outside contractors. uh our salt budget. Um we uh our actuals were 470
um so you know we're we're desperately needing um an additional um revenue for the for the salt budget. Um I did we're talking with the DPW director. Um she's not going to fill the shed fill the shed. She is going to just keep it um
half um she feels that that's sufficient and then she'll purchase um some through the through the summer months. Um, so that adjustment we really do need. Um, it's $645,000. Again, just as of today, we're, you know, just around
the $600,000 mark in the red. And this is one of those line items. So, um, just to let you know, snow and ice is a standalone um, line item in the budget. Um, way like public safety, you have fire and police and inspection and all that. Um,
this this is a standalone. You really can't. You can actually deficit this line item and then you have to raise it on your recap on the following year if you wanted to deficit. We we're deciding not to. Um community services uh council on aging again her electricity costs has
really skyrocketed. Um she needs an adjustment there. It's actually 17% um increase from her prior year. This also includes and everybody asked me because they they have she has solar on that building. um the even though her even though she has solar credits from the
solar, she's still seeing a large increase in her electricity costs and it's basically just again we budgeted a year and a half ago of her budget. Um and it's just not significant for the I need additional for that building.
Um and then on the veterans um we're we're going to need an adjustment for the salary line item. our veterans agent um was out sick um for about a month and a half to two months
and we had an interimm um taking her spot and so we had to hire a part-time person and that wasn't included in the budget. So we need a salary adjustment for her. Um and then she's just her veterans costs again when you budget a year and a half out she really doesn't
know what her what her benefits are going to be and what the additional veterans that are going to be coming in. So, she needs um some burial uh veterans burial costs and just um for um veterans um on illness. And then she needs a little bit additional money for the
Memorial Day flags that they put out. The cost of those flags actually have gone up um just like everything else. So, she's uh need an increase on that. So that's just a little and um we're we're proposing in this budget that um with this adjustment that we'll be
taking 375,000 from the finance committee reserve um and taking 769 950 out of stabilization fund to cover this adjustments >> where stabilization >> stabilization fund.
>> Um maybe I missed it. The $25,000 closing up the the finance committee. Where where is that being used? >> So, we're just going to keep it just in case. Um >> in case we have something toward the end of the year. >> I I I I always air on caution just I
mean we still it's >> just going to be April 1st. So I get as I get a little nervous where um >> I understand it's one of the few few so >> so it's a place where we can go because I just don't have >> without having without having a special town meeting. Yes. Okay. All right. I I
understand. >> Yeah. That's the only reason why I'm not taking the the full loan. I just >> I have I have three more months to go and I'm not sure. Yeah. >> Understood. And that sort of my followup question is like how confident are you that this is the what we will need versus you know potential other risk?
>> These are and some of these numbers might be a little bit we I don't want to say we inflating them because we're not but we were um we made sure that we we this is what we need and that we're not going to have to go back. >> Conservative estimates >> they are. Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> Thank you. Yes. Conservative. >> Any questions? >> Any questions? >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> So, I need a motion. We will we will >> I make a motion to recommend article 2 fiscal year 2026 operating budget
amendment. Amendments submitted by the town manager uh for transferring 769,950 from general stabilization fund and 375,000 from fiscal year 2026 finance committee reserve fund for the bud budget line items as written.
>> A second discussion. >> Is this the first time we've done this at this level in some time? >> This amount? >> Yeah. >> Yes. I we haven't done this in a while. >> Um I think it it shows, you know, we
haven't had a winter like this in six, seven, eight years. So you got that $630,000 for that. Um the as uh the town Andrew alluded, the uh a lot of zoning issues and legal issues that we've had this year um we haven't had previously
in prior years and hopefully will not have in the future. Um and then we have a lot of shuffling going around. So that's also doesn't typically happen in a in a normal year. So yes, I agree. We haven't seen we haven't seen a million a million dollar adjustment in a in in a
long time. Thank goodness. Um but uh nothing that was just described here really shocked me, I guess. >> Agreed. >> I'm not shocked. I just don't know if this is going to become a trend. Well, I
think I think we heard that it I hope it doesn't and I I you're right. I hope it doesn't become a trend and we at least for the for the snow and for the so we heard from the presentation a couple week a few weeks ago that for snow we were to expect the snow issue. >> Yeah. So that's not an issue.
>> And then for for legal I I do I do question that. I I hope we don't have the same kind of issues and in legal expenses we had this this year. Um if we do, I go back to my comment I made just a little bit earlier. Um it's not unheard of for towns to to to shift how
they're handling their legal legal processes. So um it's I think it's something we have to keep an eye on next year. Um and if that that if it becomes a trend and not an aberration, I think it is a a concern budgeting budgeting in the future.
>> Yeah. And that and um you we also heard that there could be you know depending on how things go. if things go against us over the next year have a million dollars of incremental risk that would have to come out of a stabilization fund or the reserve right so then the thought I think we have to be mindful of how if
there's free cash at the end of the year you know are we throwing it at repaving roads or other things capex or are we really maintaining that stabilization fund >> agreed any other discussion Seeing none. All those in favor?
>> I. >> All those opposed? Any abstensions? Six in favor, one abstension. And that's why we take votes on each one. >> Article three. I make a motion to
recommend article 3, Nishoba Valley Technical High School District fiscal year 2027 assessment submitted by the town manager uh for the town to raise and appropriate $4,316,932 to fund the town's fiscal year 2027 assessment to the Valley Technical
School District. >> I second it >> discussion. >> Yeah. No, no surprises there. Pretty straightforward. pretty straightforward. >> The information in these last few years with with Dr. Pigeon has been >> thorough >> and and timely and I don't I have no
questions on on what's being done. >> Yeah. Same. >> Agreed. >> Yeah. All right. Any further discussion? >> Seeing none, all those in favor? I >> I >> opposed. Abstensions. Seven in favor.
Article four. >> I make a motion to recommend article four, Chumsford Public Schools fiscal year 2027 operating budget submitted by the town manager for the town to raise and appropriate 78,1501 $150,000 to defay charges for the
operations of the Chood Public Schools for the fiscal year period July 1st 2026 through June 30th 2027. >> Second discussion. It's a similar story here I think. >> Yeah. And and the number came >> thoughtful budget >> and the number was lower than than than
than initially thought in our previous discussion. So at uh at our tri board so >> yeah thorough explanation of the walk between here and there. That makes sense. >> Exactly. >> All right. See no further discussion. All those in favor?
>> I. >> Any opposed? Any abstensions? Seven in favor. Article five. I make a motion to recommend article 5 general government fiscal year 2027 operating budget submitted by the town manager as written.
>> Second discussion. >> We all had our reviews with all of our different department heads and >> and uh went through a thorough review >> in multiple venues. >> Um no no questions and the questions we did have were answered. Um so
>> exactly it's one of those things as as the conditions continue to get a bit tighter continue to maintain funding it and service as much as which we can and so >> I think that's what we can do and just um continue to calibrate as we learn more information. >> Yep.
>> See no further discussion. All those in favor I >> I. >> Any opposed? Abstensions? None. Seven in favor. Article six. Uh, no action on this article. >> Article seven. >> Article seven. I make a motion to
recommend article 7 finance committee reserve fund submitted by the time town manager as written. >> Second discussion. >> Is this enough? >> Wish we could afford more. >> It seems to still be adequate for our
our audits and bond rating. Um, they like that we have it. We typically have it till the end of the year and don't use it unless it's being appropriated like it is in town meeting or kept open for the end of the fiscal year and return as free cash. Um I do agree it's a it keep continues every year to become
a smaller and smaller percentage of the budget and it by statute it can be a larger percentage. Um I think if we have more surprises and these the article 2 becomes not a not an aberration but a trend >> it may be worth evaluating in the
future. Um, how often is the 400,000 been standard for like five years, three years? >> Much longer than that. >> It's been standard since I've been on the committee. >> Much longer than that. >> What was 500,000 at one point? >> No, not when I was here. >> No. Okay. >> So, the 400,000 has been standard for x years.
>> At least 12. >> At least 12. Okay. Dozen years. >> More like 20. >> Thank you. You would know. >> So, been standing for about 20 years and percentage of times it goes down to >> Well, that would still be 20. >> Yeah. >> No. Yeah. Yeah. During my tenure, it was
increased. >> Okay. >> All right. So, let's go with the 12 years. Definitely. >> Seems like 20, >> right? >> It's it's been more than 12. I can I can attest to that. >> Yeah. Okay. All right. 1215. So, 1215 has been 400,000 on average. How much is
got How much has been used? >> It's been it's it's been so >> I know it's roller coastery. >> Not that much. >> It's never been exhausted other than being used for town meeting. So, it's never been not available and needed at the end of the year is the best way to put it. And so, this fund is is is is
one of those uh statutory availabilities that we have in order to avoid a special town meeting being held by the end of the fiscal year or for 15 days thereafter where this fund could be accessed based upon our vote as a committee to address any issues with the budget for that closing out that year.
We've never had to do that. Um >> you say with the budget for that year, the year is from what time to what time? >> The the fiscal year. So July 1st through June 30th. >> So this 400,000 is from July 1st to July of next year and as long as we don't exhaust it. >> July 15th if you go the 15 days. Yeah. >> Okay. So
>> we've never exa Yes. We've never had an issue where we've needed it and not had it. >> And so that's why I say it's worked with the 400,000. >> The bond markets like it because it says you have enough for rainy day. >> Well, the auditors the auditors like it for our triple uh bond AAA bond rating
because we have the availability of that use. And again it's important to have it uh as for our committee so we avoid we have it has been used during the year in previous years in order to address uh one or two issues uh one of them was a DPW I think eight years ago we we we had
a situation where we needed to pay a certain bill and we didn't want to have to go to a special town meeting go through that expense just for that one item. Um, so stuff like that could be done during the year and then there's a 15 days a thereafter. And so what Darlene was alluding to with 25,000 staying in there is that something could
still pop up between town meeting and the end of the 15 days into July. Uh, and so that's why it's still staying there for the availability for this fiscal year 26. Um but uh typically what happens is the majority of this either gets used at town meeting as a funding
source in spring or it gets shifted into free cash. >> Okay. So you're saying sometimes if it's all completely unused, someone might say, "Hey yo, let's let's get into this little piggy bank." >> Well, no, it gets it gets put into free cash. And free cash is either put into
stabilization funds, which it was for many years, okay? or it's used for a capital project in the in the fall like we've seen pre in the prior years. >> Okay. But but to address this, shouldn't we go back and ask the question of the
items that are extraordinary this year uh and and make sure that we budgeted enough money so that we're not going to have the same problem visav for instance uh uh is the DPW going to budget the same amount of
money? So what I would say so what I would say about the storm the I I think the snow uh budget is unique in that you can carry a deficit and then address it through an amendment of the budget. So so for that particular item I don't think it's as important u because you
don't need to hold a special town meeting to adjust the budget for the for the snow. You can you can spend into the deficit and then adjust the budget to address it. would be nice if we had like if because I I was looking at I'm glad you mentioned that because I was looking at the snow and ice, right? We're it's 645,000 more,
>> right? Again, we haven't changed the amount. >> Um and maybe >> we're talking about I'm sorry, snow and ice. >> Snow and ice. Yeah. >> Um >> you know, it would be nice if we didn't go into a deficit. I know we can. We don't have to do that, but it would be nice that if we had this at least enough
to cover any weird >> Wait, we we run a fiveyear average in that account. This is the first time in five years it's gone over on snow and ice. >> And and so to sit here and say we haven't been budgeting inappropriately or we're not budgeting I don't think she's saying that
we can't be weathermen but the point is we keep a running fiveyear average and that's how we fund the budget and that's how I funded it. And that's my discussion. Aberration versus trend. And and so those those are two items we talked about being an aberation versus a trend. >> Energy costs got weird, you know,
>> and they're going to continue to get weird. >> What? >> Well, but what's the price of oil going to be in six months around? I mean, so and and the problem that we get hit on, we competitively bid our energy cost. The problem wasn't in the supply. It was in the it was the state's efforts
>> on the distribution cost. >> All right. I'd rather not talk about that. >> I'm not saying this to criticize the budget. I'm saying to make sure if we have an opportunity here to put, you know, put more into this >> and we did increase the legal budget
for you. >> And we also have a stabilization fund that that's at the maximum amount of of our of our 10% >> policy. >> Yes. I don't want to be criticized for unly needlessly cutting expenses of town services when we have adequate reserves
and that's the balance that we try to maintain and I agree we're not going to knowingly underfund the budget >> but you know I hope and that that we budgeted adequately and the biggest one the snow and ice we can't
>> no you can't >> and the second one is one being legal that's variable and I can tell you this every month the select board gets the detailed legal services bill. So they are on top of why we're getting these costs and I can tell you they see in the
county they see in Treasury in my office and these are extraordinary cases such as the ledge road issue as I mentioned the 40B issue on riverick road public records issues you know that are that are personnel related I can tell you it's not frivolous expenditures but I
don't think it's something that's going to be reoccurring or will you know will set a trend from what I can see at this point. Now, yes, the legal hourly rate has increased inflation pressures and that's something we've got to monitor. >> Well, also how many how many contracts were settled this year in fiscal year
26? >> We've got every Yeah, we're all settled but one. >> Yeah. >> So, that's part of part of the legal expenses and and a lot of those are scheduled for the next three years. >> Yeah. when when we asked superintendent of schools kind of million dollar budy was
cutting on the town side I've got to keep that balance as opposed to putting out you know people andor >> vital services >> that's the balance I think I I share your concern we don't want to be known and then drawing into our reserves on an
annual basis but this is a this is atypical extraordinary that we haven't seen And I think if you look at the drivers of it, it really is snow and ice and legal. >> And then some of the other things were related to the weather. The reason that the electricity in the senior center has
solar panels over budget was because the solar panels were covered with snow basically three months and then she's then buying more expensive electricity from the grid because she had no solar electricity. And hopefully that won't occur. But so they really were in my mind extraordinary.
So some something to keep an eye on in the future, but I don't I think for now >> I think it's I think it's my job on this committee to ask these questions. >> Y don't disagree. >> I agree. >> I'm not taking exception. You asking these questions, but I want but I want you to know that we put a lot of thought
in the statement level and the departmental level and a very difficult budgeting year asking people to hold the line and I think you're seeing this not only in but you're seeing it in all the communities around us that that tight squeeze that we're under.
>> There's no doubt in my mind with you none whatsoever. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> So, any further discussion on article seven? >> Seeing none, all those in favor? >> I
>> opposed. Good job. >> Abstensions. >> Seven in favor. >> Article eight. I make a motion to recommend article 8 fiscal year 2027 capital budget submitted by town manager and capital planning committee as written. >> Second
>> discussion. Just a reminder of the items that are >> on the docket for this capital budget. >> I think everything was explainable. I I honestly wish there were more. We had we have more funds available to address the
large >> capital budget we have outstanding, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Or the plans on the I'm sorry, I shouldn't I shouldn't say that. The large capital needs we have outstanding is what is what I meant to say. >> Yeah. >> But nothing on here was was frivolous or unneeded.
>> No, absolutely not. >> The cost estimates are our best estimates. What's happening now? We are getting very favorable bids. >> Yeah. And it's something we could have foren when we when we approved those projects >> a year ago or some time ago and and
again we don't know when these projects will be up to bid but you know we're awarding the roof project from McCarthy school on Monday night. I mean and and our other bids lately have come in just remarkably well and we don't know how that's going to happen in the future. So
>> believe me, you were paying and we were paying and we had to commit to some supplemental appropriations. >> Sure. >> Slow down in the in the market maybe. >> Make the committee aware that this is a reasonable market. >> Do you think that part of the reason why the bids have been let's use the word
reasonable is because other towns are in worse shape and they're not bidding on anything? >> It's because the general overall economy of the world isn't out there >> right now and we we also bid at a favorable time. knowingly go out to bid on roof projects and other items early
in the season while people >> looking for work >> and so so you know so I think the answer I think it's beyond the municipal market it's a general it's a general market >> so you're bidding him when other people aren't thinking about bidding >> no we're just knowingly constantly
getting the bids out in the in the beginning of the bid season time frame when we know we get more favorable pricing but I But even beyond that, I think it's because of the fact that there's been general slowdown in the construction industry.
Whether inflation will now we don't know but right now >> any further discussion. >> I'll cycle through a quick who's who. >> Oh, too far. Hearing no further discussion. All those in favor?
>> I. >> Any opposed? Any abstensions? Hearing? None. Seven in favor. Article nine. >> I make a motion to approve article 9 PAS treatment plant upgrades at 54 Richardson Road submitted by the town manager for the town to raise an
appropriate $242,000 for enhancements to the PAS remedial treatment system located at the town's highway yard located at 54 Richardson Road, including any incidental and related expenses. Second discussion >> again we have to do it right.
>> It's not optional. That's not optional. >> Yeah. >> All right. No further discussion. All those in favor I. >> Any opposed? Any abstensions? Seven in favor. Article 10. >> I make a motion to recommend article 10
fiscal year 2027 sewer enterprise fund operating budget submitted by the town manager as written. >> Second discussion. >> Pretty straightforward. Pretty annual. >> All right. >> Well explained. >> Yep. Any further discussion? Hearing
none. All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Any abstensions? Seven in favor. Article 11. >> I make a motion to recommend article 11, sewer pump station upgrades for Clinton Avenue, Fair Street, and a Green Street
submitted by the town manager as written. >> Second >> discussion. >> I'm sorry, I'm blanking out. Why uh is it just age and use that they need to be done? It's so this is going through a process where where a number of these are being addressed and they're being uh
as as you see where they are right now they're outdoor fenced in and we're moving to them the uh buildings that have the control panels and things like that. They're remotely controlled uh protected from the elements look nicer in the in the uh communities things like that >> and and will last longer because they're
>> and will last longer because they're protected. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. But I'm done. >> Yeah. I'm I'm thankful there's only a dozen or so more. Right. Yeah, we've got we've been through quite a few in the in in the past few years. Yeah. All right. Any further discussion?
Hearing none. All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Any abstensions? Seven in favor. Article 12. >> I make a motion to recommend article 12 fiscal year 2027 storm water management enterprise fund submitted by the town manager as written.
>> Second. discussion. >> Pretty simple, straightforward. >> Again, >> similar similar story here. >> All right. Hearing no further discussion? All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Any abstensions? Someone in
favor? Article 13. >> I make a motion to recommend article 13, storm water rack body truck, submitted by the town manager as written. >> Second. discussion. >> It's a twofur. >> All right.
>> It's always a good thing. >> Yeah. >> All right. Hearing no further discussion. All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Any abstensions? Seven in favor? Article 14. >> I make a motion to recommend article 14 Rainbow Avenue drainage improvements
submitted by the town manager as written. >> Second. discussion. >> I mean, I think that picture is pretty telling, right? >> Yeah. >> That flooding is a disaster, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Can you imagine in the winter that a
whole skating rink >> hearing? No further discussion. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Any abstensions? Seven in favor? Article 15. I make a motion to recommend article 15 fiscal year 2027 forum ice rink enterprise fund submitted
by the town manager as written. >> Second discussion >> pretty steady year on year. >> Yep. >> No questions there. >> Hearing no further discussion. All those in favor? >> I.
>> Any opposed? Any abstensions? Hearing none. Seven in favor. Article 16. >> I make a motion to recommend article 16 amend the fiscal year 2026 PEG access and cable related enterprise fund submitted by the town manager as written.
>> Second >> discussion hearing none. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Any extensions? Seven in favor. There is no action on article 17. >> Okay.
>> And I'm sorry, there's a >> and 17. >> I apologize. Article 17. There is. There is. >> Okay. And not 18. >> I make a motion to recommend article 17 fiscal year 2027 PEG access and cable related enterprise fund submitted by the
town manager as written. >> Second. >> Discussion. This one still feels like it it lacks a long-term vision of how it's going to get supported. And so I I know it's not a something that we can solve right now, but >> that's that's a that's a national thing.
Yeah, that's a problem. And I agree and it needs to be addressed, but it's not it's unfortunately not not currently something we can address at the local level. That that cable cutting uh is going to eventually cause an issue. So, so if we play it out, so imagine that no
revenue comes in associated with this. Then we're on the hook of providing the services, right? And we just have to find money in budget. >> Well, no, we don't have to provide the services. There's no requirement to provide the services, but we just won't have the services. So, like we're being recorded and then broadcast tonight and recorded for future viewing.
>> You'd need volunteers or it wouldn't happen. Mhm. >> Complete volunteers, no budget, >> no way to maintain the equipment >> unless >> unless we choose to fund it >> as a as a as a practical matter though because the community has gotten used to the service, >> right?
>> There would be pressure. >> Well, probably would be >> and there would have to be some funding. I I would think. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Any further discussion? >> Hearing none. All those in favor? >> I. Any opposed? Any abstensions?
Seven in favor. No action on article 18. >> I make a motion to recommend article 19 fiscal year 2027 golf course enterprise fund operating budget submitted by the town manager as written. >> Second >> discussion. >> Much like the
forum enterprise fund. Yep. Yep. Hearing no further discussion. All those in favor? >> I any opposed? Any extensions? Hearing none. Seven in favor. Article 20. >> I make a motion to recommend article 20 annual appropriation of departmental
revolving funds submitted by the town manager as written. >> Second >> discussion. Eventually we won't have to do this. Maybe if legislature goes through. >> It's ridiculous. >> Sorry. So we have to do this every year because we're required to do this every year,
right? Um there could be legislature at the state level that would allow us not to do this every year. >> So the the revolving funds would just revolve. >> Yeah. >> Unless you were increasing the amount of >> All right. So if they're relatively stable, if they're stable, rubber stamp go
>> this. Yeah. But we because the because we were required under chapter 35 section six to do this. Um, >> so why is that not part of the consent agenda? >> It is. >> It is. >> It is. >> Oh, okay. Sorry. >> Any further discussion?
>> All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Any abstensions? Seven in favor? Article 21. >> I make a motion to recommend article 21 uh cemetery improvement and development fund submitted by the cemetery commission as written. Second
>> discussion. >> Hearing none. All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Any abstensions? >> Abstain. >> Six in favor. One abstension. >> Article 22. >> I make a motion to recommend article 22 property valuation services submitted by
the town manager as written. >> Second. discussion. >> Got to get through it. >> Hearing no further discussion. All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Any abstensions? >> Abstain. >> Six in favor and one abstension.
Article 23. I make a motion to recommend article 23 community preservation fund fiscal year 2027 debt service admin expenses and reserves submitted by community preservation committee as written. Second
>> discussion. >> Cycling through. >> Those are current years out for debt service. >> It's pretty straightforward. >> Good presentation earlier >> in the month. >> Yep. All right.
Hearing no further discussion. All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Any abstensions? Seven in favor. Article 24. >> I make a motion to recommend article 24. Community preservation fund preservation of cemetery headstones submitted by the
community preservation committee. >> Second discussion. >> This is a no-brainer. >> Yeah, it's totally brainer. >> It's great. Yeah, >> as we heard there was it was an adjustment on on where the money was. Let's put it here. Let's get let's continue this
>> generous donation, right? >> Generous donation came in and it's it's it's happened again which is great. Hopefully it continues to happen. >> Exactly. Very thankful for that. >> Yeah. >> Hearing no further discussion. All those in favor? >> I. Any opposed? Any abstensions? Seven
in favor. Article 25. Make a motion to recommend article 25 community preservation fund vary playground accessible playground equipment submitted by the community preservation committee as written. >> Second
>> discussion. >> Another no-brainer. >> Yeah, >> it's such a cute playground. >> Good for the community. >> I'm just getting to the proposed budget. What is rare road? >> Uh it is a foundation that that provided
a donation uh to help spearhead this accessible equipment. >> Thank you. >> It's the right thing to do. >> Oh, I agree. >> Absolutely. >> All right. Hearing no further discussion.
All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Extensions. Seven in favor. Article 26. >> Um I I have a question about article 26 before I make a motion.
>> Sure. >> I don't recall getting a presentation from Brian Latina. Did he submit something? >> He did not. >> No. >> Okay. >> I reached out a couple times via email. I haven't received a response. >> Okay. And so we're still going to >> I I propose that we still vote on it.
It's it's asking us just to overturn what we voted on in Falltown meeting. >> Okay. >> And I believe that we unan correct me if I'm wrong. We unanimously voted in favor of what was done at >> Yes, we did. >> Falltown meeting. Okay.
So if we wanted to stay the way it is, we would >> if we wanted the bylaw to stay as it's currently been adjusted from fall town meeting, then we would vote in in the negative. >> Okay? >> It depend well it depends on how you make make the motion. Right. Right. >> So if we make a affirmative motion, we would vote in the negative. If you're making a making a negative motion, you
vote in in the the affirmative. >> Or if you don't want to make a choice because you didn't see additional presentation, you abstain. >> I guess is the best way to explain it. I recommend I recommend an affirmative motion and we vote in the negative. That's my recommendation to keep it
>> I second that. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Okay. But that was an actual that wasn't an actual uh motion. So >> no. Okay. That was that was >> just for clarity purposes. >> That was a recommendation. >> I make the motion to recommend article 26 zoning bylaw amendment definition of
family submitted by Brian Latina citizen petition. Second >> discussion >> if the person doesn't feel strongly enough to come and make their presentation >> and I also see that the planning board
and the zoning folks >> worked really hard to make the state happy. It just it doesn't really matter. I know who my family is. You don't have to define it for me. >> I'm not going to draw a negative inference from from the person not presenting. However, I'm going to stick
with the way that we voted in in the fall. >> Um, so what I will say is that that um I I see no reason to overchange. I understand the reasons it was done. It was and then in our analysis of why we did it. It was partly uh to address any financial concerns for any litigation
that might stem from it. And so, uh, we made our assessment. We made our vote. I I I I don't feel strongly about changing it, and I haven't seen anything presented as to why we should. I agree. >> All right. Any further discussion?
Hearing none. All those in favor? All those opposed? >> I abstensions. >> Oh, nay. You would say that actually technically you would say nay. Yes. >> Yes. >> Uh any abstensions?
So that's seven uh opposed. Article 27. >> I make a motion to recommend article 27 general bylaw amendment chapter 108 outdoor lighting submitted by Kelly Bey plan and the planning board as written. >> As are they adjusting it though? >> Oh, should we not?
>> No. No. Can we do we say as >> we have not >> going to be adjusting? >> As adjusted. >> Well, we have to vote on what's been presented here. We can't we can't make a vote on anything that's being adjusted. We have to we'd have to >> or we can delay >> or we can delay and I'm staying that
that's the other option. >> Yeah. This has happened before, right? Yes, it has. Yeah. So I Yeah. Okay. >> Uh so we can vote now. We can uh we can choose to vote later. We can abstain from voting. It I it's I'm here I'm here
to moderate, not to >> not to decide. >> I think some of the changes to the language I think are going to are going to matter. >> Mhm. So, you prefer not to vote at this time? >> I would prefer not to vote at this time. >> Okay. >> In my opinion, >> and we can caucus the night of the town
meeting and take a vote at that point. >> We we we could we could hold the meeting, although I know David's position. >> We can, but I will tell you my position of time. >> Okay. >> I am well aware of your position, David.
That's why I mentioned it before. Thank you very much. I I really do appreciate it. >> Yeah. No. So when you say caucus, would that be the night of the >> It would be a meeting. It would be a meeting prior to town meeting, right? >> Uh at the night of town, we could technically theoretically any time between now and town meeting should
there be any additional changes, which we think that there might be. Um >> so why would we think there may be more changes? >> There were discussions this evening and there were notes taken by the planning board and by the presenter. I I I I assume that there may be some changes to the language. >> There's going to be so I don't want to
vote on what what isn't there. >> No, I agree. it it doesn't make sense to vote on on what's not actually being presented at town meeting. Um but the question then becomes um >> why don't we just come in like we got the time have them make the changes and
do a quick meeting come in and we'll disprove that. That way we satisfy >> we could uh if depending on on on when they come in we could hold another meeting on another night. We do it all. >> Prior to town meeting or >> or or we could just vote nay on what's presented here right now
>> or abstain. >> Abstain. We could abain. >> Yeah, we could do that. >> Yeah. >> And give the reason. >> Yeah. >> Why the abstension was was there. >> Again, I'm not here to I'm not here to to tell you which way we should do it. I'm happy to do it any of the ways to presented.
>> I mean, I'm like there's a lot of work put into this and I'm I'm happy that they changed it. I actually abstained from the planning board and voting on it. Okay. Because I needed just more time to think about it to be quite honest. This is
>> I'm shocked. >> It's been a while. Um I do believe that >> and do trust that the changes are going to be made. I mean, they came back. They made the changes from last year. They pulled it actually after our meeting. Um, and I'm just afraid that if we do a
nay on this, then that's gonna or like an obstet not vote on it. I don't think that's fair to the >> petitioner >> to the petitioner to be quite honest. So like I you know and and I don't want to like they've you know he's worked
they've he's worked very hard to address a lot of our issues or all almost all of them even tonight >> and he's willing to make them. So, like that was my only thing that like I would prefer that we just came back and voted on what's going to be presented to town meeting. Okay. And make a fair assessment. >> That makes sense to me. >> That's perfectly fine.
>> Could we have that that meeting all Zoom like a you know a half an hour meeting where we just and and it's publicly and people can join the Zoom room. Do we have to have it in a in a in a live format like this? Wait. >> Um, why don't we have it? I'll be like
I'll be here. Like I'll make it like if we have Can we have it? >> I would prefer not to have it completely Zoom. >> I can be here. It's not a problem. >> It's a matter of finding a finding a a date. Well, we it it depends on two things. It depends on when the changes are made, when they're prevented, and
when we have available. Like for instance, next Thursday would not be available because zoning by zoning board of appeals is here next Thursday. Um so the first Thursday we would have would be that following Thursday. I would not make the book at that time. >> Uh because we would be past the point I
think we'd be past the point where we we would be able to get into the book. >> Next Thursday it's the last >> is the last. Yeah. Uh >> can we do it before those? I don't want to jump ahead here. I mean, if it's just going to be short. >> Um, if we I'm sorry. If we could Sorry,
Cindy. What was the question? >> If we could do it before the zoning board meeting next Thursday. >> What's the time? >> Yeah. I don't know if we're going to record and televise. I don't think we could do that. >> Too tight. When meeting next Thursday? >> Oh, they're not meeting next Thursday.
>> Geez. No one has zoning issues, huh? >> Wow. That's two That's two months in a row. But you need to get the revision. >> But we need the revision. Yeah, that's the thing. Um, >> I have the ninth as the last day for a vote. >> The ninth being a Wednesday or Tuesday? >> Thursday.
>> No, it would be Thursday. >> Thursday, >> I guess. So, technically, if we had to vote that night, you could get it in the book. >> Yeah, because then it would just be Yeah, >> it would just be adding that last >> Yeah. Do we do we do another like we do
another meeting on a different night and just not televise it >> like we do in the other way? >> No. Because then we'll get the questions as to where why why didn't you televise it? Was it not why is it not available for discussion? Things like that. >> I want to try to avoid >> Yeah, you're right. >> that. >> Yeah. >> So,
>> either have it available the night of town meeting where people can that are coming to the meeting can go to that meeting because they're already going to be going there or have it prior and have it have it televised. And we I still have to check with tele media to make sure they're available and they could do it too. So, um >> so if I yielded on my
>> uh objection to having it on the >> We don't have to decide what night we have it tonight. Um but we do have to decide whether or not we vote now, I guess, is the best way to put it because we either vote or we don't. All right.
>> Motion that we table this discussion since the actual rules aren't ready yet. >> We wouldn't want to table it because if you table something during the same meeting, it does come off the table >> and then it then it dies. >> Okay. >> Um so we would just want to defer the vote, >> right? >> Defer. Okay. I make a motion to defer
the vote until um the regulations and rules and whatever are all written up so we can make judge on what is actually there. >> Second >> discussion hearing. None. All in favor? >> I I >> All right. If that's the case, I propose
that on 28 we we make the similar similar motion. Just 28 is just the adjustment of the Hold on. I got to get there. >> Oh, too far. >> Um, so that's just the adjustment of the
zoning bylaw in in reference to the um adjustment to the other bylaw. So I make a motion to defer the vote on article 28. It's >> the same evening as the as article 27. >> Same age 27. >> Second. >> All in favor? I. >> I.
>> All right. Article 29. >> I make a motion to recommend article 29 zoning bylaw amendment reszone certain parcels on the official zoning map submitted by the planning board as written. >> Second discussion.
>> Uh this is really hard work to try to to figure out the best. So I I have no desire to question these really long hard decisions that have been made. >> I think this actually will be a benefit to that area. Um
>> long overdue >> and financially for the town as well. I would be happy to see the availability for um another restaurant or a cafe or something like that across the street. Um I know my family uses that building in more ways than one. So, uh, to have
something like that added to that location would be fantastic. >> Um, so I I I think this is the reason why CBLLT was so important to be voted on at the prior town meeting and, uh, now applying it to this location, I think, is definitely appropriate.
>> Any further discussion? >> I just think it's a lot of hard work. >> Oh, yeah. a lot of hard work that >> been put into this >> and we're not said >> that's why it wasn't >> that is what you said you're
>> he's echoing your sentiment there >> any further discussion hearing none all those in favor >> I any opposed any abstensions >> seven in favor article 30 >> I make a motion to recommend article 30 zoning bylaw amendment community
enhancement and investment overlay district submitted by the planning board as written. >> Second >> discussion. This is I see it as as housekeeping. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. >> That's what it seems like to me. Yeah. >> Yeah.
Despite your substantial changes issued, >> a good housekeeper. >> What's that? >> You're a good housekeeper. >> I think this is all still >> jump ahead. >> Did I? >> Yep. Oh, sorry. No, I don't think I did. >> No, I didn't.
>> That's all part of the same one. >> Oh, yeah. No, no, no. No, no, no. This goes on and on. There we go. Okay, >> there you go. >> All right. >> Any further discussion? >> Hearing none. All those in favor? >> I. Any opposed? >> Any abstensions?
>> Seven in favor. Article 31. >> I make a motion to recommend article 31, zoning bylaw amendment revi the revise the definition of boarding house submitted by the planning board as written. >> Second >> discussion.
>> No, this is a I mean this is this after after the change to the family zoning uh that we just voted to continue to support. >> Uh this is just a a natural flow through from that previous uh discussion. >> I love coherence like that. >> I know you do.
There's too much incoherence in life. >> Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? I >> I. >> Any opposed? Any extensions? Hearing none. Article 32. >> Make a motion to recommend article 32 zoning bylaw amendment definition of bed
and breakfast and add to use table submitted by the planning board as written. >> Second. >> Discussion. >> I don't know how many bed breakfasts we'll get. I think if it opens up the opportunity and to your point to have the discussion and >> it's a possibility.
>> It's a possibility. >> So you're saying there's a chance. >> Yeah, there is a chance. >> That's right. >> Yeah. It just seems like with the the use table um you'd want to broaden it um a little bit, but again it's >> RC we have a lot of RC area which is >> that's
my I thought on the the other slide that it did not show it was an N for RC like all the residential was no. That's That's my mistake. >> Chris, for clarity, RC is planning board approval, correct? >> I think I saw the same thing. >> No, that's okay. >> Yeah, I saw the same thing. >> Okay. >> Oh,
>> okay. >> Yeah, that that's me is like >> if you have highdensity residential, then it would naturally in my mind fit there. But again, it's at least starting the conversation. >> I guess the argument then is, you know, you have a whole bunch of bread and breakfast open up next door to yourself. >> So, yeah.
I'm not sure I want a whole bunch of people coming next door to me. I think I'm RC. Um, >> you're RC. You're RC. >> Yep. >> Pretty sure. Most of Charles is RC. Um, so yeah, I mean I I Well, while I wouldn't
mind frequent being one, I wouldn't want one being frequented next door to me, I guess, is the best way to put it. >> All right. Any further discussion? >> Oh, it is correct in here. Okay. >> Yeah. Hearing
none. All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Any abstensions? Seven in favor. Article 33. >> I make a motion to recommend article 33 zoning bylaw amendment. Use table commercial parking garage structure submitted by the planning board as written.
>> Second >> discussion. Bring on the parking garages. I guess I don't. >> Yeah. It makes sense to be under a special permit rather than rather than zing the board for for the for fairness purposes. I think that
makes sense. >> All right. Hearing no further discussion. All those in favor? >> I. Any opposed? Any abstensions? Seven in favor? Article 34. I >> make a motion and recommend article 34 zoning bylaw amendment and zoning dimensional tables change minimum depth
submitted by the planning board as written. >> Second. discussion. >> Good housekeeping. >> Yep. Change those zeros to NAS. >> I have zero objections.
>> I don't think it's applicable. >> Any further discussion? >> Hearing none. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Any abstensions? Seven in favor. Article 35. Make a motion to recommend article 35 utility easements for fire stations submitted by the town
manager. >> Second discussion. >> Um it's needed. >> Pretty straightforward. >> I don't know how else you do it. >> In order to proceed with the project which has now been awarded. I >> Is that what you're going to write in
the finance book? It's needed. Finance. >> It's necessary. >> Sorry. Okay. Sorry. I'm not needed. Considering we're decommissioning the two fire stations, April April 1st. >> 31st. >> 31st. >> 31st. Good. We're not doing April Fool's Day.
>> Um, yeah. I Yeah, we need to make sure we put this utility easement in so we can get the utilities to fire station 3. Um, any further discussion hearing? None. All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed?
Any abstensions? >> Seven in favor. Article 36. I make a motion to recommend article 36 street acceptance for Proctor Road submitted by the suck board as written. >> Second. >> Unbelievable. >> Hey, I'm happy to hear this is one of the last arterial roads we're going to
have to accept. >> You know, it's only been since 1655 that we've been to town. >> Yeah. So, we want to make sure we get those roads taken care of. Um no there is a lot of work that goes into actually getting them accepted and getting the proper proper plans in getting making sure we don't need any uh takings making
sure we have any easements that are necessary. So there it's a process >> and we get money from >> and we but we get the best part is we get the money chapter 90 reimbursement and this one of the bigger ones and so uh all that will be left after this is a few of the um nonarterial roads in town
that will still have to be addressed but uh this is this is the big one. Does anyone know off the top of there how much that's worth like this road in terms of chapter 90 >> money some amount >> not off top >> some amount it's a full on formula >> okay >> better than zero
>> right >> better than zero less than a lot >> don't get technical on me >> any further discussion >> hearing none all those in favor >> I any opposed any abstensions
in favor all All right. Uh, not falling town meeting. >> Oh, that Oh, that's that's that's that's the next town meeting. That'll be October 19th next year. >> Be the Paul meeting. >> Okay. >> The what? The Paulace. >> Paul Les Paul town meeting.
>> The non Cohen. I don't know what that interview. >> Okay. >> That that'll be the third third Monday in in October rather than the last Monday in in April for Springtown meeting. All right. Um, moving right along in our
agenda, we have our next round of review the port reporting schedule. So, let me actually pull that up and I actually do have it this evening. Okay. So, Sammy presents budget defiance
committee February 12th. We've been through all that. We've had our budget hearings. We've had the budget materials. Um so, uh Pam, you'll get the budget materials that you haven't already gotten, um from from John >> and from Paul. >> Most of them already. >> Yeah, most of them already. Perfect. Um
we've had our most of our vote this evening, but as we were talking about previously, April 9th will be that last stage of vote. And so we'll target April 9th as as as a as a meeting night um to review article 27 and 8. >> That's also a Thursday.
>> Yes. That's also a Thursday. Yes. Uh and if it's before that, we can do that. If it's April 2nd, we could potentially do that. Uh but we have a we have availability because we have a little bit of wiggle room. I'll I'll confirm with channel style media and I'm I'm sure um that there will be no one in
this room on the Thursday night, but we'll confirm. Yeah, there'll be a brief select board reorg meeting that night at 6, but they'll be out of your way >> on the on the 9th. >> On the 9th. Yeah, because the election's seventh. >> Oh, that's right. >> So, they'll be reorganized, but they'll be there at 6:00. They'll be out by 6:30. >> Oh, look at that. Perfect. Well,
hopefully it'll only take half an hour. >> You You never know. I mean, John John's going to >> Yeah. >> I would also propose that maybe the we have a joint board meeting on Wednesday.
We're meeting first half hour of our meeting. You could join us. We could have >> Yeah. When is uh Oh. Oh. So when when that I'm sorry, when what night would that be? >> It would be that Wednesday. >> April 8th. >> So instead of meeting on the 9th, you're saying come together for
>> the first half hour of our meeting and we have one presentation to both groups and then both groups can >> Oh. So plan board hasn't voted on this yet. >> Not on the changes. >> Oh, that's right. There of course. Yeah. Um, >> so we can zoom that, right?
>> Because we can zoom that because he's already got >> We can, but you're gonna make the entire set of two boards uh do a roll call vote. >> Exactly. >> So, we're going to vote on Wednesday as well. Is that what is that? >> Let's talk offline. And that's a possibility. Yeah.
>> Okay. It's a possibility. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Well, yeah. Well, we can talk about that offline and we can figure out what makes the most sense. >> We do two separate votes though. One for >> Oh, we would do. Oh, yeah. Yeah. We're not doing a collective vote now >> because I would then have to say yay or
nay twice. >> We did it all together. >> If you change your mind, you have to really explain twice. >> You You can vote on the night of town meeting. I just won't be there. >> Okay.
>> So, we're going to vote in the night of town meeting. >> No, no, no. I just >> and I won't be around on the second, but whatever. >> I have no problem with that. >> We can we we'll we'll talk offline. We'll figure what what makes the most sense. >> Um >> not the second >> book will be put together the 24th to
the 10th. >> Um >> clerk provides finance committee fin. >> Chairman's letter last day is the 15th tax day. Thanks. Um uh final comments are due for at that same time and then we'll have the book out prior to um the
uh manager session at the 7 o'clock at senior center on the 2 >> 73rd 22nd. >> The 22nd the Wednesday the 22nd. Okay. >> Yep. Wednesday the 22nd. 7 o'clock at
the senior center. So, um it'll definitely be available be before then. Uh they'll post post on the website as soon as it's soon as it's ready and then it'll be produced and all the all all them will be available at that time. >> The town meeting begins 7:30 April 27th.
>> Time is just moving fast. >> And what are the other days um for the second and third meetings? >> Uh there would be the following Thursday and then the next then the following Monday. Hope I don't think it's >> I am hoping we're not three nights. Yeah. >> Yeah. I don't think it's three nights. It'll be the 27th and then the >> Yeah. >> 30th, correct? The last day of April and
then >> Yeah. So, I would say the 27th and the following Thursday. >> Yeah, >> definitely. >> Yeah. Oh, definitely. Oh. Oh, it'll be it'll be more than than it'll be more than one night. >> Yeah. >> But if I would hope that it would only be uh two nights. I don't think we'll be
pushed to the third. >> Sure. >> Um discuss plans for upcoming meetings. So, we I think we just kind of did that. Um, >> so when are we are we so you >> we haven't sent Yeah, I'll I'll send an email based upon I'll have a discussion with Chris. We'll send an email based upon what makes the most sense for either a joint meeting and we vote
separately or we have our separate meeting depending on what we discuss and then we'll um set that date for that final vote. Um but uh that's really the up the next upcoming meeting. After that we won't have a new meeting until unless something pops up in the end of the end of the fiscal year until September.
>> Okay. Um, all right. Uh, next we have a session of public comment. Do we have any public comment? Seeing nothing in
the Zoom room. Seeing nothing here. Any comments from the board? >> All right. >> Well, I'd like to make one comment. I'd like to thank Paul for his service to
this town. Um, I I hold him the highest esteem I possibly could. Really, you've done a great job and I really admire your work and uh I wish you the best. >> I think that uh the feeling is echoed
throughout the throughout the committee. >> Absolutely. >> Absolutely. >> Absolutely echo that. >> Agreed. You'll be missed. >> It'll be a strange year in September. It'll be the first time we've had a different town manager, at least for me, on on the on the committee. >> Yeah. Who will that be? >> It might be. Who Who knows? Yeah.
>> Right. >> They move real fast. >> Yeah. It depends. >> Are there are there town managers for like I I used to be a town manager. Now I do it for fun on the weekends to cover vacations. my mind.
>> I all I'll say is that the that that the interim Tommy Andrew will be appointed by the select board that's coming on uh per per policy. Um so they'll choose an interim um and then there'll be typically a committee formed in order >> and they'll do that quickly >> and they'll do that quickly. >> They'll do that quickly. I think
>> there was a he wasn't here when I moved in but he was here shortly after I moved in into Chford. So I I don't know any difference. >> Yeah. He wasn't here when I moved in either but that was in the 80s. So >> yeah. Don't go by me. I thought we had the $400,000 for 20 years.
>> No, I was born here. >> You were born here. >> It's all a blur, Elaine. >> I'm a blowin. >> You're born? >> Yeah. >> Oh my god. >> My parents aren't. >> I know. Yeah. No, I'm a blow, too. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> But I had a I had a native transportian say to me,
>> uh, your your your husband coaches is is a, you know, scope master. Oh, you can stay. Well, thank you. Nice to see you. >> Everybody thinks of a blow. Really, I just live in these chumps where everybody is assuming that's L. So, >> all right.
>> I get that all the time. >> I think that ends our I think that ends our public comment. >> All right. >> East Chford, not LOL. >> I I will record before that. >> I'll entertain. All those in favor? I
>> Thank you. Have a good evening.