[Music] Good evening everybody. Welcome to Are we online? Are we live? We are live. Welcome to the warrant committee meeting September 29th, 2025. The clerk is informing we have a quorum.
Karen, would you mind calling role? >> We have Jay Funley, Macy Lee, Elaine Craig, Grace Dohy, Larry Johnson, Brian Magcguire, Lee Michael Mlan, Ron Ronald, Tang, and Cecil Yang. You have a quorum.
>> Okay, great. Uh I think much of tonight we'll be discussing the lighting bylaw and we do have the uh chair of the select board in here to help us. He does have a hard stop at 7:45. So let's make good use of him while he's here. A couple of business things to take care
of. First I sent all of you in one of my flurry of emails when I sent like four or five emails at a time. I did mention that the Massachusetts Association of Finance Committees is going to have an annual meeting on the 18th of October. I
went to it three years ago and I haven't gone to it since, but I intend to go this year. It was good. They had se, you know, they had sessions talking about what types of things should you think about, you know, like this time there's a town finance 101. There's also a what do you need to know about employee health care costs and like that.
>> Uh I spoke to Mr. Milano. He said, "And we have a budget to pay for it." So, it's in Sharon, an easy drive away. Mr. Milano said, "We could send me plus two or three members, no problem. It would be paid for." So, I haven't heard anyone say they want to go. I think it's a good
uh it's a good thing to go to if you're able to spare the Saturday on the 18th of October. So, let's talk about that. One other piece of business I want to take care of. There was a motion last week that I think I misunderstood. I think everything worked out just fine.
Uh, I just want to clarify so there's no like precedent being set. There was a motion that I interpreted to mean if this motion passes, the warrant committee can't make certain amendments. Whether that's what the motion was intended to be or not, that's what I thought it meant. Um, I think we had a
good discussion. I think the votes we took reflected the will of the warrant committee. I'm not at all concerned about that. I just didn't want to set a precedent for going forward we'll have meetings and people will make motions that we can't make a certain amendment or can't make another amendment. Cutting to the chase, that's not a legal motion.
So, I'm just just putting that out there so it doesn't set precedent. Uh, and I think we'll go straight into the lighting bylaw. Before I turn it over to our experts, I do want to say a couple things about the lighting bylaw just to frame the discussion now.
And maybe I'm projecting. I am projecting. Some people might be frustrated. Why is it, you know, in this room, in this town? Why is it taken us eight months to get here? What should others, you know, I think someone else should have been doing something else in the last eight months or this committee
should have done that or whatever. Those frustrations are out there. I share some of those frustrations. But let's keep in mind, you know, our discussion is to discuss what do we recommend at town meeting regarding this article. After the warrant committee, I'll get together with a you and a beer and we
can discuss our frustrations at length. But let's, you know, try to keep it productive here. And on the same note, for any article we have, including this one, we've we've got the article in front of us to make a recommendation on. We might wish it was otherwise. and to
not beat around the bush. Some people might say, "I wish this was a zoning bylaw instead of a general bylaw." Um, for example, that's a valid feeling, but it doesn't affect what we're doing here tonight. We have the article that's in front of us. We'll make a recommendation of that
article. >> It is more difficult to pass a zoning bylaw at town meeting, though, just FYI. >> Yeah, >> that might be why it's not a zoning bylaw because it requires a twothirds vote. I I I >> I was listening to um a meeting we had about six months ago, about four months
ago. Math is hard. Um and we spent a long time discussing why it was or was not a zoning bylaw. And I just, you know, want to keep the discussion focused. So with that being said, uh I would like to invite our select board chair, Benzo, to join us at the table.
And I believe so, our two experts on this are Nick and Ron. And Nick has put together a PowerPoint which I will be sharing. And uh all right, let me you know I'm not even
on I'm sorry. I'm not even on Zoom yet. Unless somebody else is Well, I don't know if there's going to be a faster way to do this. Well, while you figure that out, can we talk about what our process is going to be here? Should we have Mr. Z kind of walk through what the select board's position is and sort of respect
and honor the time that he has available or do we want to kind of walk through where we've come out as a group of people? >> Sorry, sorry. >> Uh, stop stop. >> Okay. >> Um, I absolutely want to respect Mr. Z's
time. Also want to respect that maybe he didn't come here with a presentation ready. Um, >> no, that's fine, too. Right. We could walk through some of the issues and >> that we found and see what the conversation is like if that makes sense. Right. >> Yeah. I think Jay shared the markup of
the article. >> I apologize. I shared a marked up version of the article which has gone gone through town council review. I shared it less than 10 minutes ago and I apologize. >> So so reading >> backing up the bus a little bit. Right. So, we've had one or two conversations
of different lengths in this group over the last couple of meetings. Um, based on the conversations that we had um Ron and I marked up the article that had been proposed by the select board that got shared back to the select board, they had a chance to talk about it at
their meeting last Wednesday and they were generally in favor of all the stuff that we had proposed, which is great. they shared that with town council over the weekend and came back to us with a couple of thoughts. So I think that's what we're kind of working on, right? So that's the kind of article that's before
us. It so the warrant committee basically has made changes that haven't been officially approved by the select board um by a vote or anything like that, but have been unofficially approved and endorsed. And so that's what we're working towards, I think, today. um you know going through it and
hearing the conversation that we'd had as a group and some of the conversations I've had at prior town meetings we've kind of identified a half a dozen different issues that maybe we want to talk about as a warrant committee um and make sure there's sort of broad consensus around that and and that's
what we think is reflected in the article that you know kind of we're thinking about recommending um so process-wise I think that's what we're talking about trying to do in this discussion here today >> yeah that's not That sounds right to me. And yeah, just obvious caveat, I'm speaking for the
select board, but I'm not the select board. So, what I'm saying is I'm trying to uh, you know, pass along all of our feedback. Um, and I I will say that the select board won't be able to meet again before this goes to print. So, we will at some point have a vote on what the
warrant committee recommends. Uh, but that will be after the warrants gone to print. And if for some reason we need to have a green sheet or something like that, we can come back and discuss it. But that's that's where we are for now. So the feedback that I offer you now is the feedback from the select board. Um
if you change the article around, um you know, we'll the select board will still have an opportunity to weigh in on it and comment on it at the meeting. >> Yeah, that's good. >> Sound good? Okay. >> Um so I don't know if I'm stalling for time. >> Would you like me to start sharing? No,
I'm I'm good. I'm good. Thank you. So, the way we'd sort of talk about this is I'll maybe kind of kick off the conversation. Ron's going to chime in on all the things that I left out. Um, and then, you know, we could have a conversation around the table about other things if that's okay with
everybody. Um, so, you know, we did do some research on town comparisons. If you want to go to the next slide, Jay. Um, and you know, according to Dark Sky Massachusetts, there are 64 municipalities that have adopted some form of outdoor lighting resolution.
That's as of May of 2025. So that's a lot of communities. The list is on the next page. Um and we kind of looked at the details on five of them that we think are a little bit more comparable. Um I would say uh you know when we see the list that comes up in a minute, a
lot of those communities I think of are more like western Massachusetts communities or Cape Cod communities and maybe not representative of what I think of as Milton comparison. Um but you know for way of comparison uh that's according to this this organization which I thought was helpful that it's a
place to start as we sort of look at uh what we think are some of the you know issues that we're going to try to talk about. We have a few slides on some of these different topics. There's certainly enforcement challenges um you know of the way this is applied. I think that's just a reality of what's going to
happen here. uh from the point of view of the town of Milton, I think the key issues are uh an appeals process, what the brightness levels are, what the issues around dark sky versus light pollution versus light trespass are, and I think with regard to a couple provisions that were originally in the
article the select board had proposed, there is a motion sensor exception in the bylaw, which I think makes sense, but I understand some people want to talk about. And then there's, you know, maybe questions around the fine amount. So, I think those are the issues we're going to try to talk about here. If that's all good with everybody, if you
want to go to the next slide, please. So, these are the 64 municipalities according to this organization, Dark Sky Massachusetts, that have some sort of light ordinance. I looked at some of them. I highlighted five on the page that I've tried to read their bylaws in more detail on for comparison purposes
of the ones on the list. Those were the towns that kind of stood out to me that had um some more information. I would say as we look at this that you know having started trying to do some research on town by town I did actually find some stuff in two other towns Hingham and Canton and we have some
reference to some of that research. I am by no means an expert when it comes to bylaws. I am drinking at the fire hose here fast and furious as a new member of the war committee and all these issues. I found bylaws really challenging to read, but I did my best to go through these five as thoughtfully as I possibly
could and try to draw out some observations. Um, if you go to the next page, the first observation is around the appeals process. This is one of the areas that I think has come up in a couple of different uh iterations because this has come before town meeting. This will be the third time in
one form or another. Um, in the first two iterations, in the original iteration proposed by the select board, there was no appeals process in there. What I think is interesting about this is the the proposal for Milton is that this falls under a gi general bylaw.
Every other town that I've seen so far, it's under um a uh a zoning bylaw. So that would make the appeals process a little bit more straightforward, if it was a zoning bylaw, I think the appeal would go to the zoning board of appeals. And we sort of had to come up with an appeals process. The proposal that we
had made was that the um select board would appoint a committee of three people to uh hear appeals. And based on that uh draft that went back and forth with town council and the conversation with the informal conversation with the um that the select board had last
Wednesday, that's the proposal that's moving forward at this point in time. Um so that's kind of the appeals process. I think having an appeals process is a really valuable feature of the article. And I guess I'll just stop there. see if people want to add or we could talk about the appeals process.
>> Yeah. Well, maybe one point Nick mentioned earlier in maybe the prior slide about uh enforcement. You know, that's not really our our perview to think about the the the strain on the the town resources, but I leave that to the executive executive side. you and
select board and administrator would have to think about resources and you know if it is four hours to send a town employee to go check somebody's house I assume there's going to be some resource drain so that's something I think Nick Nick mentioned there's a 4h hour uh kind
of window for any violation to be inspected you know you to send a employee out it's going to take up four hours you know do they take a half day or are there budget concerns you know we leave that to you >> assume it would be at night Yeah, of course. >> I think that's why it's an extra call
out is what I was told. Not at night, the non-regular work hours, four hour unit minimum. That's what I was told. >> Um, so again, I don't think that's something for us to discuss. I just think it's an observation of a challenge of the application of the bylaw, >> but I think it's important to note.
>> Yeah. And and then on on the appeal, you know, I know we've talked before. I think this is something that came up at town meeting that there should be some kind of chance for the property owner to discuss with the other neighbor in front of some impartial body. Um I think
the earlier version really left it to the uh the inspection personnel to make that determination, but I I don't know if we want that person making judgment calls on arguments with neighbors. So that that's why we had kind of pushed for an appeal so that there's some process that people can advocate for for
>> Yeah. I I think in in our mind hopefully in an ideal town uh which I think Milton is very ideal in many ways if someone has an issue with their neighbor's lights they could talk to their neighbor and the neighbor could adjust the lights or explain why they need to be on in a way that satisfied
the neighbor who was complaining and nobody else would be the wiser. And I I bet that that has happened in town over time, you know, with somebody puts a new light on their garage and it's shining right into somebody's, you know, living room that that's the way that this goes.
This is really for the intractable solutions where they're the neighbors are failing to come up with a compromise, but I I agree with the idea that both sides should be represented in the in the argument process. And so and and I think the select board felt having an appeals process made a lot of sense.
>> Yeah. And I don't know if we want to skip ahead. So Mr. Z, were you copied on the emails between us and Mr. Milano and the town council just >> this today? >> Yes. Yeah. >> Yeah. So again, being conscious of your time, I'm going to maybe skip ahead to
the solution that is in the draft right now is that I believe it's worded that the select board will appoint a three member committee to review the appeals. not necessarily members of the select board, but just the select board will pick three people. >> I think almost certainly not members of
the select board. I think that will that that sort of reflect we felt like the select board itself is probably not the right body um to to be hearing this. And so um you know and we we would be open to suggestions if you thought somebody from ZBA should be on the committee. We
could see if that's a possibility. Um, I think leaving it unspecified kind of gives us an opportunity to figure out who the right folks are and then in the future if we want to go back and amend and codify what the specific members of that committee are, we could do that. >> Yeah. I just wanted to get your thoughts
on this specifically because of course this was the topic that the select board it might have been the only topic the select board discussed. >> We'd like your other changes. You're great. >> Great. I'm just saying we want want your feedback on this. >> Yes. Yeah. No, appreciate that. And I know you the select board threw out a
couple of ideas and this is the one that >> so I I again I can't speak you know substantively on behalf of the select board but I would anticipate that they would be fine with uh a solution like this one with us appointing three people. >> Okay, next slide. >> Anybody else want to talk about the
appeals question or process? >> I mean is there any reason it couldn't just be there only board of appeals just to kind of simplify things? I mean I don't need to >> I mean yeah I think I'll address that. I I talked to Mr. Milano about that and one reason I mean the zoning board of
appeals by law I guess by law if there's a zoning violation it goes to the zoning board of appeals this as we've said is not a zoning bylaw so when I talked to Mr. Milano he sort of said you know zoning board appeals they're busy and
this would be asking them to voluntarily pick up something that's not their job. >> Okay. Yeah. So if they if they raise, you know, between now and town meeting, if they raise their hand and say, "We're happy to pick it up." We'll do a green say them. That's
>> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I I think the select board would would agree with that, too, or we're happy if they wanted to take to take this on. >> I had a question. >> Um with regards to the committee that's going to hear the appeals, um these three individuals, what sort of background would you be looking for? So,
I think we'd probably want um you know, a a couple of different skill sets represented. One would be optimally somebody with some sort of experience in the in the building or lighting space, whether that's as an architect or somebody who um as an electrician or has
that kind of a background. Um I think we would also want to make sure that we had a fairly diverse set of folks that were represented there so that you know if there some one of the um rules is around cultural like holiday lights and things like that. So you'd want to make sure
that somebody understood when a manora needs to be on or something like that. Um I think that it would be helpful to have uh some diversity there. Also, I think some geographic diversity would be nice because I think um you know what might be super bright around Turner's
Pond might feel less bright to somebody who is used to living in East Milton and so they may be able to um you know provide some some commentary there. >> I have a follow-up question to that. Yes. Um, so I'm looking at the um the most recent version very quickly and I
don't see on there the terms that um these individuals that would be sitting on this committee. Is it um a lifetime term? Because it's not stated um in this uh article. So I'm just curious. >> So that I I you know we didn't write
this particular language. So I think we would be open to that. I my guess is that probably the select board would have a like most of our committees, we would have like a one-year appointment that, you know, people would be up and if they wanted to stay on the lighting committee, they could probably do that
unless they were shining flashlights at everybody. I don't know. >> Um, are you going to um is the intention to include that in this article before it goes vote? Because otherwise, I mean, should be clearly stated. I I >> I might splitting hairs here, but
I am splitting hairs. I would say this article doesn't establish a committee. The select board is expected to establish a committee and select board establishes committees, right? >> Yes. >> You establish them. You say, "Here's what we want. Here's the terms." >> So,
>> but I like to hear from >> Yeah. No, I I mean I I think that Mr. Funding's right. So, if the if the town meeting approves this and Mr. Milano is not online, is he? because he could probably jump in with the process. But my understanding is that the town meeting would if the town meeting tasks
the select board to create a committee to deal with this. Then the select board at our at a future meeting ideally like the next one or one there shortly thereafter would then have a discussion about how does this comm what does this committee consist of? If people had ideas or input and they wanted to, you
know, to give that to the select board, they would have an opportunity to do that. And then we would basically come up with a a set of bylaws or, you know, regulations for this committee, vote on them, and then seek seek either volunteer appointments or uh seek out people that we think might be qualified
and ask them if they'd like to serve. So, I would imagine if you know this passes in October, um you'd probably have something in place committee-wise before the end of the calendar year. >> Thank you. >> Welcome. >> Just so that those bylaws
>> would be determined by a select board. They wouldn't need to go back to town meeting, right? >> I mean, basically the the committee would it would be pretty simple like here's your term, here's, you know, the title of the committee and this is your task. And so if their task is to mediate
or sort of rule on uh judgments that have been made about lighting, then that's I think that would be the straightforward task. >> Well, really what what it would be is a recommendation to the select board because the bylaw gives the select board the authority. You can't delegate that authority. You would just be asking for
citizens to give you feedback. >> That's right. So the committee would come back to the select board and say we recommend that this ruling be upheld or we recommend that this ruling be overturned and we would probably vote according to the committee. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I'm just hoping it doesn't have to go back to town meeting another year
figure out but yes understood. >> Um >> I was looking at the language in the actual article. Um >> one thing I didn't see so there are three individuals I would assume is majority rule. It doesn't say that, but
I think that could be helpful so we know, okay, it's not just one one person can say, you know, vote a certain way and then the appeal goes that way is has to be a majority of those three. I yeah I I don't know if that we would have to specify that but that would be my
interpretation is that unless it was otherwise specified it wouldn't require a unanimous >> again they're not really making a they're not voting on anything >> bylaws the dislike board >> so they could report back and say hey two of us felt this way one of us felt that way and give us you know could be a
little supreme court situation if it really gets serious but my god I hope it doesn't come down >> bad question >> yes for notice purposes. So, it does say in here that the committee will make a decision. Is that decision going to be in writing so that it provides adequate
notice um to the alleged violator or is it just going to be a decision rendered at the hearing? >> Um I'm >> just asking because if there's further appellet rights that stem from if there's a denial or if there you know I'm just wondering where it goes. I would imagine that we'd ask the
committee to make a written recommendation so that they don't have to come to the select word and and give us the blowby-blow >> uh unless they needed to. >> I suggest that language be in there because it says decision throughout that part. Um perhaps the word written decision. I think that would be fine.
>> It's just the recommendation. >> I think that's I think that's a good addition >> to clarify something you said Mr. Zol you said Mr. Ml. Wait what? by drawing a blank there. Um, now it's my understanding from reading this that the
committee makes the decision. Both of you said things that sort of implied that the committee recommends a decision to the select board and that's not how I read it. >> I haven't read the new I haven't read the new language. >> Totally fine. Totally fine. >> Yeah. It says appeal shall be heard and decided by
>> pretty conclusive. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> It could be that the language is not accurate. Oh, I no I think it's >> I think if the bylaw specifies that the committee can make the decision, they probably can. >> Yes, that's true. >> But in the previous version, it was the select board. So, yeah,
>> in the previous version didn't say anything about an appeals process. Maybe the one we marked up way back when >> the markup had the appeal in it, but then this is now with the town council input. >> Um, yeah. So, this is I think that's that's right. So, that they would make the decision. And honestly, I think
that's probably more straightforward anyways. and then but I still agree with the idea of having it as a written decision. >> Any other conversation about appeals? >> Yeah, I would just say if so if this committee does make the decision, I would think we can make we can make the
recommendation that specify the decisions written. I would also specify that it's a majority decision so they don't get hung up because I don't know that that's clear. >> Are you saying as opposed to unanimous? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Or or that one one person
could stop the enforcement. I don't have them at my fingertips, but the town bylaws have some sort of generic terms about about committees. For example, you know, Brian, when you said Brian and Grace, both of you, when you looked at the the
impic Yeah. You said, do we does it need words around what a quorum is? And the answer was no. We have general town bylaws that address things like that. So, I don't have them at my fingertips, but I'm guessing it's things like majority rules. I would you so and if
there weren't >> agrees that majority decision is right which I would think would be the right call I would just check with uh Nick and make sure that that was if it's covered under the general bylaws then I think you're >> with Mr. Milano. >> Yeah, sorry. >> We have a we have a Nick here.
>> Got to follow. The only other question I had was so it says appeal shall be heard and decided within 60 days. If no decision is made within 60 days, the appeal is being denied. So I'm just worried if we can't
if the select can't get three individuals. Let's say they have two and it takes a month or two months to fill that third spot. the two individuals hear an appeal without a third
timeline and vacancies talking to. >> So I think this is again where Mr. Milano is is has the real official brain but I think using my uh experience as select board that none of the bylaws that we pass at town meeting are law
until the attorney general signs off on them. So there's still there's kind of a dead time between when the laws or when when town meeting closes and then when everything officially hits the books. So if the AG's office has to look at this, it's usually like a three or four month timeline. So my again with the goal of
having a committee in place by December, I don't think the the law itself or the the bylaw itself would be effective probably until the definitely until the AG has signed off on the bylaw, which is probably January, Februaryish. So, I don't think that we would run into that.
I think if we did run into a situation, as we have now on the select board where we have an even number of members. If there's a tie vote, there's a tie vote and uh and the tie usually means no action is is taken. So, um I would think if an appeal if there were two people on
an appeals committee, again, this is probably a better question for town council, but if there's two people and and they are tied on whether or not to overturn it, then that then it would be upheld. Anybody else on the appeals? Any more questions? Any more discussion?
Go to the next item then which is the brightness levels. Um so you guys might remember from the conversation we had uh that was like a month or two ago with Sean Aor who is I think one of the people that's really uh kind of helped determine what the lux what the level is
for Milton. The Milton level is 10 lux. I did reach out to Sean again to sort of figure out, you know, more precisely where he came for that. He was going to get back to me. It has not yet. So, I apologize about that. But trying to put this in context. If you look at other uh either written literature about
brightness levels or other um uh of bylaws for other towns, there seem to be, you know, three terms mentioned. There's candle candela uh which you know measures brightness, visible intensity, lux which tells how bright the surface are, lumens which tells how much light
is given off by the bulb. So clearly uh to people that are really in the know, these three things actually mean something different to each other. To me, they're all kind of the same. And the Milton bylaw is written at 10 lux. And so I tried to figure out a conceptual definition of what 10 lux is
in words that I can relate to and understand, right? And so I found two different definitions out there. So the first one is something I think we'd read at one of our meetings before when we were doing Google searches here in this room. 10 lux is considered a very dim level of light compared to illumination from a candle flame at a distance of 1
meter. Seems pretty uh light to me. It's slightly brighter than moonlight providing a soft ambient light. In practical terms, 10 lux is often used for creating a cozy atmosphere rather than for task for acquiring bright lighting. That's one definition or description of what 10 lux means. If you
look down at the next section, there's a difference between two, five, and 10. So, starting with the 10 one, 10 lux is ideal for public parks and gardens, ensuring safety and security with adequate visibility. These levels help to maintain a safe and functional outdoor environment, reducing reducing
the risk of accidents and enhancing overall safety. Clearly brighter than two and five looks, but seems to be kind of aligned with what we're trying to do in this bylaw. You you I think just uncovered something that I I uncovered which is the >> the definitions for lux vary
dramatically from what I found. And what you just read for 10 lux is >> not in agreement with the first bullet. 10 lux is considered a very dim level of light comparable to the illumination from a candle flame blah blah blah. Right? And then if you read down the
bottom 10 lux is ideal for public parks and gardens ensuring safety and security with adequate visibility. That is so how how do you >> I don't know. I I might argue they're one and the same, right? Sort of you you could say that you know a level of lighting that's appropriate for dim
lighting is appropriate for safety in a public space. So I agree they're not uh exactly aligned, but you could argue that one is the same as the other. >> One thing is I think distance plays in, right? Where's the measurement being taken? So one candle at a meter, let's
say this is the length of my arm. I think that that that's what 10 lux is in that first definition. In the second one, it's a public park. It doesn't talk about distance. I think that's a very general statement because a part can be a thousand, you know, feet in one direction. So, so I think that's why
these don't these won't make sense together because the second definition is just a broad discussion of applicability of 10 lux, not a where do you measure at? >> It might help or it might not help. We went to the next slide where I did some math. Um, so yeah, it's got it's got pi
in it. Um, so yeah, I >> it's a great bational number. >> I grab >> we'll cut to the chase. I I gra I just grabbed this math, you know, formula off the internet, you know, a formula out of a physics textbook doesn't equal real
world, but I wanted something like so stepping back, I don't think anybody wants to pass a bylaw and then we realize, oops, 50% of the people in town are in violation of this bylaw on day one. So I was wondering if I have a light bulb in front of my house, am I going to be in violation of this bylaw?
So I said, let's take two light bulbs in front of the house. For old people like me, we'll call them 100 watt bulbs. though even though they're not 100 watts anymore, but 100 watt equivalent bulb. Say you have two of those in front of your house. And let's say your sidewalk is 20 ft away. Now, your sidewalk is not
your neighbor's property, but let's start with that. Your sidewalk is 20 ft away. Two, again, quote unquote 100 watt bulbs next to your door, 20 ft away. We can skip to the end. That's 6.8 lux >> at 20 feet. >> At 20 feet.
>> Okay. So >> that's where all these things are measured from is from the property line. That's what the Milton calls for and that's what the other bylaws that I observed are. It's where you measure it at the property line, not at the source of the light. >> But the light could be on the property line, right? The light could be on the property line,
>> right? But it's about how Yes, it could be. But the the the the bylaw that that Milton has written here and that um that the other towns that I observed, the measurement of the brightness of the light is at the property line. So if your light is at the property line, then presumably has
to be dimmer, right? Because it's the shadow or the light goes on beyond the property line, right? >> So yes, you right. Yep. Where the light is located depends on how high in the air it is. So how far it projects there's a lot of different factors that go into it. >> So hope this helps with the imagination
question of we can sort of imagine there's a house with two light bulbs. Here's me at the sidewalk. >> How bright is that? Hope that helps with the >> getting us to imagine. >> So >> sorry to interrupt but remember when Sean came in.
>> Is that Andrew? That >> was Andrew. Okay. >> Yes, it is. When Sean came in, lumen is a the amount of brightness on the bulb itself. Uh lux is the illuminance or the
sort of level of light visibility at the point of measurement. Um, so the same lumen bulb from at if for a light that's at the property line would result in a lumen or
a lux that is higher than the equal light bulb in terms of wattage u measured from a light source that's 10 m away from the property line. So uh lux is uh
in terms of the visible amount of light is going to be the same uh uh might be different for different bulbs at different distances if you will. >> Yep. >> Macy, were you going to say something? >> Um I was and I can't remember now.
>> Okay. >> Totally escaped. >> Thank you. So we did look at some of the other towns on the next slide to see what kind of standards they have based on their numbers. So Milton's at the top proposed 10 lux at the property line. It's interesting that Andover and
Belmont don't give a number. They have how far it is uh from the street level. There's a diagram at the end of this deck if we want to see that. But basically they're saying it should not protrude beyond the property line. Welssley has >> that's zero. >> Huh? >> That's zero
>> at the property line. Yeah. Based on the lightness, you might be able to see the light, but >> they essentially set zero lux, I think, because if there's zero trespass, it would be zero lux. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think you're right about that. So, no observable light at the property line, >> right?
>> I mean, which is crazy. >> Consider this only comes into play if somebody if somebody makes I mean, if you have a light that's more than 10 lux over your property line, it's not >> No one's going to enforce it. Yeah. Then we can see the other towns that are
that we were able to look at here as well. >> Welssley I think specifically was five lux for residences and 10 lux for quote other applications undefined. >> Yes. >> Interestingly the Milton bylaw doesn't distinguish between residential and commercial.
>> Yeah. >> There's no standard at all. >> Doesn't seem to be. And in fact I would say >> too right like you know there will be towns that are very densely populated. It' be really hard to force people not to have lights, but they're more rural towns where it's like large properties,
I guess. >> Yeah. Like I saw Somerville was on the list in town. I'd be curious or a place that had >> lighting bylaws and I'd be curious what their >> what their standard is. >> Yeah, I didn't look at that one. >> Yeah. >> Um >> it seems like we're not at least
stricter than any of the >> We are. We're twice as strict as the next most strict town. >> What? What do you mean? Oh, okay. We're lax. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Right. Right. Yeah. Depending on your point of view. Sorry. >> We're twice different than the next. We allowed twice,
>> which is very similar to Milton. They're 2.7 lux at the property line. >> Yeah. So, that's quite quite low. >> Yeah. So low. >> So, Nick, would you like to speak to >> I mean, people are observing that. >> Yeah. In my mind, this is a new bylaw for Milton. I think we should be more
permissive and if we need to as a town look to restrict it and increase the standards in uh you know a year's time or two years time I think that's a lot easier than trying to become more permissive later in the future. It sounds like there are not a tremendous amount of issues. I think the great
thing about this proposed bylaw is it does help as Mr. Zola talked about before in the instances where neighbors can't get along there's a third party kind of independent source of of a referee if you will and I think in that instance you know we should seek to be a
little bit more permissive and start at a softer level and if people think it should be restricted further over time that would seem to be an appropriate action to undertake at that time >> I think that fits with the general approach of the select board to this which is has been to try to create
something that's it's not too restrictive and not too prescriptive and you know just create a process and then see how it works and with the idea that we could come back and change it. that having something that's too strict and suddenly we're
flooded with cases. Whereas if it's too lax and somebody who complains and they're like, you know, their neighbor doesn't fit their profile, then they can say, well, if we were in Hangingham, they would fit the profile. So maybe we should take the Hingham standards or then that's becomes the, you know, a future argument. But getting something
down that can start this process, I think, was the the overall goal. >> Yeah. I I would just add ju just because this says 2.7 lux for Hangingham and Canton, we're not talking about what their bylaws have as penalties, right? Those aren't the same bylaw here. They
could have a 2.7, maybe there's no penalty. It's just that's their expectation. So here we we do have fines. This is a mechanism for for potential disputes. So, uh, I think when Sean joined us maybe a month and a half ago, he he did talk about an earlier
version of the article had a lower level and and he he probably I don't know if he consider himself an expert, but I think we were all considered he's probably the most expertise or he's the most experienced in in this type of area. I think he had recommended we go to 10. So, I would think that that's a
more reasonable number. So, >> I also talked to Mr. worker about this one and and he also knows much more than I do about this. So, yeah, >> I'm uh I'm not going to fight the 10. I disagree. I think it should be zero. Actually, I would I would agree to two or five because that's where the other
towns are. Um I think 10 is too permissive, but I am persuaded by your argument that it's a new bylaw. Let's let the process play and if we need to tweak it later because we're out of alignment, we could do that. So, I don't mind that argument. There is >> Michael Lee Michael. One one other thing
that came up last time this uh uh article came uh last year in under consideration last year was that residents of East Milton >> Yeah. square had specifically indicated that due to sort of the distances
relative distances to property lines that um some of these laws would be really difficult to adhere to right >> without um and so I think short of having different rules for different
population density areas that uh I sort of agree that a higher higher Lux level makes sense as a sort of a single rule for the town. >> Mhm. Okay. >> But uh they had they had some really
expressed some serious concerns about being able to adhere to uh these lines and maintain even the most basic back. >> Just conscious of Mr. Z's time. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Okay. I'm keeping an eye on it,
but I'm here for I'm here at the warrant committee's pleasure. So, I'm I'm happy to stay as long as you need me. >> I'd love to have a quick quick check in on the exception for the motion light while you're here. >> Okay. Let's Do you want to get to that? >> Yeah, let's do that. So, um >> if we want to talk about the light
trespass versus dark sky, I think we agreed with that that this is a light trespass article and not a dark sky article. Yep. Um, and if folks in town are interested in having a Dark Sky article, that would be a different situation and we could start that up. I
know when we had our public hearing about this, there were a couple of kids from Milton Academy that did a very nice presentation on bird migration and dark sky and that's not what this bylaw is about, but uh, you know, floating that out there for a future article writer. Yes,
>> I have a question. So, we might be backtracking just a little bit, but this issue just occurred to me. So, the person who's going to complain or try to enforce this article, does it have to be a neighbor or could it be just anyone just driving down the street and say, "Oh my gosh, that house is so bright.
I'm going to go and file a complaint or seek enforcement. So, does it do you have to be affected by this alleged trespass?" >> It can be on state property or so. >> Yeah, I'm just wondering. I think it's open to and somebody wanted to file, they could file. is open to anyone.
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> I actually think I'm not sure I agree with that. Right. So, there were three definitions. I only put two of them on the page in the article. Right. So, one is about what life's trespass is. >> Uh, which is a condition with artificial light eliminated from light on one
property direct in such a manner the light source or glare is visible from any other property and constitute a public hazard or nuisance. And then public hazard or nuisance means lighting by virtue of its intensity, brightness, area of coverage, position or direction causes adjacent property or occupants thereof visual discomfort or other
physical harm or damage or substantial unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of such property. To me, that's about personal property, right? About like trespass and not about public property. Um and um and there's also a definition there about person. So, I
think you have to be a person and not an entity to have a a claim of light trespass. >> I'm going to share the relevant wording. >> Um, >> it's probably a good question for town council. I would I would defer to town >> I'm just wondering whether somebody was
just um taking a walk around Turner's Pond. Um, could that person seek to enforce this article because I mean does that become >> Well, interestingly, we got a letter, right? I don't think I think you shared that with everybody and I don't know if this true. I didn't get a chance to validate that. That says you're not
allowed to be in Turner's pond after dark. >> You're not. >> That's true. >> So there's no light trespass if you can't be there and you're a person walking around Turner's pond. That's an interesting observation. >> Pond is being trespassed upon. >> Sure. By town, >> but that's a dark sky provision, not a
light, >> I think. >> But not Well, that was an interesting thing, too. It's I think according to the Milton website, it's a Milton Park under the Milton Park Department. the state controls the fishing on there. >> You need a state I think it's the state stocks upon the impression that you need a state license to fish there, but I'm
not positive about that. So, I think it's a Milton Park. Um but um but based on the concept of light trespass and not uh dark sky um we did remove two things from the originally proposed article
that talks about visible from federal state or town land or wilderness or conservation area that's more aligned with the dark sky provision and we also took out and town council did too town uh trespass on the waters of the United States. Um, so I think those are aligned
with the intention of the article, which is like trespass, which I think is about infringement on personal property of people and not on public lands. Again, I think in my view that would be a different and Mr. Zul mentioned that a second ago, too, be kind of a different article with a different purpose. I'm not saying it's a good article or bad
article. I just don't sure those provisions would be aligned with this article. >> Well, I don't agree with what you just said. the the article originated to protect specifically the pond that we were talking about, you know, so regardless of what kind of land it is, that was why the article started in the
first place several years ago. And the words got moved into it said the third one down, which is now number one, says light trespass onto residential use property, town parks or state parks. We've replaced everything that you took out in so there's no change.
So then maybe that requires clarification then because that again the the word person is not defined as such and then the hazard has to be someone that caused discomfort. So how can you cause discomfort on a pond? I
mean that's like a dark Yeah. But the wildlife wouldn't be able to testify to discomfort. Um, if anything, um, I think everyone knew that there was a beaver that lived in Turners Pond that was hit right on Brook Road this summer. So, the argument could be made maybe there needs to be more light to protect him. I don't
know. I'm just saying. So, so I'm just wondering like I mean it just it doesn't jive with the definitions of person um, a hazard. So, that's I mean that's my >> Can I interrupt? We're getting deeply into this issue. I want to be respectful of Mr. Z's time. Mr. old. Do you want to
speak to this issue or should we skip ahead to motion detectors which >> So again, I would defer to town councils on the residential use property, town parks or state parks if that's a town council insertion there. >> Um >> uh that was
>> I believe that was my insertion. >> Okay. Um I think uh you guys we would have to discuss if you guys wanted to, you know, sort of include uh
town parkland uh in this this >> it was in the last version you saw, wasn't it? >> Yeah. And we had we had uh we had said that we were okay with getting rid of the dark skies provision, but then if the warrant committee comes back and says we feel like town park
land should be included but not state park or American waterways or whatever the other ones were, then we would uh you know I think take very seriously that consideration but we'd have to vote on it. >> Yeah. And I guess I would say if you know someone is shining the bat signal
under Blue Hills that's no that's a resource we all have and to the extent that's damaging the habitat there or just making the park less enjoyable whether it's open at night or not I think that affects all of us whether it's blue hills or town
>> parks. You know, actually one of the um explanations that I read about 10 lux was that anybody experiencing 10 lux would lose their night vision when walking outside. >> So any person passing at the property line who's exceeding 10 lux is going to
have difficulty seeing at night if they face the opposite direction. >> So that I anybody could be harmed by it. Yeah, I I disagree with what you just said a second ago, Jay, about the state parks and the town parks. I really do think this is about lice trespass
protecting individuals and their property rights and not about protecting wilderness and wildlife. So, I failed to observe that that got put into what's now number one. Um, >> I'm sorry, I didn't try to sneak. >> No, no, I'm not not saying you are. Just
I missed it. I don't think that should be in there. I think it should just focus on light trespass on a residential property. I agree. >> Problem is, I mean, if we make this sort of toothless as it comes to conservation land, I mean, then we're going to have a big problem at town meeting because that
was the original purpose of the article was Michael Medical said. >> Yeah. >> So, I don't know where that leaves us. >> Well, it was, but then it was rejected at town meeting. >> It never even came up. It never >> Well, no, but it was amended during town meeting over and then Yeah. Then it was
pulled back because of >> it came with a huge green sheet and it got >> Yeah. Right at the last minute. >> But I think if you go right to the beginning of the art proposed article, right, the purpose of the article is to protect person from the intentional unintentional trespass caused by another
person and a person is defined an individual or legal entity holding title or using real property. So I suppose a park could be a legal entity. Um, but I really don't think that's, you know, I'm not a lawyer, so I know the definitions
matter and all, but I really think this is about personal property and people and not wildlife and animals. >> Well, we can take a vote on that in a couple minutes. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> Why don't we talk about the before you go and then let's circle back to taking a vote on a possible motion.
>> So, I know that one of the questions or concerns that I've been told some people have is about a motion sensor. There's an exception in the bylaw for motion sensors. I think it says 60 seconds. If the nuisance is 60 seconds or less, then >> I scratched out the 60 seconds. Okay. I didn't think that. So now it just says
temporarily. >> Okay. And so in the in the reading that I had done, the research I had done on the other towns I looked at, I did not find any uh motion sensor exceptions in any other town bylaws. I personally think it's a appropriate exception uh in
the same way that you know seasonal lighting is on the page as an exception as well or landscape lighting and that kind of stuff. I think when you think about one of the reasons that people have outdoor lighting um is to you know walk from your car to your driveway or
you're trying to um trigger something that you know you're concerned somebody approaching your property um and so the motion sensor is there to protect you and provide safety for you. I think it's an appropriate exception. That's my perspective on that question. >> I think everything you just said is true
except that the light doesn't need to go on somebody else's property. You wouldn't be walking in somebody else's driveway to get to your car. And if no matter if something has a motion sensor on it or not, it should be shielded such that it isn't trespassing on your neighbor. Otherwise, that number five,
the way it's written right now, invalidates kind of the rest of the bylaw, as long as it's on some sort of a motion activator. And a motion activator can be anywhere. It doesn't have to be somebody walking by. You could put a motion activator in your house and turn lights on and off that are outside, you
know, like this. >> The chipmunks trigger mine. Absolutely. >> Yeah. Right. Exactly. So, it's just so >> not to interrupt, but depending on where you live, you're in East Milton or in a sickly settled neighborhood going by all it's your neighbor's flood light is going to hit your driveway. It would It's just because of the way of the
bulb, the lighting. Um, so that's just point. I also want to point out there's a typo in number five. There's a parenthesis. Yeah. >> Yeah. It's as virtue of, you know, marking it up and redlinining. >> So, you don't want a a limit on like a 60sec because what if somebody's flood
light stays on for >> someone I think off I don't think it should be an exception. I think it's I think you shouldn't trespass your light on somebody else's property on purpose whether it's temporarily or permanently. >> So I would just suggest
>> does the select board have a position on this? >> We don't have a strong position on this one. I I don't we didn't we didn't debate it so I have my own personal opinion but I can't represent the select board on it. >> I think we can vote on that one too. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Given that do we have other
questions for Mr. Z? >> Call me get my number >> when you're on the road. Thank you. >> Thank you everybody for >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Really appreciate it. >> So we are in the middle of two topics. Would it be too drastic to lurch back
and forth back to the I'll call it the wilderness park. All right. We can go back to that uh topic. Uh and I will go back to the slides because you put together a number of slides about that
one. Okay, this first one is the first one. Okay, I'm not I'm not sure I have other slides that I wanted to talk to you on that. Um >> um there were I thought there were more than one slide. >> There are some other slides. It's just kind of the language other towns had.
>> Okay. Um, so in terms of like trying to go through the issues that we identified that I thought different people had different views, I've gone from my perspective shared the information that I've learned. I would say as I said before, I've learned fast and furious here and this
is pretty technical language and I'm not a subject matter expert. I've done my best to be as thoughtful as I can and as balanced as I can and also share my perspective on these questions. So, >> thank you for that. >> Oh, you've done a great job. slides are excellent information.
>> Okay. So can we focus on this topic of you know I'll say we can you know we we have as as it is written now and again I didn't mean to slip it past you but as it is written now it's a violation if it goes on to let me get
the wording in front of me onto residential use property town parks or state parks. resident property, town parks per state parks limited to 10 bucks going across that line. >> So I think it should be residential
property at 10 lux and eliminate the state parks and um and uh town parks. >> I agree. Leave that for the dark skies. They want to do that. Would it be it might be appropriate to have a motion to
accept this as written and then we'll discuss it and then discuss an amendment of scratch out the town parks versus state parks. >> Could do it in the other direction. It would be quick quicker, wouldn't it? Be >> vote on the amendments what we did last night. >> No, that is not what we did last night.
>> How could we vote on an amendment if we don't have a motion in front of us? >> Oh, right. Okay. >> Well, no, he would make the motion. I would like to exclude only or have it only apply to residences and then you would change it and that's what we would vote on.
>> It's just you know I >> I understand the intent. I just uh want to follow the correct process. >> Can I ask some questions about this first? >> You look at me like I know the answers >> discussion discussion. Go ahead. So, we
all I don't know if you guys saw the email that came up. Um, apparently this whole bylaws based on one person's >> Yeah, I think I heard three houses are issues. >> Oh, three >> and their issue is security.
>> That's how I read what his issue is >> in the email that he sent today to the committee. Y security and he has issues with loiterers, right, >> and people on his property. So he's trying to say >> um
doesn't this affect that? Like does this make him less secure as a neighbor? Like >> just a concern? >> So I would say that is a perfect reason why there should be an appeals process >> and that's what we pushed for so that somebody can make that judgment call. I
don't think the warrant committee would be the right place to make that decision because we don't know the facts. We're not going to go out to look at his house. I actually live next to that house. But, you know, I think that's not our job to make a position. I wouldn't even talk about it publicly. I don't
know what he's alleging security or people behind his house. >> Yeah. It also provides and other people guidelines, >> you know, of how they can, >> you know, if they want to add, you know, if they want lights for added security on their house, this is the way they can do it so that they don't interfere with
neighbors or depending on how we vote conservation. >> I would just say I don't know the answer to your question, but I don't think we should allow people to illuminate parks from their properties. >> Your your light should stay on your property. Let's just
>> Yeah. Well, unless there's a security issue. I mean, but then you have businesses that have issues, too. >> Yeah. Like, where do you have security issues when you live up against the woods? I mean, it's the woods. You're not going to illuminate the woods. >> Well, there are ch there are teenagers that frequently go there for various
reasons. >> I've seen them do it. >> Is there reasons to break into his house? >> I don't know about that. But again, I agree with Ron that we're talking about a very specific instance of which none of us really have the factual background to discuss. But I I do know that there
are teenagers that frequent that park quite a lot at night >> um in that area and they leave evidence of their activities um in that park because I walk around that park almost every day. So, but I don't know about
this specific um person. Um, I didn't even know uh it was an issue until this article. But so, but I'm just saying like there is security reasons. Um, I'm living by that park or even by golf courses. I I used to have
one behind me in Milton and kids would go back there all the time. Cut through the woods. Um, Cunningham Park is another one, the pit. So, I'm not I'm just saying that's that's all I know about security. So, there are valid concerns I think. Um, There can be valid
concerns about public safety in my opinion that you have to address without giving people permission to illuminate an area that they don't own. >> Of course. No, it's just a balance, you know. I'm just saying like I I understand both sides. >> There's also something else to consider, too. I mean, you know, we're talking
about this one house, but I mean, you know, we've had complaints about like the super petroleum. They had this like, you know, that super tall sign. The neighbors complained about that. >> Oh, yeah. >> The lid sign the super petroleum over in East Milton. >> This was a while ago. >> Yeah. And then also the um east is it eastern
bank uh the bank that's in the heart the heart dental building >> exchanges all the time. Yeah. There's a lot of neighbors complain about that but I'm not sure that this would satisfy people. I just don't think that
>> if they come around full I get to eat. >> Sorry I'm digging one anyways. So again, for the process, I maybe I'm being a little dense here. I would like someone to make a motion to adopt the language as was sent around at about a minute
before 7 and then we can make amendments based on that. >> So the yeah, we I will agree to do that, but I'll just point out to you then you're forcing people to agree to language that they don't want to agree to and hoping that they'll get to change that language later. So, you know, there's an exception in there, right,
for motion activation. You know, I don't want that in there. So, to have me vote on the article the way that's written, >> not vote. Not vote. >> Oh, make a motion. >> Open the discussion. >> Oh. Oh, God. All right. >> Yeah. >> Go for it. >> Sorry. >> Now we're on the same page. Okay.
>> Do Do I have a motion in a second? >> Go ahead. >> We were We were letting the people who brought >> I'll make the motion, right? Go ahead. >> Are we doing that? Okay. >> I'll make the motion. >> I'll make a second. >> Okay. Okay. So, we've opened up the discussion on the language as sent at approximately 1 minute before 7. I I do
apologize about that and I'll do whatever I can to >> Should we note that James sent in a text message or an email to the group that said that the town of Milton acquired tourist pond and postponed in the 1950s and60s. Nice. >> They're definitely town parks.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I checked the mass GIS today. That's town town owned property. Um, okay. So, we're discussing this uh and it's I think it would be appropriate for someone to make a motion to amend and then we can
discuss that emotion to amend. >> So, let me >> to further amend >> not further amend. >> I'm learning. I see. >> That's awesome. >> Motions are put on the table to amend
whatever the section is. Um, let me make this three B 4 part one to just say like trespass on residential property no greater than 10 lux. Okay, >> I'll measure no greater than 10 lux.
>> Take out my mouse isn't cooperating. Take out >> take out onto well trespass take out residential property use property town parks or state parks. Do you want to keep res? >> Sorry, I'm having mouse issues here. >> Do you want to park?
>> Yes. >> And the comments. >> Thank you. >> I'll let Karen handle the comments. >> So, we're making a motion. >> There's a motion to amend which we will discuss after it is seconded. >> Need to move all over. I'll second it. >> Okay. We have a motion. We have a
second. So, now let's discuss the motion to remove the phrase town park, state parks. We've already been discussing it, but we can continue to discuss. >> Yeah, I'll start then. Um, I think it should be removed and save that for a
dark sky type article because this one's about light trespass on property, um, personal real estate. So, it to protect wildlife, that should be a dark skies article. So, I support that. I think if we were to remove that, we'd have to
make it pretty clear in the comment that we removed it and that this applies to residential use only and not town parks and state parks. >> Somebody will try to put it back in anyhow. >> Yeah, most certainly. And then try to put it back in. >> I agree with you, Missy.
>> I think I'm on an island here. I don't want people lighting up my town parks. They should be dark. >> Islands are good. I should be able to use my night vision and not be blinded by people. >> You shouldn't be walking.
>> This part, not that far. >> Um, no. I >> I'm sorry. >> Okay. Yeah. Can I go then you? >> Yep. You go. >> Yeah. I I you know, again, sometimes I'm hesitant about expressing my opinion, but I'm 115th of the group. No more, no less. Uh, I agree with me, Michael. I think this town is passionate about its
parks, town parks and state parks, Blue Hills included. town passionate about them, loves what they bring to the town. Uh, loves the wild, you know, I don't want to open the Pandora's box of what does life do to wildlife? What does light do to wildlife? But people are passionate about that. And I I think
this town feels strongly. And I think that was a motivator of this uh article. I think if we bring it to town meeting and don't address that, they'll wonder what we've been drinking on town. And uh, sorry, too soon. Um, so seriously, I
think I think this town is passionate about its parks. We're the keepers of the Blue Hills for the entire state and uh I think this has a place and now who has grounds to complain. Maybe that's a question to be decided by the appeals board that will be created.
>> Also, it doesn't mean that you can't have security lighting on your property. It just has to be within certain guidelines. >> Yes. >> You know. >> Yes. >> I mean, you can light up his yard all want. You can Sorry. But a person could light up their yard all they want. Direct all the light into into their yard onto their doors
>> with shades. Yeah. >> With shades and >> and you're good. >> Or timers >> depending on Brian. >> Um so this email from this gentleman >> he mentioned he referred to the people trespassing as criminals. Have there
been issues like crime that's happened in this area? Because we're really talking about Does anybody know of anything? But is that pertinent to what we're t talking about? >> Well, security matters. >> I think is it a security issue >> in town parks at night? I mean, is that
isn't that what we're talking about now is taking out town parks or state parks? >> Security cut lights on town. >> Okay. >> So, I think and I didn't write his email, but >> theory trespassers onto public land and
I guess that's a crime. Yeah, I think I think that's what he >> Okay. I just didn't know if there was something I missed. >> Oh, no. Yeah, that it's a crime. Yeah, I guess >> that's a crime, >> right? >> Um I agree with Nick that I think this
is a residential use um article. Um, I also agree with Larry that we should definitely put in the comments that we removed it that phrase because it's more pertinent to a dark sky
article which we anticipate you know a group bringing in the future or whatever if they are concerned about the very issue that we're discussing here. I I yeah I mean our comment should inform the town meeting here's the
information here's why we made our decision here's the information you need um when we say take out these words I added these words last week so it's we take them out they never >> but the comment could say we discussed >> we like trans state >> park and came to this decision and
here's why the original the original >> uh proposed bylaw from the select for has a very similar clause. >> You're right. >> So this what we're talking about now is just a reframe of that. >> So I I think it's a good thing to put to
some degree in the comment. Yes. >> Oh, for sure. Ron, >> I um like on most issues, I'm I'm I I'm torn because I I I do agree with you, Michael and Jay, that I think the town a good
portion of the town, right, wants to see this, but listening to what our select board chair said, it sounded like he was comfortable limiting this article to just trespass for the time being and focusing on on what we have and then not
taking the further steps to go into dark sky. Is that Did he say that? I think I heard him say that. >> Cecil, >> um I guess a question for Nick. Uh so when you looked at the other bylaws from the other towns, did they specify like
town land, non-residential townland or parks? >> I don't recall seeing that in there. My takeaway from looking at the other articles is that the Milton article is a lot longer and generally more detailed
than the others. Um, so that just stood out to me as I read through it. Um, so there's, you know, more exceptions, there's more details, there's more elaboration on the provisions. Um, and I think partly because, you know, I think the other ones are in the, um, the zoning bylaws.
And so it's about, you know, the construction of certain uh, buildings and, you know, sometimes those bylaws apply not only to new buildings, but also retroactive buildings. Sometimes it just applies to new buildings. Some of them are explicit like separate uh
lighting bylaws. Um but I did not see I don't recall seeing that in any of the other bylaws, but I'm not I don't know how carefully for detail I read for that particular issue either. >> Uh Andrew, I see you. And then I have a
couple things to say. >> Thanks. you know, like I'm I'm torn also and but I would prefer to give select board uh some discretion because like trespass really happens all the time. Uh if you think about street
lights that are in town, they trespass on my land and into my bedroom. Uh and I don't love it, but it's something that I deal with. And to the extent that you have some reasonable amount of light trespass
or light spilling over onto town land or into the park within some degree of reason, I I think the regional people can come to sort of some decent conclusion um particularly with the select board or whoever they appoint
to hold these appeals. So, I'd prefer to see some degree of discretion. Um, but I understand arguments uh going in from both sides. >> Okay. Thank you. So, I' I'd like to uh well, I
guess two things. I'd like to read from an email I got from Rob Lavash, the chair of the parks board, parks board. Uh and then and then address bring up an issue of my own. Rob Levash, he I emailed him asking about this bylaw and
he says, "It has been brought to our attention that one resident in particular has very large safety lights on the rear of his property which intrude on Turner's Park/Pond. While we have thought about other ways to mitigate the light spill, the resident has been non-ooperative. I think the bylaw could help in this instance. Is it a slippery slope,
however, writing a bylaw for one particular nuisance? However, I am sure that it would help in other instances should they arise?" >> Yeah. Don't know what we conclude from that, but I wanted to pass that on to everyone. >> But but he also said in that email, just for the purposes of balance, because I think you sent that to me,
>> is that the primary concern of the parks department was about lighting of ball fields, which was he said adequately protected in the bylaw. And so that was part of what he said, but I, you know, >> to me, uh, that was, uh, had more emphasis than the one particular house that we've been talking about.
>> You're right. He did spend more time talking about ball fields. I didn't think that was relevant because >> just in terms of like it wasn't his only focus of his comment. This is >> true. Most of his email was about lights on ball fields. >> There's been a lot of complaints about ball fields too, but there's an exception. So, >> and then I guess my other comment is I'm
stuck on this difference between dark skies and light trespass that everyone I seem to be thinking of this differently than everyone else. For a dark skies bylaw, I think it's going to help me walk out and see the Milky Way at night. That's what I think of as dark skies. You can have a light as bright as you want as long as it's shining down. It's
very different and I agree that's not this light trespass is you're annoying people with your glare. So I think of you know what is this intended to prevent even if it's we're talking about town parks or state parks I'm not calling that a dark skies pro it would
be covered by a dark skies provision I assume but that's the problem there is the glare on people that want to enjoy the park and I don't think the blue hills closes at night not not as far as I know and so if we're casting glare on
people who are trying to enjoy the blue hills that's not a dark skies question to me that's a trespass question to me. Maybe it's subjective, but I agree with that. >> I don't agree with that distinction there. >> I guess my rebuttal to that would be the beginning of the proposed article defines what the purpose of the article
is and it's about protecting property and I and not about protecting wilderness. Um, and and I think they're different intentions. And I think, you know, the art isn't the definition. It all depends on how you want to define the issue. And some people can uh
conflate the two together. And I think um they're separate issues and and there's some intermingling of it throughout this article and we're trying to create a little bit more delineation there. >> You know, the the reason why I think many people would agree that
town-owned parks are our property as t residents of the town. It's literally my property. But just because I don't have an additional property that abuts it, I don't think I should lose my
right to have a dark environment or, you know, quiet environ whatever it is. The park shouldn't be altered by other people and I I think I should have standing because it's part of my town as Yeah. But I'm going to counter that because so yes, so you can be part of the
definition of person, right, under this bylaw, but then you have to show that there's a hazard to you um that it's a nuisance. So if you're not living there and you're just walking around the pond or just walking by, >> you still have those elements that you
need to show in order to enforce it. And so I find that difficult I think because if I'm walking down Central A just on a walk and yes, you know, there's a lot of light, whatever. How is that hazardous to me? How is that a nuisance to me?
It's a quick one minute and maybe 30 seconds just passing by. So that's my issue with like the state parks, you know, the not the state parks, the parks, the pond, and all that. It's not coming into your bedroom. It's not glaring on your TV while you're watching, you know, whatever you're
watching. So that's the only thing that I have a hard time kind of differentiating. That's all. >> Yeah, I think uh I agree it's public land and we all have a a right to it, >> but some folks may like it dark and some other folks may like to walk around
parks with lights on. I don't know, >> like maybe walking around with a lantern >> and you would inevitably blind all the other parkgoers. But I think that's part of the deal of public land, right? So I I don't know how I feel about it because I I don't think
when when I look at the article, Nick, the purpose says it's about people, right? It's the purpose of this chapter XX to protect a person from the intentional unintentional like trespass caused by another person. So I don't think it it >> the purpose doesn't really define the rules, but it it is about people. So
that that makes me hesitate with that residential, non-residential, but uh but I don't know how I feel about public land because I think you can have different uses. Maybe someone wants to have a you know a big party. I don't know if you're allowed to do that at night. Then they would put lights up and it would blind other park goers.
>> That's why one of the exceptions >> this is something that >> that we had talked about. You know, Ron and Jay and I talked yesterday trying to get prepared for this conversation and There's a lot of uh and we've talked a lot about it for an hour and 15 minutes
imprecision in this language that you know I don't know kind of makes me uncomfortable and uh and you could say that the action should be to refer it back to the select board which would be for like I think the third time and that might not be an appropriate action but I mean all these things the definitional
issues and the technical details they really do you know kind of bring that up as a as a consideration. Um I think in the preponderance of my mind um you know currently there's kind of a
a dilemma that some people are feeling that they have an no ability to seek recourse when they can't come to a neighborly agreement and this provides them some recourse and it's a start and I think the flexibility that's afforded in it is um is is kind of a good
compromise so the people that need or want recourse because they can't come up with the neighborly agreement have an independent standard to use for those discussions and yet we're not kind of overly um draconian about what's being proposed because there's sufficient
amount of uh vagueness in it. So I think on balance I think this is the right thing to do but I I do think it would be reasonable to sort of say there's a lot of imprecision here. We've raised a lot of questions and it should go back to the select board for further consideration. So I just I I don't know. I'm not making a motion. I'm just
throwing out another input perhaps. >> Can can I ask a question? I mean I mean this is a I understand why only 18% of mass communities have a law like this because it's so difficult, but like what does this do to like East Milton? You
guys probably know like does is every house in violation there? Well, they if if they got if if yes, most of the houses are going to be in violation and if somebody makes a complaint, it's going to go to that board and they're going to say, "Everybody in your
neighborhood has the same exact violation, so there's no specific harm to you because the houses are so close. It is what it is. >> I think that's what will happen." >> No, isn't it? If they're in violation, it's violation, they're guilty. It's not like >> it may not be a violation.
It may not be a violation because it you have to look at the incremental light >> from the property. So if East Milton is well illuminated in general because of street lights, stores neighbors, >> you turn off one home, it may not have a 10 lux delta. So we don't know,
>> but >> to Nick's point, we don't know. I mean, maybe 10% or 50%. I don't know. >> There's other things in the article that give uh flexibility for discretion and judgment of the person doing the inspection and making the finding. And then there's the appeals process where there could be extenduating
circumstances. I mean, it really is not perfectly delineated exactly what it is, which I think is good, you know, given the I think the newness of the concept because I think that's why it's not um as widely adopted in Massachusetts as other things might be. And I think
because it's difficult to define and so, you know, like I said, I think there are challenges out there people can't resolve. This gives them ability for recourse. And I think it's sufficiently broad. That's seems like the appropriate flexibility. >> Can I count that? >> We are getting off the topic of the
>> of the motion >> wilderness. Yeah. Parks, etc. >> So, I just want to counter what Nick said that definitions to me as an attorney, they're really important because they provide a road map as to what you can and cannot do. So, yes,
broadness is important. vagueness runs into a little bit of an issue because if you if I'm the neighbor and I have lights all over my house, I want to be able to not violate this. So, I need some sufficient notice and guidance as to like, okay, so where are my lights? Who's this person? Um, this, you know,
person who's walking by, how is it causing physical harm or damage? So, that's that's the reason I'm questioning some of these definitions because I would want to know like what I need to do and what I can and cannot do. That's all. >> Yeah, I think there are a lot of definitions, isn't there? And I think
there's room for more if people want to get, you know, more detailed. >> Yeah. So, no, I just wanted to put that out there. >> So, again, we're right now discussing the motion to strike out the words town parks or state parks.
I'm not trying to cut off discussion. I'm I'm saying, do we have more discussion about this? >> I've said all that I have to say. >> Okay. Are we ready to vote? Yes, >> can you remind who's online? >> Uh, James Lee and Andrew.
>> Okay. Uh, sounds so we are right now voting on the amendment to strike the words town parks or state parks. If you want to strike those words, you will vote yes. If you do not want to strike those words, you will vote no. Uh, Karen, can you call for a vote?
>> Can you repeat that? I'm sorry. >> Okay. If you want to strike the words, vote yes. If you don't want to strike the words, vote no. Macy. >> Yes. >> Elaine. >> Yes.
>> James Lee. >> Yes. >> Okay. Grace, >> yes. >> Larry, >> no. >> Brian, >> no. >> Lee Michael. >> No. >> Ron, >> yes.
Nick, >> yes. >> Cecile, >> no. >> Jay, >> it's not a tie, is it? >> No, it's six to four. >> Okay. And I'd stay. >> So, the amendment passes.
>> Nobody asked me. >> Andrew. >> Oh my gosh. >> Andrew, I'm so sorry. >> No problem. Uh, no. >> Sorry. Yes. myself. >> That's awesome.
>> To be very clear, I'd like to clarify what Andrew's vote is. >> No. No. Yes. >> No. >> No. Yes. Yes. On. No. >> Do you want to strike? >> Is that obvious what I mean? >> Do you want to strike the language town parks and state parks? >> Yes, I would like to strike it.
>> Okay. >> So, that is seven to four. >> Seven to four and one abstension. Yes. Sorry about that, Andrew. >> No problem. >> I don't know where you went. >> Yes. Got it. >> Not even 8:30 at night. We're punchy. Okay.
>> Uh, we were sort of drifting into some big picture philosophical questions, which are good. Uh, unless we want to move on to >> Please take those commas out. Please. >> Yes. Move the yellow all the way down. >> Please take them out. I can't vote for that. >> You're adding more.
Everybody's OCD is going crazy. >> Thank you. That I can vote. >> One more. >> One more. >> Oh, you're right. You're right. Thank you very much. >> Yeah. Um, thank you. >> Now, should we move on to the other discrete issue that we were discussing,
which was >> motion sensors? >> Yes. Um, if someone wants to make a mo first of all, we're gonna, you know, >> I will make a motion. >> By the power vested in me, we're deleting this parenthesis. >> Um, Lee Michael, do you have a motion?
>> Yes. I move that we strike number five. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. So, now we will discuss this. Uh, Lee Michael, would you like to start off the discussion? I think that motion activated lights are great and that people should have them
in their driveways and I think that they can be shielded such that they do not illuminate their neighbors property. There's no reason to have an exception for a motion light that's that says as long as it's temporary. Yes, you can trespass any unlimited number of times
onto my property that you want because it's not like it has says it can be 3 seconds. It's not says it can go on twice a night or something like that. It can literally go on and off all night long and um light up my yard like their driveway. >> Yeah.
I had a neighbor that had a light like that. It was like a strobe light in my backyard. You know, it wasn't bad. You know, it was only when I was in the backyard, but you know, they had people over or whatever. It was very irritating. >> Can I ask what? >> So, what if that um motion sensor is
right in your bedroom and just keeps flickering all night? I had that and I was in >> I had that exact scenario on Brush Hill Road where the houses are pretty far apart. >> I I from two lots away it illuminated my
bedroom. >> Oh my goodness, that's crazy. >> Um what? >> Nothing. >> And so like cats would walk by or birds would fly at night and it would just constantly go on all night long. I don't see any other hands, so I'd like to say
something. So, to me, this this has the same feel as the 10 lux versus less than 10 bucks question, which is to say right now, September 29th, 2025, all of this is legal. It's all allowed. So, we're just we're trying to decide what's so,
you know, what are we going to change the law to forbid this? And just like, you know, maybe 10 lux isn't perfect, but let's be a little permissive to let people get, you know, find out where we are with this, okay? >> And take out the worst of the worst. Similar here. I keep thinking of a
healthare worker who works at the hospital until midnight, comes home, wants to park in the driveway, and wants to be well lit when they walk in their house. And I know I've bought motion detecting lights from Home Depot and I cannot for the life of me figure out how
to adjust their sensitivity or the time >> and I may not even be able to adjust the angle. That that's how hopeless I am around the house. But again, if I were a healthcare worker who got off shift at midnight, I would not want somebody telling me I can't have an illuminated
>> neighbor's yard. >> Yeah. You know, spilling over into the neighbor's yard. >> Okay. Um, Ron, >> um, two comments. >> I agree with you. This is a new law. I would take baby steps. And so for me, the more exceptions the better. We can
decide later on if we want to remove exceptions, but I would say if people have motion sensing lights, I would say let's not tell everyone they got to take them down because I think every flood light is going to be very bright and it's going to go over someone's yard. So, I would be cautious about removing
this one. The other thought I had was if I think about what I feel is reasonable. Let's take for example, if there's a person who owns a property and they're concerned about their safety and they want to shine very bright lights in their backyard because they think there are criminals or trespassers, I would
say then put them on a temporary motion light and that's maybe a compromise as opposed to shine that light six hours after after dusk. I know that, you know, that's >> without talking about that specific case, I think that's a reasonable solution to say shine it for 50 seconds
and turn it off because if no one's back there, there's no reason to have a light shining back there. But if someone is, maybe that's sufficient safety. So, so I would keep that because this gives that kind of like reasonable option that you can have bright lights, but just don't
have them on, you know, without a reason. So, >> can I ask a question to Sure. Do you think it would be better this clause if you put in a specific time limit such as 60 seconds? >> Yeah, we we talked about that and we we just weren't sure what the motion
sensors are. I don't know. I don't know if you can control them or >> Ron put those Ron put those numbers in there and I took them out again because I'm incompetent. I wouldn't be able to make mine. >> I have one in my yard. >> I eventually just disconnected it. >> Yeah, I have I mean one of my houses we have um motion sensors in the back. We
don't have I I think 60 seconds like because I have a big backyard that you can park and then you have to walk up to the side of the street. So, uh to get into the house. So, I don't know if 60 seconds would be enough. And so, I I'd rather just leave it >> vague short term to see, but um I do
agree with maybe turning down the the volume of the light to your point because that's horrifying to have somebody's light in your bedroom all the time. Right. >> So, >> so as long as it's below 10 lux, >> it wouldn't be a problem in any case.
Correct. >> Now, this exception though, >> it can be as bright as it wants to be. >> This can be above 10 lux. >> Okay. So, we're saying that's what the problem is is that if these kids are hanging, I don't really want to reduce this to one homeowner because this is for the town. But but if you have a
nuisance problem and you know there are people constantly wandering around your property, those motion sensors are going to go on and off and on and off and it's going to be in some ways more than if it were just on steadily. >> You get surprised by it. Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> Right. But in the case where my house, it's only me coming in the backyard. >> Correct. >> So then I wouldn't have an easy way to walk to my doorway. What if we said something like five minutes? >> That's reasonable, I think. You know, or even three, three or five, something
like that. >> I I think if we say temporarily and if the person goes out to inspect it and the defense says, "Oh, it's limited to one hour." >> They're not going to get the exception. >> You don't need an hour. >> Yeah. Four minutes is enough. Yeah. It
just depends on Yeah. I mean, a doorway. >> I think temporarily implies >> however long. >> Yeah. Reason like however long you would need to reasonably get to your door. I >> 60 seconds. >> I'm not going to die on this hill, but I think temporarily everybody knows what a
temporary motion activated light is. >> Uh I see Ron. I see Brian. >> M real quick. I I I don't know that a light going on and off is worse. I think that's subjective because I may say I like it going on and off so I know
someone's there because if it's on all the time, I have no clue. It's just on. But if it's on and off, then I know, okay, someone's walking around behind my house. Maybe I call the cops. So maybe that's better. I think to say it's worse, maybe that's overgeneralization. >> Brian,
>> yeah, I think people only put in motion detectives for safety reasons. Yeah. I don't think it's necessarily breaking in, but just seeing getting into the house. And I think that um and I see I walk my dog and they go off sometimes
walking the dog, but I think that you could irritate a lot of people in the town all of a sudden put in a motion detector that they put in for safety and now you're saying no we want to take it out I think it could cause a problem
>> should we vote is there further discussion >> I just think if the if this is the exception and that it can be as bright as you want it to be then it really takes the teeth out of what this bylaw is trying to do.
>> I will throw out there um just for discussion the people who want this struck. Would you feel different if it did have a time limit of let's say five minutes? I I >> it there would have to be a lot it it would have to say it can be on for no
more than you know 2 minutes. Um not continuously for you know whatever. It can't come on and off every two minutes, right? So, it would be a little more complicated than that. But, yeah, if there was a limitation on it, I would feel much better about it. Me, too. >> So, I'm looking at my flood lights right
now. Um, >> no. So, I I have them. And this is not the one. This is not my house in Milton. This is my house um province town. And I have the limit on this. And this is obviously on an app. It's five minutes. >> The flood light. So, I can't even put this on for 10 minutes if I wanted to.
It's five minutes. And then I can reduce it, reduce it, reduce it. So just as an FYI, and this is obviously a modern, you know, a more modern system than >> just, you know, the one you go up there and you turn it. So, and I'm thinking about the one that's over my garage in Milton. I think it's a three minute
limit because it's a dial. >> So you can't even have them on for an hour. So that's just as background if you want to put a a time limit. >> Would Yeah. Would the people who want to make this amendment prefer instead of scratching this out
adding and maybe prefer is the wrong word? >> I would I would prefer to leave it like this and if somebody wants to then make a separate motion consider that. >> So the motion before us is to >> strike five >> strike this clause. Uh if you want to strike the clause, you
will vote yes. If you want to leave the clause, you will vote no. Does everyone understand what we're voting on? Yes. >> And I see no more discussion. Karen, can you call roll? >> Macy. >> Well, that's a really hard one. Um,
>> in my day, it was everybody put their hands up or down at the same time. So, it was there was less pressure. >> Can you skip? Yeah, I want to think about this because there's really good points. >> Okay. Great points. >> I can go first.
>> I believe it should be struck. So, yes. James Lee. >> Grace, >> no. >> Larry, >> yes. >> Andrew, >> yes. >> Ryan, >> no.
>> Lee Michael, >> yes. >> Ron, >> no. >> Nick, >> no. >> Cecile. >> Yes. >> Macy. Is it a tie?
>> It's It's right now five yes, four no. >> We still haven't got everybody right. >> Everyone made excellent points. I'm having a really hard time with this one. >> But if you make it a tie, you make it Jay's problem. >> Oh, no. >> Andrew, what's the tie again? >> Oh,
>> five yes, four no. >> I I did do Andrew. >> And And James Lee is an abstension. >> And I didn't say yes. >> I'm going to say no and have leave it to you. >> Okay. You're going to say no. It is a tie. Well, whether I abstain or vote no is the same. I will vote no.
>> The motion does not >> Thank you for your feedback there. >> Um, do we want another amendment around this >> time >> around this line? >> I haven't done enough research that to feel comfortable knowing what putting a
limit on it right now. I will say while I don't love green sheets that wholesale change things, >> you know, if we came to town meeting and said, "Hey, we want to add this little clause here." >> Yeah, we could do that. >> That's not the end of the world. Ron >> Lee Michael. >> Yeah,
>> we could we could add a reasonleness >> clause there. >> It will immediately push it back onto the inspector. Yeah, >> we'll then have to take it'll go to the appeal to make a determination of what's reasonable. >> Yeah, I like that. >> Yeah, I was going to suggest that reasonable. Can you suggest wording?
>> Ron, you're you're the you're you're the lawyer I'm pointing at now. >> So, it says, >> "Oh, you want me to make >> No, no, no. I I had LASIK, so I can read this. I get my money's worth." Um, a motion activated luminere that
>> does not unreasonably cause a nuisance. >> Reasonably motion activated. >> Yeah. Lawyers will go double negative on you. that >> it's so vague. I mean, >> causes a nuisance for a brief time. Like, scratch the word temporarily. Does not
>> You could You could do this emotion briefly. >> Emotion activated luminire that temporarily >> causes >> um >> how about that does not cause undue nuisance? >> Yeah. >> Yeah, that sounds better. Or or you can say >> does not unreasonably cause
>> it's going to be this is going to be >> unreason or for no longer than necessary. >> I mean that's >> reasonable. >> If we say five minutes I can know if I'm in violation or not. But if otherwise I don't know if I'm viol in violation or not. How about unusual
motion activated luminere that causes a nuisance but not an unusual nuisance you know or that >> how about does not cause a nuisance right that's a judgement >> cause temporarily causes a nuisance but
not continuously or not >> no greater than absolutely necessary for safety reasons >> oh it temporally causes a nuisance Um but reasonably um provides safety or something like because reasonable is the
standard language is the the reasonable person standard. >> Um if you can put it in there >> that temporarily causes a reasonable nuisance >> moderate or modest. >> Isn't that what you're saying? >> I want to say unreasonable nuisance. >> Isn't that what you're saying though? >> Because nuisance is not reasonable.
>> Causes a nuisance for a >> Right. There's no such thing as a reasonable nuisance because then it's not it's not really a nuisance. Right. >> Well, it would be one that's usual and customary. It's a nuisance that you >> I'm liking the five minutes more and more. >> So, you can say an unreasonable nuisance.
>> I'm liking five minutes more and more. >> I I I agree. >> Five minutes. >> Limited. >> That's why the experts had suggested a time limit original. Well, there are two experts here. So, >> that was all you. >> All right. So,
>> well, but Lee brought up a really good point. Lee Michael brought up a good point about that that this does give them you could have a very bright light rather than sort of a reasonable amount
of light. So I don't think the time necessarily gives us what we want. It's more about what would a reasonable person say is a good level of light for this particular
security or sort of exception that someone's looking for. >> Um I I hear I hear what people are saying. I'm trying to think how are we working towards a suggestion for town meeting
and five minutes we can put our teeth into the other things that are being talked about. I'm sorry. I mean we should put the amount of time into this that is required but I don't know we're working towards a solution. >> The thing about five minutes is that it
opens up this whole can of worms as to how many times in a row can five minutes be. >> And I don't think there's any way to solve that. >> Yeah. Intervals. If you've got raccoons going by all night, you can't solve it. That's that's what it is. >> But then, well,
>> yeah. So, reasonable nu limited lucen nuisance or >> Yeah, limited nuisance. >> Limited nuisance. That's great. I like it. One other thing we could do is talk about the nuisance is incidental to the safety benefit that so someone's not
just directing uh flood light >> if it over if it spills over maybe that's incidental and maybe it's okay but you're primarily primary purpose should be for safety on your own >> I like limited nuisance limited nuisance is incidental would you do an incidental
and limited nuisance but otherwise complies with this bylaw. >> Um, we Yeah, >> limited is better than the five minutes. >> Yeah, >> I like I like it the way that >> Yeah. and take that out. I Jay, I would
delete >> you should delete everything after the word nuisance because but otherwise complies with this bylaw creates a whole can of worms. >> I agree. >> Yeah, fair enough. >> That was original language not introduced by the experts. Yeah,
>> that's a problem. >> That was amateur language. >> That's a problem. >> Yeah, >> take that. >> Okay. Um All right. Do I hear a motion? >> I would like to make a motion that we add the words incidentally limited as
shown and remove but otherwise complies with this bylaw as shown in red. >> Do we have a second? Second. >> Are we okay with moving to a vote? >> Yes. >> Karen, can you call for a vote? Macy. >> Um, yes. >> Elaine,
>> yes. >> James Lee, >> yes. >> Grace, >> yes. >> Larry, >> yes. >> Andrew, >> yes. >> Brian, >> yes. >> Lee Michael, >> yes. >> Ron, >> yes. >> Nick,
>> yes. >> Cecile, >> yes. >> Jay, >> abstain. >> The motion carries. >> Yay. Thanks for making that suggestion. That was awesome. >> Great. >> Worked great. >> Okay. Um,
okay. Uh, I'll turn to you, Nick, leading the discussion. What other um what other items did we did you have on your list of I can look at your PowerPoint even though nobody else can. >> I think we covered >> appeals, brightness, >> light pollution, etc. Motion sensor fine
amounts. >> Oh, >> do we want do we have anything to discuss about the fine amounts? Is it so it's 300 flat now? And it was some discussion about being going graduated from 100 to 200. >> Oh, I I do think this is one of those things
where um there's a lot of uh vagueness in this. So, if you think about it, you can make a complaint. It may take um was it like 30 days to be investigated and then you have 45 days to have a um a uh
an inspector come out and inspect and only and then you have an appeals process and only then could you get started and get fined $300 for each violation which says every single day but you have to have a complaint to have an individual violation. Um so there's
you know it's $300 seems like a lot but there's a lot of days and times and steps that have to go through before you get to that $300 fine. >> Um I have a question about that. Um, in order to for it to be a violation, doesn't that have to be decided by the
three-person committee? Because a complaint is one thing, right? So, >> have a complaint, then it has to get investigated. Then you 30 days to respond, and then you could >> party response, you could request an appeal. >> And so, there's a lot of steps and a lot of time that could go before um >> the $300 kicks in.
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. >> For the first 300, I I I mean, I'm I'm going off memory of a conversation I had with Mr. from Milano cuz I asked him I said like okay you go through all this process you see your first $300 fine and then is it you know 20 days later they're going to say give me $6,000 or
do they have to sure that you are violating every 20 days and as I recall what Mr. Milano said is, you know, it'll be the $300 fine. They'll have to go out and measure you again if they want to find you again, right? >> That didn't imply that it had to go through the whole what what are we at
now? 90-day process. He didn't imply that, but he did imply it won't be automatically every day. It'll be, oh, we find you last week. We hear you still haven't fixed things. Okay, we're going to send somebody out next week to measure you again. >> Right. if I just turn off, you know, as
opposed to a building code violation where the remedy might be timeconsuming and expensive, here I just have to turn off the switch. >> So, I could turn off the switch and 30 days later I could turn it back on. >> You know, I complied and you know, you could monkey around with this quite a bit.
>> I think there's a lot of flexibility loopholes in the application of this. >> Um, it comes back to what we talked about before. There's a lot of imprecision in the bylaw. I just have a question because it says each day such violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. So, so what Macy was
saying, does that mean like I've got a definition that I'm in violation on Monday and I still haven't done anything Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. Is it $300 every day or when they come back out? >> So, it's like $1,200 in four days. >> Yeah. As I read it, it would be every day, but what Mr. Milano says is no,
they'd have to go out and measure it. So, how often are they going to go off? >> So, then that language probably changed. But the point, but if they measured it every day, it would be $300 every day. >> Yes. >> And uh >> Yeah. >> It has to be each violation. So it has to be per measurement,
>> right? The violation wouldn't occur if somebody doesn't measure it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Right. But that's constitutes that initial measurement, not they're coming out every day to measure every day. >> They could they could come out. >> They could, right? which you kind of would want cuz if somebody put up like a billboard or
something and or a light that you know and it was a real problem, you don't want them paying $300 and like getting away with it for 6 months. You you want the town to be able to escalate to the point where it's >> uh punitive. >> It can't be three times in one day,
>> right? So that's why you have that this once per day. >> No, I just wanted to be sure because we what Jay had said was different. So I wanted to be sure we understood that. >> And then my other question is when do you pay? So, for example, um, so you're finding each violation each day, right? And you exercise your right to appeal.
So, you appeal it to the threeperson committee. And >> does it get stay the fine when you file an appeal? >> Question. >> Um, or does it continue to acrue? >> Yeah. >> At appeal or is it >> I heard the word stayed, which I had
read today. Or was it? >> So, those days there's not many denied Otherwise, I don't remember seeing anything about it being stayed. >> So, you were saying that it starts at the appeal where the the clock starts in terms of violation cost.
>> I It's for decision. >> I think it sounds like the the moment they go out and measure you >> and you're considered viable >> regardless of $300. >> This is the word that sounded like a legal word toll. What What does that mean? >> Yeah. It really should. >> I assume I know what it means. >> It's to collect.
>> Yeah. to well told to me is like it's also stay should the appeal shall be shall stay findings and continue on to 30 days following conclusion appeal >> I respect you but this is wording from our town council so >> toll is usually a time for filing an
appeal like time is toll I don't know toll stay is the same but I prefer stay that's mine Ron do you have an opinion >> to the average I would leave yeah I mean it's kind of weird language but I would leave with the council yeah he proposed this whole finance continue violation. So it looks like >> toll means to suspend or pause
particularly in legal or regulatory contexts. >> So it's staying violation 30 days following conclusion appeal >> appeal within 30. So the appeal essentially doesn't do anything unless the decision is against the person. >> Can we make sure that that's in the
comment? >> What >> I don't know the comment you know just that that's clear because most most average people don't know that told means stay. Oh, I don't >> I'm not a lawyer. >> 30 days. >> I I >> I don't know that needs to be on the right. >> Okay.
>> No, just Yeah. I mean, we we'll probably talk about all the things we've talked about tonight, right? Like the process. >> Yeah. Oh, sorry. >> It doesn't toll until after 30. Okay. after the conclusion of appeal that language is shall toll finance and
continuing violation until >> I think this is a good thing to check on with town council and if we need to switch it around we can do a green sheet on switching the wording around. >> Yeah. I mean this this is town council >> so I don't I suggest not changing that
that particular sentence. >> Yeah. Letting people know how does the appeal. So there's no amendment proposed for these. >> So I mean my questions to town council were about the appeals process. Uh I had one other thing, but then I had a
general question like is this a workable bylaw? And I don't think they answered yes or no, but I take that to mean they would have said something if this was just an unworkable bylaw. >> Um well, lots of towns have them, so they have a lot to compare it to, you know.
I'm just concerned about the the when it starts charging people and the approval process. >> Uh >> I think it's after you lose your appeal. >> Okay. So that's but that's different from what M was saying. >> Well, it looks like you acrew. >> This is why I want to be sure that
people understand that. >> So it looks like it it continues to acrue with each violation. So to me that means each measurement, right? So every time they come out and they find that you violated >> because my question is like somebody
comes out and and measures my lights, right? And they find me in violation on let's say yesterday. Yeah. >> No, today's Monday, right? >> And then tomorrow nobody comes out and measures to see whether I turn it down. Am I still in violation or not? I don't know. >> If we send if the town sends somebody
>> Yeah. >> they could find you in violation again. >> Yeah. Your options are to pay within 30 days, I think, >> or rectify within 30 days. You don't have to appeal. You can just say, "Yeah, it's it's >> in the appeal. I mean, generally the appeal process is to try and stay that
so that you can then have a decision that prevents you from having to pay." Right. So, that's why it's interesting that the approval starts there. >> Yeah. >> As opposed to the decision of the appeal. >> Right. >> But it's not due. They don't have to pay it until the appeals process renders a
decision. >> And it's not necessarily every day. They would have >> they would have to send someone out every day to find each violation. So I read it to say $300 for each violation. So you have to keep and then those are continuous violations. >> If somebody comes out and keeps finding
the violation >> because that's how >> I would >> I would argue that >> administration, >> right? I mean let's go back stay the findings of continuing violation until 30 days following the conclusion of the appeal. >> So >> ah good point. >> Go back to stop.
>> It's a it's paused. >> So it's only one violation. >> Yeah. But there is a violation and you are >> causing a nuisance until the appeal decides. I'm in violation January 1st. They can't then say I'm also in violation January 2nd, 3rd, fourth. It has to have to wait till all this is done. >> If you file appeal,
>> you got to go back up because it says for each violation. That was the language that I saw. >> Go back up a while. >> Um, >> it's actually down. Yeah. So, okay. >> It does say each violation, but that that previous sentence >> accomplishes what you want it to do,
which is it limits it to one $300 violation. I can't get my second violation against me till after the whole appeals processing. >> It doesn't clear. It says each day such violation continue shall constitute a separate offense >> unless they appeal
>> after everything's done. >> You you appealed and if you're still in violation after the appeal, you start owing $300 a day. But during the appeals process, you're not continuing to >> That's what I want to be sure because I don't know if that really says but
>> or if you don't appeal, you decide not to appeal, then the inspector come out day two, day three. I think if you have time to read it, I think we just haven't had a chance to read this and we're just kind of all reading on the fly, but >> yeah, >> I think it's okay. >> I think it's fine, too. >> I'm I don't have any motion about it. I
am a little confused about the what constitutes a violation u or that it whether it's a measurement or language here it says each day doesn't say that it has to necessarily be measured that day. So which is the
sort of superseding definition of >> somewhere it says here that it it needs to be determined if there is a violation. So it uses the word determined >> each day such violation continues. So to determine a violation, you'd have to have an inspector go out. >> There's a comma there should
>> is there a superfluous comma? >> Yeah, right after possible. >> I see. I don't think I think you're looking at my screen. I think Karen has the master copy. So >> Okay. >> But but I don't want to cause anyone agit. I don't know where the >> paragraph nine after possible
>> the underlined bit. >> Yeah. >> Oh, good. >> There you go. >> Wrong. wrong word. Um, okay. So, getting back to business, [Music] >> so we're 100% clear that it it h
a violation only occurs it or a fine can it essentially only continues to toll when someone goes out. >> Um, it's it's not that it's not that easy to say. So, what I think the bylaw
says is that if you are found in violation, we can find you 300 bucks. You then can appeal that process. At such time that you appeal it, $300 fines get suspended for the amount of time that you're appealing. And then, if the
appeal goes your way, your fines are nullified. If the appeal doesn't go your way, then the town can start assessing you up to $300 per day after such time as the appeal was decid Yeah. decision. >> Understand? >> So in other words, you want to appeal as soon as you get that violation. Yeah,
>> that I think I can understand. >> But they have 30 days. They have 30 days. >> But if you don't I I understand that piece. But if you don't appeal, does a fine occurr only each time someone goes out and measure it measures it or
>> Well, it says right here under penalty absent an appeal. So if you don't appeal, persons found in violation have 30 days to correct the violation after which each additional day during the violation exists will constitute a separate offense. So >> whether or not it's been measured. Yeah.
By town, >> it doesn't matter. You don't have to be measured. So if you don't appeal, >> Nick, >> which is different than what Mr. Milano told me, but I mean there's what's written and there's what he told me. So >> which each >> Yeah. And so I' I'd love to see >> clarity around that.
>> Okay. U Mr. Milano is with us. Is he a participant? Can you speak? >> Somewhere else in here it says something about it needs to be determined to be a violation. And in order to be determined, it would have to be measured or or somebody or or somebody would at
least have to come and eyeball it and say it's the same brightness as it was yesterday. It's it's another >> you know it might not require 4 hours to say oh obviously nothing's changed. >> Karen is still pay Nick is a particip uh yeah
he's here >> union minimum. >> I mean he's logged on. Maybe he's walked away but I Mr. Milano are you are you there? Are you able to join us and speak? >> He may have walked away. >> Okay. Two children under the age of something very small.
>> Okay. >> Well, I mean, there's no motion to amend. I don't >> No, there's no >> no motion to amend. We're just out of discussion. >> Making sure we're comfortable with this. >> We still are discussing the main >> I don't think about that. Um,
yeah, I mean, we we could wait a few minutes and see if Mr. Lano reappears. I do. We have specific. >> Do we have any other business? >> I'll put it this way. Do we have any Do we have any other business tonight? Did you say >> No. No. >> Yeah, we're not going to vote on the
comments, right? That'll be >> We're not going to vote on the comments. Yeah, I might discuss the comments a little bit. Discuss when we're going to meet next. >> Um the only things. Yes. Oh, and >> minutes. We could vote on minutes tonight. >> Um >> I didn't submit new ones. Did you vote?
We still have ones from a couple weeks ago. >> Oh, okay. Cool. >> Uh, what's up, Ron? >> So, if we wanted to, we could do an amendment that would make this language more in line with what Mr. Milano explained to you. It could be as simple as on the second line of that last paragraph
that starts a fine of $300 blah blah blah. The second line says, "Each day such violation continues." We could say, "Each day such violation is determined." Oh, there you go. >> Okay. >> Shall constitute blah blah blah.
So, we just replace continues with is determined. You can say is determined by the inspector, >> inspection department, whatever >> is determined by inspection >> or or they're represented. I think there's some >> you could just say redetermined because it's already been determined once.
>> I agree. >> Word. >> Yeah. Great. >> Um and again, if town council wants to tweak our tweak a little bit, that's totally fine. Yeah. >> Uh, >> great. >> That sounds good. >> Do we need to vote on that? >> I accept it as a friendly amendment.
>> No, >> we got a motion. We've got a second >> uh on the amendment or just on >> sorry of the amendment only. >> The move the word continues and adds the word redetermined each day. Such violation is redetermined to constitute
a separate offense. >> Karen can call roll call. >> Yes. If you give me one second just to um >> Sure. thing. >> Can we ask if there's any nos because it's probably might be unanimous. >> I I I don't I think with the remote meeting
>> when everybody's here >> I was like telling you to go everybody. >> It's a great noise. It's a great noise. >> Just makes me want to lay down. >> I'm ready. Okay. >> Uh Macy. Uh okay. So yes is to do that
language. Yes. >> Elaine. Yes, >> James Lee. >> Yes, >> Grace. >> Yes, >> Larry. >> Yes, >> Andrew. >> Yes, [Music] >> yes, yes, yes, >> yes. yes, Brian,
>> yes. >> Lee Michael, >> yes. >> Ron, >> yes. >> Nick, >> yes. >> Cecil, >> yes. >> Jay, abstain. Okay, >> motion carries. Uh, >> Mr. Moana, are you with us?
Okay. Uh, we have the entire motion in front of us for this article. Is are there any other questions about the final wording? Again, I apologize for the late um the late dispersal, but I think we've looked at everything that's been changed of substance that you've
seen before. There are two periods there. Uh um is there any more discussion about this article? >> Okay. >> Yeah. I'm sorry. >> What's up? Go ahead.
>> Um you know, I am somewhat uncomfortable with it. Okay. >> Because I do think it should have been a zoning article. >> Okay. >> Even if it was two, that's probably the right thing. >> And I don't think it really should be a bylaw. >> And u and I also am concerned. I'm not saying we shouldn't have it because I do
think there's a lot of good things in this. So, I really do. But, um I don't know what the effect is on some of the neighborhoods in the town. >> Okay. >> That concerns people. >> Okay. Valid. >> That's I think what Ron said addresses that
concern quite a bit. Right. It is about the change in the light. So if you're in a area of town that has generally more brightness and you turn and you go out for the inspection, the inspector measures with your light on and then they measure with your light off. And it's the difference in illumination that
is a determinate determination of the violation or not. And so if you're in a more brightly lit part of town, you turning off your light individually probably doesn't change the brightness, ambient brightness in that area. Um, so to me that um reassures me around that
concern for the to the extent that that maybe helps or not. >> I thought that was a good point too. >> And one thing I've read from the measurement of it is the person has to turn off the light. >> Yeah. >> And they have to they don't necessarily,
you know, >> nope. I'm reading your mind. I'm reading your mind. And was this Ron's wording? Whose wording? Somebody put in wording that addresses >> Oh, they're they're not willing to Cooperative uncooperation. >> Where was the wording? >> Uncomplant. Uncomplant.
>> I think it's a failure to failure of the property owner. >> Come on. Come on. >> Failure of the property owner to cooperate with the inspection services department may be considered a violation. So if they say >> turn your light on and off. Yeah. >> You hide inside the house and we see
you. >> I mean you have to turn your light on and off for them to measure it. If you say I refuse to turn it off. I can see you. >> They'll say, "Well, no, it's off." So, good point. I cut you off. Was that addressing your
>> Yeah. Questions? >> Motion to vote. >> Okay. We Yeah, we've we've been talking about a motion in a second. If there's no more discussion, so we are voting on the article. Are we recommending this article to town meeting? Uh Karen, can
you call for a vote? >> Macy, >> yes. Elaine, >> yes. >> James Lee, >> yes. >> Grace, >> yes. >> Larry, >> yes. >> Andrew, >> yes. >> Brian,
>> yes. >> Lee Michael, >> yes. >> Ron, >> yes. >> Nick, >> yes. >> Cecile, >> yes. >> Jay, >> abstain. >> Motion carries. >> Okay. So, the only other things I want to talk about tonight are comments. I
think I received comments from all but two or three. I forget if I was counting this article or not. Uh I sent you all the web page where you can look at the comments. Again, it's not asking 15 different editors on every comment. Just sort of look at it. Do you see a horrible problem? Do you see something
that can or should be fixed? We want to give this to the town administrator by Wednesday, I think, give or take. So, please toot look at them. If you have an opinion, let me know. I think me, Macy,
and also Julia are the official editors. Contact the three of us. If you have a question, complaint, issue. And for the one or two that are outstanding, please turn those around as soon as you can. Uh because again, we want to it's going to the printer. I don't know if it's
Wednesday or if he was just saying that to scare me, but pretty soon. Mr. Milano, if you're on, you can comment. Um Oh, hold on. He just raised his hand. >> Yes, you don't have to raise your hand. I'm lying. You do. I have power here, Mr. >> I really don't have anything to add. You
covered it. Yes. This week would be great. >> See, I said Wednesday and you're saying this week. I'm I'm the mean parent. You're the nice parent. >> Okay. Um, so comments. Move ahead quickly.
>> So, we don't vote on comments. >> We don't vote on comments. In fact, in the past three years, we didn't even see comments till they are printed. So, I'm trying to make it a little more democratic. >> Great. Great. >> Um, also, my comment is out there, which my comment is pretty darn boring. It says, "Here are the articles we're looking at, but you can look at it." >> I'll read it.
>> Uh, thank you, Mary. Thank you. That makes me feel special. Um, our next meeting, we have four weeks until the town meeting. Uh, I think our next meeting will be meeting with the school committee and the school superintendent to give us an overview of where we're
starting with the budget. Um, if I want to put things smack in the middle and give you a week off before and a week off after, then that would be Columbus Day. So, if we still want the maximum amount of time to relax, we would meet sometime that is the week of Columbus
Day but not Monday. I propose that today to the chair of the school committee and the superintendent. I didn't hear back, but I proposed that we could meet with them sometime that week. Is there a consensus around this table that even though it's violating the rule of we meet on Mondays, we'll get a week off
with only me yelling at you about comments and then we'll come back meet with the school committee sometime in the middle of that week. We'll have another week off then we'll have town meeting. >> So you're talking about the week of the 13th. >> 13th. >> Okay. Indigenous person's day is the 13th. >> Okay. I I didn't know what to call that
day but >> Okay. So the next meeting I will try to schedule it for one day on that week at the convenience of the school committee chair and the superintendent >> and town meeting is the 27th. >> Correct. >> Do you know if that's a week that the school committee has its regular
meeting? >> Oh no. >> Okay. >> Um you know if they can't do that week then we'll work around them. Uh the only other thing is minutes. We got um over a dozen minutes about two weeks ago. We
could vote on those now. We could put that off. Certainly the meeting before town meeting is good time to approve minutes. >> Um >> could I make a suggestion? >> You can. >> Can we vote on minutes at the beginning of these meetings? >> So that it actually happens. >> Yeah. >> We had a guest here who had to drive.
>> Oh, right. Sure. Just an idea. >> Yeah. Yeah. I I'm open to ideas. Um Macy, I'll leave it to you. Do you want to twist some arms and vote on some minutes? >> Sure. Let's do the ones that are recent. Um, >> we can these are just >> we've got If our two remote members want
to hang up, we can vote. We can vote by hand. Just just just >> bye guys. >> I didn't say that. >> I can throw I can throw a hand up on Zoom just to to show >> I need Andrew because some of these are from the last fiscal year.
>> Okay. >> So, yeah. Like so let's uh so I'm going to make a motion to vote on the minutes from September 8th of 2025 and September 9th of 2025. >> Okay. As a block. >> Yes. >> Okay. Karen. So those two sets of
minutes. Karen, can you call roll? >> Sure. Hang on one second. >> Do you need a second? >> We can throw a pants. James Le and I both not not by the not by the law. I don't want to get arrested. >> And you don't. Yeah. Ron's right. Did anyone second that? >> I'll second it.
>> I seconded it. Okay. Uh, Macy, >> yes. >> Elaine, >> yes. >> James Lee, >> yes. >> Grace, >> yes. >> Larry, >> yes. >> Andrew, >> yes. >> Brian, >> yes.
>> Lee Michael, >> yes. >> Ron, >> yes. >> Nick, >> yes. >> Cecil, >> yes. >> Jay, >> yes. >> Next. >> Okay. So, I'm going to do a large block from the last fiscal year. >> Okay. So, I'm expecting some people to
abstain. So, these are the minutes that I um am asking for a vote. January 21st, 2025. January 22nd, 2025. January 23rd, 2025. February 3rd, 2025, February 5th,
2025, February 12th, 2025, February 18th, 2025. And oh, sorry. Thank you. I'm here. You're supposed to go to sleep. um February 10th, 2025 and May 19th, 2025.
>> Second. >> Right. Karen, can you call roll? >> Macy, >> yes. >> Elaine, >> abstain. >> Jamesley, >> Dane. >> Grace, >> Larry,
>> Andrew, >> yes. >> Brian, >> yes. >> Lee Michael, >> yes. Oops. The wrong spot. Uh Ron. >> Nick. >> Abstain. >> Cecile. >> Abstain. >> Jay.
>> Yes. >> Yeah. As a reminder, you're allowed to vote on minutes that precede your time. No, I just >> watch the video. Read it. >> You're allowed to vote. You're allowed to abstain. You're allowed to do lots of things. Okay. Thank you, Mason. >> You're welcome. You want another motion
to >> motion to adjurnn? >> Yes. Second. Thank you. Thank you everyone. >> Like you guys like every [Music]