Good evening everybody. Welcome to Are we online or are we live? We are live. Welcome to the warrant committee meeting September 29th, 2025. The clerk is informed we have a quorum. Karen, would you mind calling ro? We have Jay Finley, Macy Lee, Ela Craig,
Grace Dohy, Larry Johnson, Brian Magguire, Lee, Michael Mlan, Ron Mia, Tang, and Cecil. 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 3 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 8 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're make a recommendation of that article. It is more difficult to pass a zoning bylaw town meeting, though,
just FYI. Yeah, that might be why it's not a zoning bylaw because it requires a two-thirds vote. I I I was listening to um a meeting we had about 6 months ago about four months ago. I math is hard. Um and we spent a long time discussing why it was or was
not a zoning bylaw. And I just want to keep the discussion focused. So with that being said, uh I would like to invite our select board chair Benzole 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? 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 the presentation ready. Um no that's fine too. Right. Yeah,
we could walk through some of the issues and yeah 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 with folks. I apologize. I shared a marked up version of the article which has gone
through town council review. I shared it less than 10 minutes ago and I apologize. Right. So so 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 that 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 sound right. 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 uh 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 sorry 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 cuz 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 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 the administrator would have to think about resources and you know if it is 4 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 mentioned there's a 4hour uh kind of window for any violation to be inspected you know you to send a employee out it's going to take up 4 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, have to be that's why it's an extra call out is what I was told. Not at night and non-regular work hours, 4 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. Almost certainly not members of the select board. I think that will 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. Uh, 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 cuz 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. They'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 with us appointing three people. Okay. Anybody else want to talk about the appeals question or process? I mean is there any reason it couldn't just be the zoning board of appeals just
to kind of simplify things? I mean I don't think I mean yeah I think I'll address that. I I talked to Mr. Mr. Milano about that and one reason that 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 the 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 agreement and say them. That's Yeah. Okay. I I think the select board would would agree with that, too. We're we're happy if they wanted to take to take this on.
I have a question. Um with regards to the committee that's going to hear the appeals, u 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 as 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 one of the um rules is around cultural like um holiday lights and things like that. So you'd want to make sure that somebody understood when a manure needs to be on or something like
that. Um I think that 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. 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 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, it should be clearly stated. I I might maybe I'm 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. When 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 I 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 uh or sort of rule on uh judgments that have been made about lighting, then
that's I 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 round. But yes, we understood.
Um I was looking to 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 it could be a little supreme court situation if
it really gets serious but my god I hope it doesn't come down that question 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 board and and give us the blowby-blow. Okay. 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. That's just the recommendation. I think that's I think that's a good
addition to clarify something you said Mr. Zol and you said uh Mr. Mlan why am I 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 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. Appeals shall be heard and decided by a committee of three. Pretty conclusive.
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. That's true. But in the previous version it was the select board. So yeah, in the previous version it 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 [Music] 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 we specify the decisions written. I would also specify that it's a majority decision so they don't get hung up because I 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 the enforcement. I don't have them at my fingertips, but the town bylaws have some sort of generic terms about about 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. Okay. I would you So, and if the warrant committee agrees that majority decision
is right, which I would think would be the right call, I would just check with 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
So, we'll follow Mr. Milano. The only other question I had was um so it says appeal shall be heard and decided within 60 days. If no decision is made within 60 days, the appeal is deemed denied. So I would just worry if we can't if the select board can't get three
individuals, let's say they have two and it takes a month or two months to fill that third spot. Can the two individuals hear an appeal without a third? order timeline and vacancies maybe
concern 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 3 or 4 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 the then it would be upheld. Anybody [Applause]
else on the appeals? Any more questions or 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 it was like a month or two ago with Sean Aor who was I think one of the people
that's really uh kind of helped determine what the lux uh 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 could 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 the illumination from a candle flame at a distance of 1 meter. Seems pretty uh light to me. It's slightly brighter than moonlight uh 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 2, 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 argue 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 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 cuz 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. if 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 irrational number.
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. 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 ft. At 20 ft. Okay. So if my that's where all these things are measured from is from the property line. That's what the Milton bylaw 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. 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 because it's the shadow or the light goes on beyond the property line, right? So yes, you're right. Yep. Depends on
where the light is located depends on how I 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 last getting us to imagine. So, but remember when Sean came and 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 for 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 uh 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, but 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, that totally escaped me. Um, thank 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. I mean, consider this. And this only comes into play if somebody if somebody makes a complaint. I mean, if you have a light that's more than 10 lux over your
property line and it's not, no one's going to enforce it. Yeah. No one's going to enforce it. Then we can see the other towns that are that we were able to look at here as well. Welsley, 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'd be really hard to force people not to have lights, but or more rural towns where it's like large properties, I guess. Yeah. Like I saw Somerville was on the list of 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, I think 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 choice, 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. had 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 that'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 can come back and change it. 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. 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. 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 um I sort of agree that a higher our blocks level makes sense as a sort of a single rule for the town. Mhm.
Okay. But uh they they had some really express some serious concerns about being able to adhere to uh these lines and maintain even the most basic backyard plate. Just conscious of this result's time.
Thank you. Okay. I 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. Do you want to get to 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. 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. And 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 wonder somebody wanted to file, they could file. open to any.
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 lice trespass is uh which is a condition with artificial light eliminated from light on one property direct in such a manner
the light source so 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 the 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 share 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. I'm in 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 and 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 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 it 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. years 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 you know 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 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 is William 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. Well, no, but it was amended during town meeting over and then it Yeah. Then it was pulled back because of it came with a huge green sheet and it got Yeah. Right at the last minute.
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. Absolutely. Why don't we talk about the motion 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 that's 60 seconds. I didn't think 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
thickly settled neighborhood, car 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 virtue of, you know, marking it up and redlinining. So you don't want a a limit on like a 60second because what if somebody's flood light stays on for someone going off too long. I 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'm 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. Yeah. Okay. Given that, do we have other questions for Mr. Z? Call me. I got my number when you're on the road. Thank you. Thank you everybody for Thank you very much. Really appreciate
it. Didn't know that. 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. This the first one. Okay, I'll
I'm not I'm not sure I have other slides that I wanted to talk to 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 is excellent. 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 onto let me get the wording in front of me
onto residential use property town parks or state parks. residenties properties, town bars per state parks. It's limited to 10 lux going across that line. 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 article. They wanted to do that. Would it be it might be appropriate to have a motion to accept just 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? If we 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.
Is it just you know do I I understand the intent. I just uh want to follow the correct process. Can can I ask some questions about this first? You look at me like I know the answers. It's a discussion. It's a discussion. Go ahead. So,
so we all I don't know if you guys saw the email that came up from apparently this whole bylaws based on one person's I think I heard three houses are issues 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. Yep. That's what I read to security and he has issues with loiterers and people on his property. So, he's trying to keep them instead. Yeah. Um,
doesn't this affect that? Like, does this make him less secure as a neighbor? Like, is that 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 the 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, you know. J, did you Yeah. It also provides him and other people guidelines, you know, of how they can find it, 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, town land, conservation land. 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. That's just Yeah. Well, unless it's a security issue. I mean, but then you have businesses that have issues, too. 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 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. Y 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. That sign. Yeah. was and then also the
um east is it Eastern Bank uh the bank that's in the heart the heart dental building you know rocklin it's changes all the time yeah there's a lot of neighbors complain about that but I'm not sure that this would satisfy those people I just don't think that uh thank you
if they come around full I get to eat less sorry I'm digging one anyways so again for the process 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 that 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 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. 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? Yeah. 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 Lee sent in a text message or an email to the group that said that the town of Milton acquired Tourist Pond and Post Pond in the 1950s and60s. Nice. So, they're definitely town parks.
Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I checked the Mass GIS today and it's a 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. Okay. I'm learning. That's awesome. Motions are put on the table to amend
whatever the section is. Uh, do you want me to give you this? 3 B 4 part one to just say light trespass onto 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 uh well trespass take out residential property use property town parks or state parks. You want to keep resident paper? Sorry, I'm having mouse issues here.
Do you want to town parks? Yes. And the commas. Thank you. I'll let Karen handle the commas. So, we're making a motion. So, there's a motion to amend which we will discuss after it is seconded. Needs to move the yellow 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 of town parks and state parks. Somebody will try to put it back in anyhow. Yeah, most certainly amend try to put it back in.
I agree with you, Missy. Thank you. 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 the other part. Not that far. 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 a group. No more, no less. Uh I agree with Lee, Michael. I
think this town is passionate about its parks, town parks and state parks, Blue Hills included. this 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 townland. 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, he can light up his yard all want. He can. I mean, I'm sorry. It shouldn't. 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 he So this email from this gentleman,
but 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? Not at all. 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? That's security. Cut lights on town. Okay.
So, I think and I didn't write his email, but they're trespassers onto public land and I guess that's a crime. Oh, yeah. I think I think that's what he talking about. Okay. I just didn't know if there was something I missed. Oh, no. Yeah, that it's a crime. Yeah, I get it. 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 discuss yeah like trespass on state park and came to this decision and here's why the original the original uh proposed bylaw from the select board 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. No, for sure. A big part. Uh Ron, I um
like on most issues, I'm I'm I I'm torn because I I I do agree with you, Lee, Michael and Jay, that I think the town a 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 Did he say that? I think I heard him say that. Yes. Cecil,
um I guess a question for Nick and Ron. 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. I, you know, like I'm I'm torn also and but I would prefer
to give stol 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 might 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'd 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 Lavash, 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. 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 cuz just in terms of like it wasn't his only focus of his comment I guess 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 light 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 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 a, 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. But 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 as a woman like maybe walking around with a lantern and you would inevitably blind all the other park goers. 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 I look at the article, Nick, the the purpose says it's about people, right? It's the purpose of this chapter xxx 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 they 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 you know there's 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 cuz they can't come up with a 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 u 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 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 don't 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 a violation of 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 the next point, we don't know. I mean maybe 10% or 50%. I don't 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 counter 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 definition in 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 say, so the amendment passes. Mhm. Nobody asked me. Andrew. Oh my gosh. Andrew, I'm so sorry.
No problem. Uh, no. Sorry. Yes. That's awesome. To be very clear, I'd like to clarify what Andrew's vote is. No. No. Yes. No one. Yes. Yes or no? Do you want to strike obvious what I
mean? Do you want to strike the language? Yes, I would like to strike it. Okay. So, that is 7 to four. 7 to four in one abstension. Yes. Sorry about that, Andrew. No problem. I don't know where you went. Yes.
Got it. It's not even 8:30 at night. We're punchy. Okay. Uh we were sort of drifting into some big picture philosophical questions, which were good. Uh unless we want to move on to Please take those commas out. Please.
Yes. Move the yellow all the way to 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 for one more. One more. You're right. You're right. Thank you very much.
Um, thank you. Now, should we move on to the other discreet 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. Did you go for it? 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, had people over or whatever. It was very irritating. Can I ask? So, what is that um motion sensor is right in your bedroom and it just keeps flickering all night.
I had that and I was in and 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 gosh, that's crazy guy.
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 lux 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. 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 probably 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 6 hours after after dusk. I know that, you know, that's without talking about that specification, 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, Toron? 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 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 cuz 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 I guess I have a big backyard and well
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. Um, so, so as long as it's below 10 lux, it wouldn't be a problem in any case. Correct. No, there's an exception though. It can be as bright as it wants to be.
This can be above 10 lux. Okay. So, we're saying and that's what the problem is is that if these kids are hang I don't really want to reduce this to one homeowner cuz 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 5 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 is, oh, it's limited to 1 hour, they're not going to get the exception. You don't need an hour limit. Four minutes is enough. It just depends on Yeah. I mean, your door I think temporarily implies however
couple of minutes. Yeah. reason like however long you would need to reasonably get to your door where you need to go. I 60 seconds for you. I'm not going to die on this hill, but I think temporarily everybody knows what a temporary emotion activated light is. Uh I see Ron. I see Brian.
Uh real quick, I I I don't know that a light going on and off is worse. I think that's subjective cuz I may say I like it going on and off so I know someone's there cuz 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. So Brian, yeah, I think people only put in motion detectors for safety reasons. Yeah. Whether someone's 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 who all of a sudden put in a motion detector that they put in for safety and now you're saying no,
we want you to take it out or we want you to look at it. I think it could be it could cause a problem with this. Yeah. 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. Yeah. 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 2 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 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 it's
my house um yeah province town and I have it the limit on this and this is obviously on an app is 5 minutes the flood light so I can't even put this on for 10 minutes if I wanted to it's 5 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 3minut limit cuz it's a dial so you can't even have them on for an hour so Yeah. 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, I would 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 me? I want to think about this because there's really good points. Okay. You made great points. I can go first. Repeat the options. I believe it should be struck. So, yes. James Lee.
Grace. No. Larry, yes. Andrew, yes. Brian, no. Lee Michael? Yes. Ron? No.
Nick? No. Cecile. Yes. Macy, is it a tie? It's It's right now five yes for no.
We still haven't got everybody right. Everyone made excellent points. I'm having a really hard time with this one. If you make it a tie, you make it Jay's problem. Oh, yeah. Follow Andrew. What's the tie again? Oh, yeah. Five yes, four no. I I did do Andrew. and and James James
is an abstension. Okay. And I didn't say yes. All right. I'm going to say no and have leave it to you. Okay. You're going to say no. I Well, whether I abstain or vote no is the same. Uh I will vote no. The motion does
Thank you for your feedback there. Um do we want another amendment around this for around this line? I haven't done enough research that to feel comfortable knowing what putting a limit on it right now would do. 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. 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 the lawyer I'm pointing at now.
So, it says Oh, you want me to make No, no, no. I I had LASIC, so I can read this. I get my money's worth. Um, a motion activated luminere that causes a nuisance. Does not unreasonably cause a nuisance.
going to 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 activate luminere that temporally causes um how about that does not cause undue nuisance. Yeah. Yeah sounds better. 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 if you say five minutes I can know if I'm in violation or not but if otherwise I don't know if I'm vi in violation or not. How about unusual
motion activated luminire that causes a nuisance but not an unusual nuisance you know or that causes how about does not cause a nuisance right no that's a judmentally causes temporarily causes a nuisance but not
continuously or not I don't know no greater than absolutely necessary for safety reasons. Oh, that's fair. Yeah, it temporary causes a nuisance. Um, but reasonably um provides safety or something like because reasonable is the
standard language. This 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 say unreasonable nuisance. Isn't that what you're saying though? Because nuisance is not reasonable.
Causes a nuisance for a Right. Right. such thing as a reasonable nuisance cuz then it's not it's not really a nuisance, right? Well, it would be usual and customary. It's a nuisance that you I'm 5 minutes more and more. So, you can say an unreasonable nuisance.
I'm I'm liking 5 minutes more and more. I I I agree. 5 minutes limited. That's why the experts had suggested a time limit original. Well, there two experts here, so that was all you. All right. So, no, but Lee brought up a
really good point. Lee Michael brought up a good point about the 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 that we're working towards a solution. The thing about 5 minutes is that it opens up this whole can of worms as to
how many times in a row can 5 minutes be. And I don't think there's any way to solve that. Yeah. Intervals. You've got raccoons going by all night. You can't solve that's that's what it is. But then well yeah reasonable nuis limited lucen
nuisance or yeah limited nuisance. Limited nuisance. Great. I like it. Oh, hi. One other thing we could do is talk about the nuisance is incidental to the safety benefit that so someone's not
just directing a flood light onto the neighbor. But 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 property. I like limited nuisance. Limited nuisances.
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. Some of that. Yeah, take that out. Okay. Um All right. Do I hear a motion? I would like to make a motion that we add the words incidental unlimited as
shown and remove but otherwise complies with this bylaw as shown in red. Do we have a 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. But uh 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. 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 you know 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 to 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. It 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
threeperson committee? Because a complaint is one thing, right? So, you 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. Milano cuz I asked him I said like okay you go through all this process 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 ensure that you are violating every 20 days? And as I recall Mr. Milano said is, you know, it'll be a $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 90day 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? and I just turn off, you know, as opposed to a building code violation where the remedy might be timeconuming 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. Great. Yeah, 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? It's like $1,200 in 4 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 would change. But the point but if they measured it every day it would be $300 every day. Yes. Yeah. And uh yeah it has to be each violation. So it
has to be per measurement. Right. The violation wouldn't occur but if somebody doesn't measure it. 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 every day. Right. 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 words stayed which I had read today or was it so those days there's not many denied authorized. I don't remember seeing anything about it being stayed. So Macy, 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 violent $300. This is the word that sounded like a legal word toll. What What does that mean? Findings that it really should.
I assume I know what it means. It's to collect. Yeah. Well, to me is like it's also stay should the appeal shall be shall stay findings and continue until 30 days following the 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. I know Ron do you have an opinion for the average? I would leave yeah I mean it's kind of weird language but I would leave with the council he proposed this toll finding a continuing 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 like the comment you know just that that's clear cuz most most average people don't know that toll means stay. Oh, I don't I'm not a lawyer. 30 days. I I I don't know.
I don't know that needs to be in the contract. Okay. Oh, just Yeah. I mean, we'll probably talk about all the things we've talked about tonight, right? Like the appeal process. Yeah. Oh, sorry. It doesn't toll until after already did. Okay. after the conclusion
of the appeal. That language is shall total findings 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. Yeah.
So, I don't I suggest not changing that that particular sentence. Yeah. Letting people know how does the appeal affect the time. So, there's no amendment proposed for the appeal. 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. Okay. I'm just concerned about the the when it starts charging people in the acral process. Uh I think it's after you lose your appeal. Okay. So that's but that's different from what Macy was saying. Well, it looks like you acrew.
This is why I want to be sure that people understand that they're 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're 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's Monday, right? And then tomorrow nobody comes out 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. 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 shining light." So 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 at the appeal. 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 to send someone out every day to find each violation. So I read it to say there's $300 for each violation. So you have to keep and then those are continuous
violations. If somebody comes out and keeps finding you in violation cuz that's how I would I would argue that administration let's go back stay the findings of continuing violation until 30 days following the conclusion of the appeal. So
ah good point. But go back. They're going to stop it. It's a It's paused. So, it's only one violation. Yeah. But there is a violation and you are Yeah. causing a nuisance until the appeal decides. If 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. 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 process going to be. It doesn't clear. It says each day such violation continue shall constitute a
separate offense. those unless you 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 appeal.
That's what I want to be sure cuz I don't know what that really says, but the film or if you don't appeal, you decide not to appeal, then the inspector can 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 Mhm.
I think it's okay. I think it's fine, too. I'm I don't have any emotion about it. I am a little confused about the what constitutes a violation uh 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. Well each day such violation continues. So to determine a violation you'd have to have inspector go out. There's a comma there that should be is there a superfluous comma? Yeah. Right there 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, okay. There you go. No more light.
Wrong wrong wrong word. Um, okay. So, getting back to business. Mhm. So we're 100% clear that it it h a violation only occurs if 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 is 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 that.
But they have 30 days. They have 30 days. But if you don't 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 a violation shall 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 by 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 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 fine you know it might not require 4 hours to say oh obviously nothing's changed. Karen speak 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. from Lanto
reappears. I do we have specific Do we have any other I'll put it this way. Do we have any Do we have any other business tonight? Did you say Mhm. 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 that's the only other things. Yes. Oh, and minutes. We could vote on minutes tonight. Oh. 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. That 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.
Yeah, correct. 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? Sorry to turn. I accept it as a friendly amendment. No, I don't.
We got a motion. We've got a second. Uh, of the amendment or just on the 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. Make sure ask if there's any nose cuz 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 me to go. 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, yes, yes. Brian, yes. Lee Michael, yes.
Ron, yes. Nick, yes. Cecile, yes. Jay, abstain. Okay. Motion carries. Uh, Mr. Mr. Milana, 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 because I do think it should have been a zoning article. Okay. Even if it needs two/3s, that's probably the right thing. And I don't think it really should be a bylaw. And um 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 Minnesota. 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 me. Okay. Valid. If anybody has any thoughts on that, but that's the thought I have. 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 determin 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 in the measurement of it is the person has to turn off the light. Yeah. And they have to they don't necessarily,
you know, have to No, 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 word? Uncomployment. 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, they'll say, "Well, no, it's off." So, good point. I cut you off. Was that addressing your
Yeah, those issues 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, abstain. Larry, yes. Andrew, yes. Brian,
yes. Lee Michael, yes. Ron, yes. Nick, yes. Cecile, yes. Jay, abstain. The 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. Uh, 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 sweet 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 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 3 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."
Sure, 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 proposed 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 and 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 uh 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 if they can't do that week then you know 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 can 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 today. All 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 a hammer. 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. Those are Okay. As a block. Yes. Okay. Karen, so those two sets of minutes, Karen, can you call roll? Sure. Hang on a second. Do you need a second? Okay, we can throw a pants. James Clay and I both not not by the not by the law. I don't
want to get arrested. And you don't Yeah. Runs, right? Did anyone second that? I 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.
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 and 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. And here you're supposed to be going to
sleep. Um, February 10th, 2025, and May 19th, 2025. Second. Right. Karen, can you call roll? Macy, yes. Elaine, abstain. Jamesley,
Dane. Grace, abstain. Larry, abstain. Andrew, yes. Brian, yes. Lee Michael, yes. Oops. The right spot. Uh, Ron,
Nick, abstain. Cecil, abstain. Jay, yes. Yeah, as a reminder, you're allowed to vote on minutes that precede your time. No, I just published. We could put it watch the video. Read it. You know,
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 adjourn. Yes. Thank you. Thank you everyone. January like you guys met like every day for Yeah. What was that? January.
That's terrible.