[Music] f good evening welcome to the warrant
committee it's February 12th 2025 Karen could you call the role please sure we Tom Caldwell on Zoom is Steve Ryan L connley is here Elizabeth Dylan Jay funling Allison gagnan and Julie Joyce
are on Zoom Andrew Co is here Macy Lee is on Zoom Peter man is here Julia Maxwell on Zoom Brian Maguire is here and on Zoom we have Aman nagasi Ron Sia and Judy steel thank you very much welcome
everybody um to the war committee uh tonight uh we're going to be discussing some of our remaining articles uh that include our lighting bylaws our um bylaws uh submitted by the planning board um
concerning Adu and the site plan approval and also a discussion uh on the citizens petitions that were submitted um we have Peter Melo Our Town Council here uh to uh to discuss uh these matters with us and to answer any
questions we may have I know that there were several questions that we had at least concerning um actually concerning each each of the articles I mentioned that still are still outstanding uh so um attorney Melo if you want to come up to the to the table welcome thank
you thank you um attorney Mel for coming um we appreciate it know you got a you are a very wanted man throughout the town so so uh we appreciate you making time uh for us this evening so um I know we spoke very briefly before um so we
have obviously a series of these articles that we're going to be looking uh we're going to be making some comments on for the town um and based upon you know the planning lighting and the citizens petitions if you know if you want to just maybe from uh your perspective as Town Council just break
those down for us um and I know we we do have some questions that I forwarded to you that I'm sure that you'll address um during your presentation sure if you want to call it that but uh so the floor is yours I like you can commence with any any of the articles I mentioned okay
you think it's appropriate yeah is yours yeah no no happy to and um I um want to mention that uh I I received some emails in recent days with different questions and materials associated with different questions and articles um I had had a unfortunately a death in the family and
and had been um tied up over the past couple of days and so H haven't um had a chance yet to really drill down into um uh to a a granular level on a lot on a lot of what was provided but have have
reviewed it um generally so happy to talk about it if there's any need for any followup um yeah I'm happy to provide it in the coming days um but generally speaking I and it's probably cleaner to just field questions than give an overview of all the articles but
with respect to the zoning articles I I did send um both the site plan uh by law in the Adu bylaw to the municipal law unit for review got some comments back on the former still awaiting comments on the lad so I haven't received um any
response with respect to the Adu the draft Adu bylaw look forward to those um expect those pretty imminently but um you I I did flag the you know the schedule so I mention that the planning board's meeting tomorrow night so um I'm
I'm hopeful that we can get comments back tomorrow but as soon as we get them you know I'll I'll um I'll circulate them so so just to just to interrupt here so uh just so it's clear the the a this the site plan review has been yes in terms of the Attorney
General's office it has been approved as written uh there was we had a discussion about um you know I they my discussion with the with the mlu informed my comments so um I I wouldn't say it's an informal review process I wouldn't say
it's been it you know approved um but that was you know something I wanted to do to um you know I I like to do that whenever I can um because they're very helpful and responsive over there and and um so so now as to the the Adu yeah
I think you have some information on that yeah so as I mentioned ask a clarifying question what okay I'm I'm trying to understand the version we saw is that post review and comments
from the version that sorry sorry of the site plan review law we saw a version is that after you got it reviewed and comment and you you made comments on it uh I'd have to confirm that yeah I don't I'm not sure what because it's been um because of the timing of everything I
I'd have to confirm that I don't want to say definitively I think I think so and I I didn't have um I don't think I had major changes to the ver I saw but um I'd have to confirm okay
so and as to the Adu is there any new information from hlc uh you know I just heard that um I wasn't aware of this I just heard within the past few minutes that the draft or model bylaw has been issued I haven't
seen it yet um so they do have a model Adu bylaw apparently it's out it's out so I'll be interested to take a look at that I haven't seen it yet and I'd imagine that um the whatever forthcoming comments we get back from mlu will
reflect terms of the of the model so so is it I guess um attorney M it's fair to say that there there could be additional changes made uh based upon I guess the review by the municipal law
unit or the suggestions they make but I think more importantly s to the Adu um there could be some other things in there that we haven't addressed is that accurate yeah fair to say I mean I it's
hard to predict it's all so new and um uh you know we had the what what were sort of the um the tools we had to to get a sense of what was within the appro
the legal boundaries you know they had some draft regulations those were changed um you know ultimately we have this model bylaw um this is all kind of hot off the presses so it's possible that um that there could be some changes but I'd
be I guess maybe it's I don't want to forecast it but I'd be based upon what I reviewed I compared the proposed language with the um with the regs and um and I'd be surprised if there was
anything you know materially uh different or any any comments that required any you know substantial changes but it it's hard to I guess speak about it in the abstract um it's probably premature to to to say
definitively we'll see what the what the mlu comes back with but um but yeah I guess it's fair to say there could be some some tweaks okay and um is there anyone you spoke to there mlu yeah
um Beyond submitting it and and receiving confirmation that they're reviewing it um I haven't I haven't there's been no detailed discussion about the terms and what they might be looking at in terms of changes it's been
very preliminary and yeah we got it they sent um they invited municipalities to submit draft language so um I you know basically availed we availed ourselves of that invitation and um but haven't had a conversation about you know the
details of the language yet um we um you may have I think we may you and I may have discussed this so we we did a um pretty um broad o a pretty detailed overview of the two um bylaws
submitted by the planning board the edu and the site plan we kind of went through it line by line I know I mentioned we had made some some changes some scrier changes that we made um obviously asked the planning board you know line by line section by section you know what does this mean what does this do I know they indicated it was a lot of
this language and both were modeled after similar um articles or bylaws in other communities um so um I think my question is to you uh we could be seeing that bylaw again at some point in the next week
maybe the site plan the site plan and the yeah is that um yeah I mean I I'm not sure where the I guess I'm not the one to speak to that I don't I don't know where it sits with the planing board at the moment um
you know um I think that it's still my understanding lost I heard I've been as I said a little out of pocket the past couple of days um I know they had a meeting on Monday I don't know um I don't I don't know what happened or what
was discussed exactly where things stand but um well you know what I'll do right now uh just in terms of the site plan review I know that some members of the committee have some questions asked to that so I'd like to open it up um Ryan yeah I have a question so if on
their adus their restrictions that the planning board has on adus if the town approves it and then the state comes back and says like one thing in it is not valid or you can't do one
thing what happens typically what the mlu does is they'll identify the offending language and just disapprove um with respect to that they'll be able to isolate the language that they disapprove of and and say we
disapprove of this sentence or this term or this provision often what they'll do is they'll flag a potential concern and but but they they'll approve it subject to um the caution that the town consult
with Council in in terms of you know applying it you know uh we we we recommend I'm paraphrasing but we recommend the town consult with Town Council uh regarding the application of this requirement uh to make sure that
it's to ensure it's consistent with you know with uh we whatever law they're they're um concerned about so the rest of it yeah usually they'll say right they they won't wh sale invalidate an
entire provision I mean I guess perhaps in some circumstances they could but typically they don't do that they'll just I I isolate the the U offending provision and they'll say we just approve of this line we approve of the
bylaw um subject to our disapproval of section you know 3.7 uh subsection a and that would would be the only one that they would cross out exactly yeah the rest of it would be approved right
good it's helpful you y Judy thank you um so we discussed the Adu and in detail the other night and a question that had come
up um if you have seen the the draft what is permissible to write in the bylaw about terms of
length for a um lease if the Adu is meant to be a rental unit yeah no that's a great question that's that's a question that um that that's probably the provision that jumps to mind most prominently of what Comeau
my ey um when I looked at it the municipalities can regulate reasonably the question would be I think is that a reasonable regulation um and that's one thing I'm interested in and sort of anticipate the municipal law unit
addressing and its forthcoming comments um I have the same question I mean this I don't know that I can forecast that is that reasonable um I anticipate that that will be
addressed so and um but at the moment I I don't know it's a good question so a little followup if I could sure so according to what you just said um
municipalities can regulate terms of lease in an ordinary circumstance not just Adu no I think that the I think the the what I'm saying is that any any regulation of the of of adus you
know um has to be reasonable I think that the I think the the question that will be posed and again this is this is all brand new so we're um I'm just anticipating but I think the question would be is that a reasonable
requirement with respect to adus is it a reasonable regulation um and and I don't I guess I I'm interested in what the AG's office or that the mlu which is a a an office within the Attorney General's
office has to say about that I do think that they'll um I expect that they'll address that question when they provide comments um and if they don't then I you know I would I I guess that would suggest that it's it's not problematic
but I we'll we'll see Mr chair um I ask it of course Judy um we also discussed um site review
for the adus and as I understand it and I'm open to correction here um if you have a single family house it doesn't trigger site review necessarily but on a multi-unit
project um it does trigger the site review requirement so would you interpret if you take a single family house and you're going to add an Adu I see that as multi-unit you have
the primary unit that's most likely more than 900 square fet and now you're adding another unit which can be no larger than 900 square fet so that that says to me you have a multi-unit
now and it would trigger the site review um do you interpret it the same way um well I think the one of the questions that first arose um in my mind
I think there was there was language in the site plan review by law that required site plan review for adus and and at the time I think there was language in the draft regulations the draft ad
regulations which effectively said um that you can't impose any more stringent requirements uh upon adus than single family dwellings I think that language was removed um so you know is the question of
whether site plan review can be required of U for adus um I I think it I think so I think that's permissible I I think that um I would I was first concerned about that
proposition when um when I saw the draft RS but I think they modifi the draft RS to remove that language so um and I have to go back to my notes uh I don't have a clear memory at the moment of whether
um the municipal law unit flagged that but I don't I I think that probably is okay um but I guess I'd have to I'd have to go back to confirm whether um whether we discussed that or what the final verdict was on that from the
mlu okay thank you very much sure appreciate my pleasure uh I just had a procedural question but I guess first sorry to hear about the law thank you appreciate that everyone's okay thank you um I guess if the law needs to be
changed I was Wasing procedurally would it be for the planning board to make the changes with you or would it be for us to propose changes based on the the state's input if the if the terms of the bylaw need to well it's the warrant the
warrants yeah right so I think that you know if if there were changes then they would need to come on town meeting floor right um and you know so that is that was that
what you were asking yeah who would be responsible for drafting those ch would it be for us as the warrant committee to propose changes or would it go back to the planning board and would they resubmit an updated version for the warrant right well I no the warrant's out right so I think that um I think
planning board would you know planning board's going to provide a report right um and so they might you know address any changes in a report and and I think the warrant committee is as it's
customarily done where you would propose changes to language could express that in your in um in your recommendations right Green Sheet um right and and but ultimately any change to the language would need to come through an amendment
town meeting okay the the warrant because the warrant's issued that's you know um it need to be amended from town meeting FL um attorney M I have a question I think this might be a a big question
that um you know members of the the committee have but maybe just the the general public and uh you touched on it but if if any provision in the Adu let use that as example that the AG said we we don't like this whole thing I just want to make it clear we don't like this
section you indicated that would be obviously extrapolated corrected removed amended but it wouldn't totally invalidate the whole bylaw correct and I I think typically that's not what they do typically they they they'll either
disapprove of language or they'll flag that you have to be careful about applying it okay um but they won't and and I'm not sure that I'm not saying that there wouldn't be any circumstance where they wouldn't
say this whole thing is you know invalid I can't I don't recall ever having seen that usually they isolate whatever whether it's a sentence or a section or a term or some requirement um you know like a a bylaw
seeks to impose fines that exceed the statutory maximum you know we disapprove of this you know this uh requirement you know type of thing but they won't invalidate the whole thing no okay yeah and I think
that's you know just from um information I've received I think people are just concerned that if we you know AG says no good uh we have an U by rice and the town can't regulate it so I think I think some people just had some concerns about that yeah taking for example
taking the the 12-month threshold as an example I think if that were included and the AG or the mlu thought that that was unreasonable I think what it would say is you know we disapprove of that that requirement
because that exceeds the the scope of a permissible reasonable require for adus um and the rest of the language would remain intact and then that that requirement would be invalidated dis or disapproved again or they might say you
know we we caution that we we recommend the town consult with Council before applying that requirement to make sure it's consistent with the law type of thing surean if if if they thought on
that thinking on that frame thought if they thought three months was the right answer would they just say you think they should change 12 months to three months and that would be would they do that or would everybody have to go through the whole process yeah they don't typically you know they they wouldn't
make they wouldn't uh unilaterally impose a change and say we're going to reduce this we approve three months we're going to reduce it from 12 to three they wouldn't do that no I don't think so they might say you know we we we disapprove of this language and they might site to other decisions and say
you know we've um in other cases we've approved up to X months you know um and might site a decision or two they might they might offer that a lot of times and this is true if you know that the mlu has
this helpful repository of its decisions it's keyword searchable so you know a lot of um you know a lot of like site plan uh bylaw decisions have been generated in in the past last couple of years um so
you can get a flavor for um what they've said about different Provisions from decisions they've issued in those matters and they oftentimes tend to use kind of stock repetitive um pasted excerpts like like
U you know they'll go through they'll cite the same cases for the same propositions and kind of repeat the same mantras in different decisions so you can over time get a get a sense of what they're going to say say based on reviewing how they've decided other uh
other similar bylaw language um so I I think that in a year or so might we might have a better sense of what time frames have passed muster but at at the moment I I dealt that this is all brand new so we wouldn't really have
that um I was just gonna say Jay gave us a copy of um a response from the municipal law unit that to just excluded certain a certain sentence from an article that was submitted to the state did you
remember I don't it was on the outdoor lighting lighting bylaw from new Malboro yeah okay I don't remember them striking a sentence but there's been a lot in my brain the past week about the fine okay we disapprove we except for this the certain text in this article authorizing
a fine that we disapproved because blah blah blah other comments see below so they identifi the specific yep as you said yep anyone have any questions like maybe about the short-term rental because you're looking fine I will ask the
question that was for another reason oh I was looking me for any you want Liz you have the flo thank you I'm sorry about the loss of your family member as well appreciate that um so one of the things that we had talked about before so I'm curious about your
thoughts so not any kind of a municipal attorney so I don't know um but we had talked about the regulations so I have it in front of me so I'm going to site to it but um in section 71.0 2 of uh 760 CMR
71 so 7.02 it t it's the definition of um Adu and it says that it's subject to so little letter C is subject to such additional regulations as may be imposed by municipality
including but not limited to dot do do short-term rental as defined by and then it cites to Mass General laws chapter 64g section one which then in turn defines under um occupancy so it defines short-term
rental as a period of not more than 30 1 consecutive calendar days so we were talking amongst ourselves does that and again I don't know does that then mean that we would not be able to limit a lease provision for more than and I
think what they're trying to get at I don't know but I think what they're trying to get at is like an Airbnb vbo I thought it was ver vbo situation um but does that mean that we're limited to that 31 days or is it more like you know
they're going to like you said they're going to look at what's reasonable under the situation MH could be 3 months could be a year you know I was confused about that interplay between the stat not really that confused but the regulation
the statute and then our bylaw and I'd be interested to see the model bylaw to see if it has anything but I know it just came out yeah and I haven't seen it um no I it's a good question I I think the way I read that I could be mist
but I I read that to mean we're not trying to infringe upon Municipal municipalities rights to regulate uh short-term rentals this isn't you know this isn't um this isn't intended to encroach
upon whatever power you have to regulate short-term rentals I guess is how I viewed that so again like the Airbnb vbo we would be able to restrict that you retain the same rights you've always
had as a municipality to regulate those you know whatever state law um Authority you have to Reg that the municipality has to regulate short-term rentals isn't isn't in any respect reduced or
inhibited by you know these new requirements is how I guess I interpreted that that language anyone [Music] else so attorney melow so I just want to
just to clarify so the law for adus is in effect right now as we speak and the state now releases model language for this U guideline right so I'm just saying
like it's it's frustrating you know that uh we're at this point um and I know every town and municipality is different in terms of how they they work their zoning you know we're a little town we have to go through the the town meeting process and committees and stuff so um I just want to just clarify that that um
that from from this uh member's position it's a little frustrating to try to you know work it and then work it through do you have any was it is there any information you have about why they delayed so long on this or any idea or
is it just just how the state is working through and that's fine if it is but I just I'm kind of perplexed on why they waited you know why this wasn't out Jan January 2nd or something right yeah um you might not have an answer it's
more of a comment um you know that would have been helpful to have this a couple of months ago yeah um yeah I'm not I don't I I'm not sure what the um I can't can't really speak to the process of the timing of it so I
understand that um okay now does any any member of the committee have any questions about the site plan or the Adu um any language this this is our chance Jay I just want to clarify something that I brought up earlier sure
please you might have gotten a message from well I got a message from Meredith Hall chair of the planning board and she she confirmed that the version we saw was after the comments from Town Council so I raised that question earlier I got an answer when to tell thank you thank
you thank you Mar you're watching I'm sure she is the whole the whole planning board is probably watching right now Whole Town's probably watching yeah hi hi planning board um okay um committee are we are we good with attorney Melo
and any other questions concerning these two articles brought forth by the planning board I know we had some lengthly discussions on them um just have a want to clarify that I heard something correctly which is that um you're aware of how the state
Define short-term rentals and that you also believe that the H's office is not generally trying to interfere with Town rights to regulate short-term rentals that's how I interpret again I so that I'm I guess I'm that's my so it's
possible that more than 31 days towns may be able to Define short-term rentals something greater than what the state defines it as in this particular case regarding adus
um I don't want to reverse that I I think um I was just saying that I think the the way they've uh composed the definition suggest to me anyway that they they were trying to clarify
that that you um you any any restrictions or or requirements applicable to adus has to be reasonable but we're not this isn't intended to um you know in in infringe upon any rights the municipality has to regulate
short-term rentals I guess is the how I interpreted that despite the fact that they've defined that have their own definition of what a a a short-term rental is right the state yeah there's a state law definition under an entirely separate statutory regime this whole
different chapter of the general laws that deals with short-term rentals and and regulations that you know Municipal regulation of that okay and I so I I think that the purpose of the definition I think anyway was um and this is you know me kind of waxing
poetic but I I I think it was just intended to recognize the distinction and we're not suggesting you know that your whatever rights you currently have to regulate short-term rentals is impacted by you know by ad I I think you
know okay this encouraging thank you okay I've got a question about the overlap between these two articles so I'm also looking at the regulations for the Adu bylaws and the state is telling us that we can have a site plan
review uh is it's okay I'm trying to parse through all the double negatives we can have a site plan review that is clear and objective um and impose yeah I'll stick with a clear and objective now two weeks
ago I knew nothing about site plan reviews so I'm still a novice it seems like our new site plan review rules are a lot better than the old ones and are a lot more objective but it seems like it's a spectrum uh I wouldn't say these are 100% objective I don't know if any
site plan rules are either 100% objective so I don't know what my question is I guess my question is do you think the new site plan rules meet the meet the standard of these are clear and objective um well they certainly um were
very detailed and I think um you know I generally I had a couple of um comments um on some of the terms I think you have have to be you know um I so I guess the short answer is
yes I was generally you know um satisfied that it was that it meant legal requirements to um you know you you have to be um deliberate when you're dealing with site plan first of all you're not
alone you said that you know it it's kind of an elusive uh concept that judges be mowing all the time how um how kind of esoteric site plan review is it's not really addressed
in the zoning act in detail a lot of a lot of people have lamented that I think there's one judge um described it as the ghost that haunts land use which I thought was kind of a uh you know you hear that repeated
a lot um you have to be careful about you know there are limited circumstances in which you can deny for as of right uses but you have to be very careful about that there like I'm paraphrasing with this language indecisions that says
something the effect of you know the you can't wholesale deny uh site plan approval for an as of right use um unless the problem is so intractable as to permit no resolution or so words to that effect so it's very you're very
limited in terms of you know so you have to be careful about that um and when it it comes to multif family um uses there are also if you read the site plan review decisions that I that I mentioned um there are certain
restrictions on site plan review in the multif family housing context you know uh one thing that jumps to mind is when when you they they caution against they being the mlu cautions against uh considering like public impacts on public services
for example when you're dealing with multif family uses that's something that I've seen in a bunch of the decisions I don't want to get into too many I guess of those particulars but I but overall it was generally um um I thought the you know generally speaking it was in good
legal form can I ask a followup sir so this may be sort of a loaded question the warrant committee voted to recommend that town meeting accept the site plan review we don't know what town meeting will do um my loaded question is would you say the old site plan standards were clear
objective and if they're not if town meeting decides not to follow our recommendation and upgrade the site plan bylaws would that mean that the site plan review could not be done on an Adu oh interesting um if if the old one
is not you know what i' I've been more focused on the new proposed language than uh the existing so I I don't that's probably going deep into the weeds I don't know if that's going to influence time meeting so I withdraw
my question thank thank you Jay thank you uh Julia thank you um when we were discussing the um potential limits around um you know
short-term rentals and periods of time regardless of um what time frame that is are you aware of any enforcement mechanisms that other towns um use or have put into place
to um you know if they find that someone is in violation of of that time frame renting in that time frame no I know my question clear the short answer no it's a clear definitely
a clear question um a good question I'm the short answer is I'm not aware of I'm not I'd be surprised if there had been any enforcement of any Adu term given the kind of the you know um infancy um
of all of this but um I think that the enforcement mechanism would be the same as it is with respect to any zoning bylaw requirement um you know you if you have non-criminal disposition Provisions you could you could utilize that um you
could you know proceed under 48 section 7 for uh injunctive relief or you know to enforce the terms of the zoning bylaw so if you had you know it's it basically would be enforced like any other zoning bylaw requirement I
think so for us non attorneys does that mean someone else would have to bring a lawsuit against the offender well the way zoning enforcement Works under the zoning Act is um if someone can complain
and the enforcing Authority is the The Building Commissioner it's different I you can do it different ways but typically it's the building inspector or the Building Commissioner someone can say hey Building Commissioner you know so and so is violating the zoning bylaw I want you to take enforcement action
and the zoning The Building Commissioner um Can can proceed with with enforcement they can bring an action in you know in the superior court or the land Court um and seek an order from the court that enjoins the
violation that says you violator have to stop violating um or they can refuse to take action they can make the determination that it's not a violation of the bylaw and then in that case the complaining person would have uh the
ability to appeal that to the zba and then ultimately if if if they didn't if they weren't satisfied with with the uh determination they could appeal they could appeal that non- enforcement or the Z the ultimately the zba decision to
court but um but that that's just you know typical that's just the process under 40a which is the zoning act so really to sort of get the process rolling it would be presumably like
neighbors reporting on neighbors is that well some uh you know in some cases it's the um it's the the building officials the building department will become aware of a violation and they'll
investigate and and pursue their own enforcement um you know they're the enforcing Authority how they how they become apprised of a potential violation varies sometimes they ascertain it themselves sometimes
it's brought to their attention um through complaints um it depends on the circumstance you know I think in this situation um with with respect to adus um there is and I don't want to you know
maybe this is I don't want to Veer a field of of uh you know the the scope of of a Germaine discussion for our purposes but um I think that they're probably some challenges in in enforcing these types of requirements because you know a lot of times you don't know
exactly what the arrangement is and you know you need to you need to you know get into a property or like sometimes it can be hard to ascertain exactly what who's living where or what you know there's just s
certain like logistical challenges to it but but it could theoretically you know if if um someone were if they were uh a violation of a of a provision pertaining to adus you know and it were clear and there and you had
evidence to demonstrate it um you could pursue enforcement okay thank you sure anyone else have any questions to the Abu want I would just think a neighbor if they found out about it they could raise a complaint or a tenant could raise a complaint if they
have an abusive landlord there's a lot of ways people can voice their opinion so I don't I don't think that needs to be one situation where neighbors are complaining about each other there there's so many scenarios where at least could get could come up
so miss thank you so I just something that occurred to me um my only fear with what you said about the hlc striking out the mlu the I'm oh no
the municipal law unit y striking out the provision than you because you're right and I was wrong but thank you um striking out that provision or saying you know you can't have this provision but look at our other you know decisions
for guidance of things that we have upheld I'm just thinking about that how would that apply because you just mentioned the tenants and I'm thinking about how would that apply so if I were an owner of a property and I had an Adu and I leased it out thinking that I'm going to have
someone who's going to live here for whatever period of time I'm just I'm just trying to think about like expectations so a tenant and a landlord enter into an agreement and they both think that it's going to be a certain length and then now when that's
stricken out that would affect the existing like landlord and tenant so people's expectations aren't really being met I guess you understand what I'm sort of trying to ask like those landlords and
tenants you would say okay you can only live here for you have to live here for a year then the tenant says well now as it turns out you can't do that I want to get out of this lease how would that impact the existing lease
because I would think that they would have to be able to let them get out or you already entered into a contract or you know like what effect would that have on those people that already entered into that agreement yeah I would think that they'd be held to it but I just feel I don't
really know what would happen in that setting with the people that already entered into an agreement where the landlord says okay you have to live here for a period of 12 months that turned out to be unenforcable and now the tenant's like well I signed this contract because I thought it could do
that now it turned out that that provision wasn't lawful where does that leave the tenant yeah um um residential real estate isn't isn't a baileywick but I think I
would guess rical sorry I guess no I I guess whatever the contract says I mean a lot of times it might be contract terms that will require that you know compliance with all applicable law um maybe you
know the change in the law that renders the the contract unenforceable might relieve some parties of their legal rights or obligations um you know but
um yeah um okay uh it's gonna be Judy Ron and L um so actually to build off lizz's if I can go first um you know talking
like contract law right and the any provisions in the lease that would provide for the situation that you just said but that would be an action in like housing court I would assume correct where the tenant would have to bring the landlord in and
say I'm looking to break this um there was no language in the lease that indicated you know if the law is flipped all applicable laws um I want out and so that would be probably have to that would be a contract action right a housing I think so I mean um I guess I I
hadn't I hadn't devoted much thought or any thought um to the question but I that's my my off the cuff kind of impromptu I think it's just a private dispute um we have we have legal requirements assuming that would be enforcable um if if
there's if we have the authority to um to impose a minimum uh you know duration threshold for for a lease term um then if we have that legal Authority then and we
exercise it and someone runs a foul of it um with respect to you know a contract that they enter into that's I see that as a private dispute between the the landlord and tenant okay so it's gonna go Judy Ron
then Lori in that order Judy okay my question goes to adus um is there a requirement that say so we use the municipality of Milton um is there a requirement
to let the town know that you have an Adu I mean a a vacation rental C because that is a common use of adus short-term rentals in regards
to like a hotel um is that a requirement that you need to let the municipality know you're using that
portion of your property as a very short term rent two nights three nights a week right yeah that um you know that that's a good question I I I think that you need to have you need
to obtain you know authorization to technically to operate a um a short-term rental property I think this like a a registration process I have to Fess it that as I'm sitting here I'd have to reorient myself with it um I'm not sure
um I don't know all the particulars of that process I'd have to look at that it's been a while since I I looked at that short-term rental um issues were there was there were a few years ago I dealt with them more prevalently I haven't I haven't had to I haven't had
occasion to really deal with them in a while so I'd have to look I'd have to check what the particular requirements are but I guess um I my understanding is that you would need to obtain some I don't know that
um whether that's through the state or the town or both but um that you need to have some sort of authorization to operate a short-term rental and and following up on that um I'd have to check yeah but but then
following further on that that line if there was a requ requirement to um register this particular property um that you would that is going to be in use for specifically short-term
rentals one night to 30 nights or whatever sort of like a hotel is there a tax due on your proceeds similar to a hotel tax to say San Francisco or New York City or
any City there's a hotel tax that's due to the municipality would would there be any taxation on the revenue to the
town yeah memory serves there is there is a provision in the short-term rental statute that that um that addresses uh the maximum amount of municipality cont tax I believe uh if memory serves I'd
have to I'm sorry apologize these are excellent questions but I um I think I will um ask um I think the person that would know if we currently Co collect taxes on um
registered um I'll just call them hotels or short-term vacation rentals um if our town collects any because if you go on any of these um
vacation rental sites you will see and you pump in Milton what's up with Milton I need to stay there for a week for graduation um how are we losing out on Revenue so I think that question that I just asked
would probably go to Nick Milano yeah yeah I can chat with Nick tomorrow about um about this question it's a good one so all right thank you thank you very much Mr absolutely thank you Judy
Ron to Judy's question I I do believe there's a state tax I'm not an accountant we're not going to talk about it's not relevant to this law but I do believe that for short-term rentals you are supposed to report you're supposed to get a certification from the state in order to operate let's not get into details there because that's outside the
scope of this but I think M certain municipalities will have additional taxes because I think certain mun IP alties on the cape will require additional city tax that's not in this law or this this warrant so um but I think there are I think you're that you need
to um I would just I think you're you're right I just would need to spend 15 minutes refreshing my memory um it's just been a while since I've had any occasion to deal with short-term rental issues there was a time when um it's funny how that works
too you know there there was a time when I could have readily I think just probably Gone chapter and verse and somehow years passed and children were born and I I'm just struggling to remember it at the moment yeah get to the day exactly I'm looking at the mlu
database right now looks like 2018 this is pretty awesome uh yeah they Municipal authority to adopt short-term rental bylaws and right to impose fees for short-term rentals
penalties limit the number of days that they may be rented yeah regulate the class of operators of strr so it looks like you can Define yeah my other comment was Liz I think the scenario you raised it'd be a little
different because this a minimum standard so it's it has to be it can't be less than 12 months that's a language today so in that scenario where a 10 pant and a landlord hypothetical it could be that if a landlord says I'll rent it for 30 days and the requirement
is no less than 12 months I guess a tenant can say you're not allowed to kick me out after 30 days this has to go for a year I know and I guess you could try to the ten could try to say I need to stay but also that's another hypothetical that's yeah you know I think it'd be a little harder for them to do the opposite which is to get out
of it early um yeah that's interesting thank you I've been staying in my house for long time same [Laughter] same um you El have
Lori so this is with the municipal law unit now the Adu draft and and I just to I guess clarify is the municipal law unit reviews it formally after it's correct after the upon town meeting so
this wouldn't obviate the need for the vi to be submitted to the municipal law unit this is just kind of like an advanced uh review you know I think in recognition of the you know how new all this stuff is the mlu actually invited and
and issued a a message to Municipal Council inviting them to submit draft Adu bylaws for for Advance informal review so where it is right now is with mlu being you know vetted informally
um and do we when do you think we might see that back I'm hopeful tomorrow I I again I I I gave I kind of laid out the timelines it you know it's um they're probably reviewing a lot of these and
you know um so I don't want to impose on on them but I my sense from um my discussions uh folks there is that it's they anticipate getting back to us you know consistently with with the schedule I
laid out and I did mention that the planning board meets tomorrow so I'm hope I'm hoping that we get comments for tomorrow and something as big as we're saying we want a 12-month lease and we they can only do it for 31
days that would probably be picked up by if that was an issue I yeah I think that that that's why I I expect that any forthcoming would address it so I guess to solve your question and we get it
back tomorrow and the there's only one Adu application in and then it has to be built out I don't think we're going to have that problem that's what I was trying to thank you sol thank you Lory okay um I had another I think we
resolve this at the um with the planning board but section D number well really all of section D which is design standards I had asked them about um number one which had previously said
that exterior modifications to a principal dwelling or accessory structure as well as the construction of a new detached unit shall be that's what it used to say shall be architecturally compatible with the principal dwelling as well as including excuse me including the use of complimentary color palettes
exterior finishes window types roof pitch and other design features then the planning board voted to recommend to change that to should be architecturally compatible so I just wanted your opinion for D I know youve looked at it like
that that would meet the requirements because it's limiting my concern with D1 was that it limits what an Adu can be more than your single family Sam
single family property would be limited so as an example so when it said shell I was more concerned about this I'm not really that concerned about it anymore but um for example I could put an addition on my house that looks ridiculous compared to the rest of my house with totally different siding window trims and roof and nobody could
do very much about it um and so with an Adu to have that requirement that's not present in the single family so I'm just curious the the language should and the rest of them are should I think um like encourage it
um do you think that that would be sufficient to like pass muster um with these design standards because that was I'm just thinking of things that we raised before making sure that we have the answers I'm not really worried about it anymore myself but yeah
I think so okay I think so and as I mentioned one of the you know you like to identify and apply hard and fast rules so I actually appreciated I guess if that's the right word that the draft regs kind of Drew a
bright line like okay you can't you can impose upon an Adu more stringent requirements that you'd impose then you would impose upon or could impose upon a single family I thought okay there's a bright line rule we can apply that then they took that away so it's kind of
squishy you know um but I think that the removal of that language implies to me that you know you can you know the regulations don't preclude you from
imposing going beyond what you could go where you could go with respect to a single family um but again I think they have they have to be reasonable and yeah so this what fall kind of and I think so too but for
whatever but from from your like legal opinion that all of this section D would fall within that reasonable that makes me feel right yeah mhm the D D1 through um seven and most of it says like are
encouraged and there's very little that says shall except that first one but um oh I have she keeps to sorry yeah I mean the the word um the word should is sometimes you know I guess to the extent it allows
discretion if the mlu said anything about that they might say you know we um we point out that you know this this language should be applied consistently or uniformly and you know recommend that the board can sell councel and you know
applying this language or something like that okay you know I I would I would anticipate if they did flag that that would be the comment but okay thank you any further questions concerning the Adu
okay we'll move on um maybe um I know I kind of gave you the the freedom but I have a list here you want to talk about our two citizens petitions if you could sure and maybe start with um the uh the
appropriation yeah yeah so one of the questions that um that I anticipated Fielding uh was the question of whether you can lawfully reduce an appropriation so as to create a deficit um
and I contacted um Ken Woodland the chief of the municipal Finance Bureau with the division of local services division of the Department of Revenue um Ken is terrific he's very accessible and
um uh very bright but he's he is also very willing to opine and um publicly so I I whenever I speak with him I I say you know I do ask him for his permission to mention that I spoke
with him as I did in this case and he said yeah absolutely so what he said was that and he he said there probably are a couple or a few Provisions that um would would be relevant in in this
context but he said that the one that came to to his mind in in the course of this couple minute conversation today um and I was he was speaking extemporaneously because I was posing the question to him on on a phone call um was 40 chapter 44 section 31 which
precludes uh a municipality from spending Beyond an appropriation he said that basically you can reduce an appropriation by whatever amount remains in the account into which the appropriation was made so I'm just making up a number if there's a
$100,000 left from an appropriation and like 20 of it's encumbered because he added that Nuance that it's basically whatever remains accounting for any incumbrances so if a check is gone out or if there's a bill received an invoice it let's just for even number purposes say you have
100,000 and you have a bill for 20 you have 880,000 so the maximum amount by which you could reduce that appropriation would be you basically could could um reduce it down to zero but no
more so that that would be the maximum amount that you could reduce the appropriation would be the amount that remains from the appropriation accounting for incumbrances okay um does everybody understand
that Julia has her hand yeah thank you so in this um particular instance then based on what Nick was um telling the work committee on Monday night there was two approximately
$283,000 appropriated to this line item we've already spent close to um 75,000 um do we know if there's any other money that has been encumbered so far or that we would need
to account for I don't I do not um Nick would know that um yeah I I don't know that so assuming that there isn't that brings that amount down to $28,000
so at if the people the citizens who brought this uh petition forward wanted to move forward with it and have any chance of it you know being legal I guess they would need
to um the article would need to be asking to move no more than [Music] $28,000 elsewhere is that accurate to say yeah I think that's accurate I think
you you'd need to amend it yeah okay thank you sure Judy and Judy you're first uh thank you um when Mr Milano was here he did say that there is
ongoing uh or nonadjudicated litigation with a 40b project on Canton Avenue um it's still in process so how would we determine in how much of that money we're going to
need to continue with the cab 4B project to come up with a number that we can reduce this line item to we don't actually have the bill MH because there's no adjudication in the
case yet and could in fact require um legal billing yeah well I think the the the it's an inexact science
predicting what your necessary legal expenditure might be um but you know often typically you can formulate a a rough budget for a case um which may change depending on the course that the
take the case takes but the person best equipped to um to estimate made a a budget um for a particular case is I think the attorney handling the case so
um I think that case is being handled by special counsel um and ultimately and to get a kind of a a ballpark sense of how much more they might need to litigate the case for the
rest of the fiscal year you you need basically to ask them you need to you need to consult the lawyer which um so in the term in the in the terms of you cannot reduce
um past so we would have to they would have to figure out that probable the probability of a further reduction via this litigation and go no
further down so say that litigation might come to as you say $220,000 so now we take that $28 208,000 and we would have to say we need to leave 20,000 for when this bill comes
in would that be accurate that would I think that would be the Judgment call if if if town meeting wanted to um wanted to reduce it in such a way as to leave an adequate amount to fund
anticipated legal special legal um expenses litigation related expenses for the balance of the fiscal year you know you can that would be a judgment call you know we we don't want to we we technically could reduce it by X we
could reduce it by up to 208 but we know that we're going to need at least 100,000 to litigate these this series of cases so we want to reduce it only by 108 you you I think what Ken was saying is the authority exists to amend the
appropriation down to down to zero accounting for encumbrances so if nothing's been encumbered if all that's been encumbered is the 70 um and apologies if my math is is off but um if
no if only if if only 70 has been spent and nothing's been encumbered then you can reduce by 208 let's say um but if if you want as a policy matter you make the determination that we really don't want to deplete the thing down to zero because we know we're going
to need some money in the account um and we don't want to completely defund special Council services or special Litigation Services um then we want to amend it so as to leave enough in there but but the
authority exists according to Ken to reduce it down to zero whether town meeting decides it wants to go that far or reduce it by some different amount or any amount for that matter that's a that's a town meeting judgment call thank you sure thank you J
R to you use word encumbered does that mean like what does he mean by that a formal adjudicated debt like that's the question yeah just what planed expense yeah no this is a a great question because I had
I um I'm not sure there's a necessarily A a universal definition of that term I I said you know he he I think he said I'm paraphrasing I don't want to attribute this this statement do on verbatim he might have said something like you know
it can mean different things you know that he was suggesting anyway that there's no like uh definitive um uh exclusive definition for the the word incomer at least as it pertains to Municipal Finance but he he he cited the
example of a check's gone out you know so we you've cut the check so I said oh okay well again in the interest of hard you know bright line rules I said okay so it's encumbered if if the check's been cut um and he said no you know if
you've gotten an invoice um that could be incumbered so if you know we it may that may be worth clarifying um it may also be a function of kind of local practice you know maybe encumbered
means whatever it's meant in Milton for decades you know what I'm saying um we'd have to confirm that but Ken said very clearly it's what remains after you account for incumbrances
Brian I skipped over Al and I know just from experience in other places you know a lot of times is the fiscal year draws down as it winds down lots of Municipal clients will ask you for how much are you going to
need you know at the end of June this happens often how much do we need to encumber um because we need you need we need to pay the bills by June 20th let's say how much do you need us to encumber for the remainder of the fiscal year um because if we if we don't encumber it we
can't spend it you know that's so and I have to confess I've just basically in those instances formulated a an estimate of what I anticipate the remaining expenses will be for that period and um haven't really
belabored you know it could be a budgeting or it could be the formal you've issued debt obligations it could it it it it probably means you know it could mean different things different places um but but when I when I drew
that distinction between a check being cut and an invoice being received um he he clearly said no you know it could apply to an invoice too you know so so and I guess that's the other thing with
the the measure wouldn't be from today it would be from town meeting the date of town meeting you know I think so whatever um hasn't been encumbered as of that date would be the the operative
amount um I'm going to go I thought I was going to hear a mailbox rule commodity so I'll go to Allison and then Brian Brian I apologize I think Judy um hit the the question I had about any debts and I think any more time just continues to
add to the debts so um yeah just [Music] good thanks Allison bye um if if the town votes to reduce the budget to zero after all incumbrances
and the town is sued a week later what happens how do we represent ourselves right well there there wouldn't be money available um you know there are um you could make a supplemental
appropriation um um you know but it's a question yeah I mean I guess it's a this um ultimately you know the provision of
Legal Services is a cost associated with it so if there's no money to pay for uh to to litigate a matter I guess it would it's I don't think there's a one siiz fits-all answer I mean I
I if I were like on the eve of trial in a case um I don't know I've never I've I've never thought about that I don't it be a um an unusual predicament I it could put the town in Peril by being sued by multiple people because it
you'd be wide open no in way I would think right why wouldn't you time to slip and fall you know what I mean right it' be time to do it well the kiding um slip and fall claim probably
would be covered by insurance so you don't have to worry I I can take a swing at that I'm thinking wood chipper spot yeah I'm thinking that the town would come to the warrant committee yeah and ask to use ask to use free cash
no not free cash the um Reserve fund is that the reserve F excuse me Reserve fund happen yeah so they would come I I would assume um just just how we've done it that they would come to us and say this is how much we need and what do you say we're on committee it's not which is
a I'm sorry sorry got my hand up um yeah I was just gonna say that my I based on Nick's presentation on Monday I uh would assume that in that scenario it would um they could draw
from the reserve fund assuming that the select board and the warrant committee approved that transfer um after you know from May 1st or later is that um yeah mow you're an option as far as you yeah
I think um I think that's right as a practical look there's other there would be other parts from which to draw I guess other other means to but but the you couldn't use the appropriation so there would be steps required to access any additional funds but it's not um I
have had um I'm familiar with instances over the years where a case not in Milton but cases have uh required supplemental Appropriations you know a major case where a certain amount was budgeted and it was unanticipated motion practice or some some case event that
was unexpected that created uh that generated a lot of resources and and time and fees and required a supplemental appropriation through you know from town meeting that's not um I've I've seen that happen before you know so I think that
either accessing Reserve funds I think you're right though um Nick may have mentioned um may have mentioned that as a Poss possibility you know um um so Jay do you have something to
say I did I do want to respond to Julia I think remind me I think with the reserve fund it only requires the warrant committee's approval and I think it can be done any time of the year not just the last two months okay but you reminded or this last conversation reminded me of something I was wondering
about what can we I don't know if the correct word is amend but you know we're going to make a recommendation to town meeting and what can the scope of our recommendation be for example uh Mr Milano seemed to say that it has to be within taking money out of legal and
putting it into schools like one of my first thoughts was instead of putting into schools can we put it in the reserve fund is that if the warrant committee decided to do that would that be within scope to say it's not moving to schools it's moving to the reserve fund P Milano seemed to think no yeah
right um I'm I guess um the moderator is the ultimately the Arbiter of scope issues I I guess I'd be remiss or I'd want to confer with Bob about his view on that um I I tend to
agree um with Nick the way the way the article was framed but um okay you know ultimately that I defer to right I want to confer with Bob on that my second question about a reasonable I don't even want to call it an amendment a reasonable recommendation that we might
offer is could we offer a a lower number I mean they they phrased it poorly as we all know but could we say nope it shouldn't be 255 it should be 208 or it should be 100,000 or it should be $1 is that within scope of something we could
recommend I think you can um I think I and I don't think Bob would disagree with this that you could reduce the amount okay um I think any reduction would be within scope MH um thank you sure I mean Bob may have a different view but I I wouldn't expect that so I
think that's that would be I think I I'd agree with that until I was corrected obviously um I have a question from a procedural standpoint if they were to need a um
supplemental appropriation from the reserve fund you said that would go to the warrant committee the warrant committee would make a recommendation that wouldn't go to town meeting that would be the warrant Committee in the select board warrant committee the warrant
committee so my concern is here we have a situation where a town meeting is having a vote so those people are elected they're supposed to represent the people that they you know in their Precinct they say we don't want to have
this money then we the warrant committee who are appointed are then saying never mind we're GNA go you know what I mean so I'm just that tension I'm just making I'm not really asking a question but I just feel like there's a tension there but you're saying that's allowable
as long as you don't encumber I mean as long as you don't reduce it down to less than what the encumbrances are so it's like zero so it doesn't go below zero as long as it doesn't go below zero okay that that's what Ken said yeah I I'd like to just
comment on lizard saying I think it it is a I appreciate the comment but I think it allows for flexibility oh I'm not saying wrong oh no no and I wasn't inferring that this is I'm just kind of commenting on because I thought it was a good question it's a good thing to bring up that it allows that flexibility so we
don't have to call a town meeting so we don't have to kind of do all those steps if we need the money for a wood chipper or something else um immediately so I just think that's probably the thought behind the provision that way but I don't have a problem with the
provision being that way I kind of it's the opposite I'm concerned that if this were to be passed a town meeting what does that then mean you know like if we do need to have litigation because we get sued because I
slipped and fell ha but like you know something else happened we're putting the warrant Committee in a position where we're having to say even though people voted for this I just feel like there's a tension there between you know what I'm saying
so I think it's good that we have that ability but I'm I'm worried about this petition the way that it's written I guess is my point Ron I guess in theory I would think that we wouldn't look to have a a large
appropriation for just any potential costs it would be for legitimate costs that are being incurred for foreseeable issues so it could be for potential incumbrances that are coming I think that's how we would be prudent about the money given in theory the town meeting
would have told us not to put a big sack of potatoes out there for you know usage well yeah and I think what's going to happen is if something happens if this happens and it gets passed Nick is not
going to call a warrant committee meeting to move money into the legal budget he's going to wait until real bills come in want more money and then it's an issue because now you have but we could meet every month in theory yeah every month the new bill
comes in we can vote to pay it guess but there's a bill everyone satisfied not really but best best we can be at this point I appreciate the questions on citizens positions um maybe
move on on to the the next petition sure uh this is the planning board um uh the town instructing the planning board to um come up with a
reasonable or to implement the MBTA communities act zoning plan as presented so if you could just just from your perspective as Town Council um on that article as it's written yeah so um I guess I
I'm I'm not sure what word you want to attach to it um advisory or or um non-binding but it's not you know in my view town meeting can't can't mandate you know that the planning board take specific action in this regard I mean the planning board is a is a public body
is an independent public body and um acts through its Collective vote so um you know town I think the petition um can operate as some as something of a
proclamation um or a recommendation but ultimately wouldn't I don't think have any binding effect on the planning board to mandate that the planning board take any particular action so that's how I view
that anybody have any questions as to that petition Julia's hand is it Julia yeah um I have a question that is somewhat related to this petition but um you know the
planning board has made no secret of the fact that they are um taking legal advice from a um you know unpaid citizen volunteer um as the town's paid council
do you have concerns about like does that put the town at any sort of liability or or or do you have any other concerns related to that in general um I I I think it's respectfully I don't I'm not
I don't want to S side step I just it's a little outside the scope of of of this discussion I mean I don't I I think that um you know in terms of the article itself you know purporting to or seeking to direct particular action by the
planning board I don't think that um I don't think that the the planning board can be lawfully compelled you know how me he can't dictate what the playing board does and I think you know I don't want again I
don't um I'm not trying to be evasive or I don't respect the question but you know it's a little a field of of the scope of this discussion I think um respectfully I know that the selectboard is going to
be making a decision I think on the planning board plan upcoming we heard that at their meeting last night so they were they were going to for those who didn't see I I recommend you go back maybe take a look at that um joint meeting last night it was U very
interesting it was an executive session but they were planning on voting on the planning board plan as they've provided or some other Avenue uh the select board was going to pursue but that did not happen I think that votes on
Friday yeah I think that's right Jay can I clarify are you saying town meeting approving this are you saying it would be improper for town meeting to approve this are you just saying it would have no teeth the ladder I think okay it can't they can't dictate
they can't direct board at least in this context in my opinion to thank you I'm just trying to understand if you meant they can't dictate and therefore they shouldn't pass this or they can't dictate and therefore it doesn't matter if they pass this okay thank
you going back I'm happy to hear rules are are what they are and as you've interpreted them so that a group of folks can't change what a or command one of the units of town government to
do something specifically at some point yeah then I think that's a you know um I don't like to speak in absolutes as you probably gleaned um but um because I don't I don't I think you know there's
an exception to every rule generally sure which is itself and absolute statements um but I think no as a general proposition you know like town meeting there are certain actions that it has to authorize um so you can't take action without
authorization of town meeting but often there's a distinction between that and directing you know and uh you know I think in this context I don't think that tamy can require a this public body to take any
particular action so taking that a step further it could however take money away from a uh elected body uh which is the for petition is that correct
right I mean in so far as town meeting controls appropriations and you know has to authorize Appropriations and could you know resend or amend an appropriation I guess u in that sense have we seen many of these u u
request by petition to amend or resend appropriation an appropriation anecdotally uh I mean personally I haven't but that's not I I don't know statistically how prevalent it is anecdotally I no I'm I
it's uh not something I've seen a ton of okay thank you anybody else okay one more to go are lighting bylaws so the lighting bylaw the dark
sky and then um the light trespass yes yeah yes so I don't know um you know we we've discussed and actually we uh were're hoping to have a speaker and some additional comments on that but uh you have the opportunity to review
the lighting B can you just tell the committee the the methodology yeah the methodology and um you know its origin and and then what you did that would so and um I mentioned Jay put together what I thought seemed like very copious and
um thorough slides um that I haven't had occasion yet to fully drill down into I did I did notice one item that uh was an excellent point and I'll I'll address it in a second um but my methodology
basically was to take um the the draft lighting and light dark sky and and TR light trespass bylaws um and check which I understood to be you know
basically verbatim What what was approved in new maror uh new maror as I think I mentioned at the last meeting was a subject of an mlu decision that I sent to Jay I don't know if everyone's um if everyone's seen a copy of it does a
pretty good job of addressing particular provisions of new Marro's bylaw that the um flagged as potentially problematic um and I just basically tried to address the issues that the mlu
flagged um one item that um was included in the original version of the new marbo bylaw was a line um rendering any violation of the bylaw of misdemeanor and it turns out and if you
look at the circulated the the town report the vote of town meeting actually removed that sentence so when the mlu saw it presumably they didn't see the version that included that language I assumed that they had um
proved it so I didn't flag it as problematic if you if you check uh the repository um and do just type in misdemeanor into that keyword search box generates a number of decisions that in
which the mlu has disapproved of similar language so um and what it said is it said you know it's just disapproved of that it kind of isolated it and disapproved of it um there are under um there's two mechanisms to
basically enforce bylaw violations 40 chapter 40 there 4021 421d and the 4021 process is ultimately a a criminal technically a criminal U proceeding process uh 421d is a non-criminal
disposition finding process but so but anyway that uh terms in bylaws that have purported to um to render violations of the bylaws misdemeanors have been rejected by the mlu at least I I pulled up a quick decision I assume there were
like a thousand other decisions that popped up I assume they all say the same thing so um so anyway I what I basically generally speaking the mlu
flag is problematic the um kind of the interchangeable use of zoning act parlance in the bylaw which I try to remove like there's references to special permits um uh the lack of like a this is my word
but kind of an intelligible standard that would guide when when a a light issue constitutes a nuisance so I tried to add language that would you know Define what what that means and you know
in a way that um that would guide someone making a determination about whether there's a violation about whether it rises to the level of a nuisance what does that mean um so I tried to add some terms that kind of
Define that standard um and then they also the mlu uh objected to the way the enforcement terms were laid out so I my thought was to basically incorporate the 40
21d uh process there was a in Le of a civil penalty um provision and I think that they also had language in new maror that imposed a fine that mlu deemed to exceed
the you know the uh appable threshold so so that was my methodology was just to take this language which I U basically my understanding was the same language that new marro had uh had passed through
the mlu and then address in our language Provisions that uh with respect to which the mlu had raised concerns [Music] again it was those three categories
enforcement standards to to govern oh in process due process uh that was the other one so the mlu said there's really no process to you know through which someone could challenge a determination that they were in violation so we tried to
add add a process and add some standards that would govern determinations that result from that process can I ask you a question sure from said so this is a general bylaw right as opposed to a planning bylaw a
zoning bylaw a zoning bylaw my apologies so um and correct me the H how Okay based upon the general versus um zoning what's the difference you say you know they use the language but is
there any from your perspective if something's moved forward is a zoning by law what are the requ like addition yeah there's a process right under under that's governed under 4A Section 5 which is section of the zoning act um it's it has to be the subject of a planning
board hearing planning board has an opportunity to draft a report and depending on the nature of the provision it has it could have a different Quantum um typically you know traditionally zoning by laws have required a two-thirds Quantum a vote um been
amended in recent years I won get into all the minutia because I don't think it's Germaine for purposes of this discussion but it it where the bylaw provision would um generate would would create hey family housing U where it wasn't
previously allowed either by special parameter as of right um the quantum could be reduced down to a majority provided you know this other requirements is going to be an ineligible District again I don't think it's Germain but the zoning act um zoning bylaw
Provisions are subject to the section five process and also typically have a different Quanto vote for General bylaw it's a majority vote so it's the the 2third and uh you did mention U and I I say this because
for a zoning bylaw true and um I I saw a iteration of this back in 2015 that was brought forward by the planning board circulated and really never got traction um but you what you said stuck with me um so with the planning board as we know there's a public process so there' be
public hearings right okay and there was none and there was and under the general there are are none there's no requirement correct right there's no right a public hearing and the report and no planning board report correct yeah but this um you know as the mlu
decision reflects this was uh passed in new Maro with the ml's approval as a general as a general okay both of them yeah okay any talk Sky Lori I just had a question about how did you choose new
Malboro a very rural community in the western part of the state that seems a little bit different than our bright skies and yeah I mean um I I first learned about it through
the municipal law unit um you know I I noted that um the there's a that this new maror language was the subject of a municip of an mlu decision yeah so that's through the mlu but I
mean any I'm not very familiar with new maror but yeah I think that's a you know certainly a distinction that or it's that's something that I think the mlu
decision referenc is the that it's a rural place right which seems I would be looking at Somerville or another Community that's surrounding Boston because we're getting the after
effects of the lights so that's just curious any other questions or comments this dark Sky J if I can ask more about the process of how this came to be thank you for what you said just now you you answered some of my questions by the
answers you just gave it a minute ago but uh the process so you said I guess my question is there are other differences between this proposed bylaw and the new Marboro law most obviously questions of what's going to happen with pre-existing
lights was that additions you made did did were you given that and they said we've made these changes I'm confused yeah no um and I you know I I'm happy to address this Jay I will say I want to be a little clear I mean I want to be a little careful I don't want to
unwittingly wave any privileges it's a little tricky in this context but I I was yeah okay but um I that is language that I added because I wanted to make it
um it's first of all it's not a zoning bylaw so it wouldn't be you know the grandfathering protections that the pre-existing non-conforming use protections that would extend under the zoning act aren't applicable and um I'm
not sure off hand as I'm sitting here what the new marbor language was but I thought that I I was TR I was trying to be clearer about the circumstances first of all requiring that that
um I I thought that the language around the terms under which pre-existing lights had to come into compliance was a little ambiguous at least as I read it so I was trying to kind of create clear language around
that um like a a deadline for example by which compliance needed to be achieved um you know I guess the the question if you want to make um I don't think there's anything that would preclude in a general bylaw you
from uh providing the same sort of grandfathering protection but if if you didn't want to and you wanted to make it um if you wanted to require that existing uh lights come into compliance I think it's just important to first of
all identify for clarity the date by which that compliance has to be achieved and what compliance entails so that was basically the the substance of my those changes that was my thinking okay I've I've got to say I'm
I'm confused um so stepping back a second a minute ago I thought you said that you thought this language was the same as new maror but then you changed it for the mlu but
this is also a change you made okay I guess I mean I I am when I read these current bylaws I'm confused if current lights are grandfathered or not that that's where I stand over right now yeah so I don't know which wording you added if and I know you don't want to speak
for like any select board members if any select board members added language I am yeah and it's hard for me I'm just um yeah this I don't want to obviously I'm trying to be mindful of any privilege uh protections that would
extend any Communications I had but also but also um just from a memory standpoint it there there were different rounds of you know I made changes um to address mlu issues and
then as I recall opined on other drafts you know but um um I remember addressing trying to be clear about
um add Clarity to terms relating to um pre-existing lights so if and if you know I think it's I'd have to go back to look at the language but um
perhaps you know if it could have been clearer I thought there was a deadline it was a two-year dead two years right yeah which seems like an onerous expense for the resident I can't be affording
that yeah I I I I wasn't sure if there was intended to be a time to be in complient now so what you're saying is if I have a porch light on my house that shines sideways in two years I got to replace that that's what it says or
earlier earlier if you fall into one two three if your neighbor complains about but I guess what I'm asking is if yeah is that your understanding that if I've got to replace my what you intended I I just wanted to I think the intention was and this isn't what I you know this is
more the policy behind I wasn't ask question I'm just trying to create a legal bylaw I'm trying to create certainty and avoid ambiguity and create clear um requirements you know so I
think along those lines I you know you want to have a deadline if you're going to require people to come into compliance with a certain time frame you know seems to me the most important uh thing to do in that regard is to establish a deadline what that
deadline is could be two years it could be it could be longer um there could be you know mechanisms to you know under for good cause to extend de you know but I just my my point is I just want it to be clear what the deadline is and what
you have to do within that deadline um but the the propriety of of any of that or the the you know the as a policy matter um whether those deadlines the what you need to do should
be changed or modified scaled back where the deadline should be extended I mean those are fair questions those are policy questions it's you know thank I I'm just trying to create certainty and Clarity list question about the penalties
provision so it says any person or entity who violates this bylaw shall receive a warning for the first violation and shall be liable to the town of Milton in the amount of $50 for the second and in the amount of 100 for the subsequent
Etc what is the first violation and a second like is that my one light is violating again and again like is that the GU every day every day it goes on well there was every day language before but is it is it I have more than one
light that's an issue like what does a second violation mean well is it possible that you have to be handed a violation so that there has to be somebody there but when you park your car illegally they don't just keep putting tickets on it until you
show back up they do they do not within one day oh yes my my point is that you not get a regation doesn't mean that you come around they have to come around to give you a violation every day but it would be for the same light attorney
like I could have a violation and then another one for the same light for the same issue I would say yes all lights get a violation so every single light that shines outward gets a violation every
day until you fix it maybe we're trying to make money for the town maybe that was the think that's okay but parking meters parking meters parking meters so when I have my G my light that shines onto my driveway so that I don't trip and kill myself my children that I'm
trying to bring into the house or whatever as long as it's not sideway it's it is sideways it has to go down I know but has to be glowing warm so anyway but that that would be a second
violate the is that your interpret to is that a second violation would be like the next after I get my first violation whenever they get around to giving me another one the same light though the light goes on the next day light goes on the next day every time my neighbors
complain about I don't have any Bright Lights anytime my neighbors complain if you keep that light on long enough we're going to pay for the new school [Laughter] my want any complaints about my lights I
don't have any bright Lem driving down tonight making calls all warm and glowing Building Commissioner this is so confusing you done what would have I'm sorry L go ahead Brian after you by the way some of the some of these questions
I mean I when you're when you're reviewing a bylaw especially one that um that basically tracks either verbatim or substantially language that the
mlu approved and the the question is is this in proper legal form I mean some of the questions um about different scenarios and how how enforcement would work in
different scenarios or what different provisions mean when you really drill down I haven't given a ton of thought to those um and I'm not sure you know I'm happy to I'm happy to um indulge everyone and and kind of give
thought off the cuff uh to some of those questions but um you know also I guess it'd be interested to see how new maros applied some of these U how it's worked in practice
um I I will say with you know with enforcement done plenty of enforcement and as a practical matter um depending on the circumstance usually it's it's better when you can secure
complian cooperatively um and there's different approaches to it and depends on the circumstances but um I think you know for the most part you're better served to to work cooperatively
so Li what what about the lights to people have that illuminate their treat beautiful trees no it's pointing up points up not sideways a lot of people that are going to be gone with that money for the
town if you can enfor if you can get the money that also may be kind of a we're to hire a lot of people for enforcement okay unless I complain change change the Vault thank
you there not yeah I'm Wonder so is what what would have mandated or dictated or driven us to a general bylaw versus a zoning bylaw that would have allowed for public process I mean you're sitting
here getting pummeled with questions and I apologize about things that like we haven't we have we have no idea this just shows up and we don't like understand what the impetus is behind it why did we go General why didn't we go
zoning was supposed to be it was zoning before now it's not is it are we trying to avoid the public process are we trying to pass it at 50% versus 2/3 is like um I you might not be able to
answer yeah I'm not I can't really speak to that I mean I I think that there's there's a little more flexibility I think maybe the biggest distinction is um well there's different there's I guess a little more flexibility with
respect to a um a general bylaw um and if this has been approved as a general bylaw um but I can't really you know I'm I guess it's more of a policy question I don't really
okay good Judy has her hand up I think I missed and this may not go directly to attorney M but who which department in our town is going to be the enforcing
agency um I think the select board right so I think what I'm trying to say is if there's a report of um a light
violation which department hand this the building department um I don't know this says the select board yeah the select board so any any determination of a violation would be
made by the select board after a after a hearing and then they would be going forward they would be handing out these citation notices
[Music] right determination yeah okay thank you okay uh so yeah I want to ask a little bit more about enforcement specifically Mass General Law chapter 40
section 21d which is another thing I'd never heard of till two weeks ago but I'm going to pretend to be an expert that is just I would put in common language that is a way for towns to enforce bylaws by writing tickets rather than taking someone to court um so this
I believe both of them say I'm quoting fine shall be recovered by indictment or on complaint before the district court or by non-criminal dist disposition in accordance with mgl 421d so to me that sounds like we can get the fine by taking them to court or
writing them a ticket yeah that's oh I'm sorry okay so does that mean the select gets to choose you're you're violating they get to choose which one that is it's the enforcing Authority I think so okay thank you um my next question was again I'm a newly minted expert on 21d
it looks like there are a couple hard and fast things that they say you need one is you need a strict fine it can't be and we have that that's good and another one is you need to list the enforcing person with a capital E and a capital P which goes back to what my
colleague just asked about and the only other place we reference 21d in the Milton bylaws is the storm water complaint and they they list the enforcing person in there is the I don't know DPW I think so it's sort of a
technicality but is that a technicality we need to meet in order to meet 21d list the enforcing person yeah that that's an excellent question J I'm glad you raised that I think it's I think the identity of the select board is the as
the um enforcing Authority would suffice but um but I can I can confirm that and if if I feel like there's a there's a need or the mlu would flag that as a as something that um would need to
be either Incorporated Amendment or addressed um then I'll raise that and it would be something that I think could be um adjusted if needed samples that I saw often said in this example the enforcing person is the police department or it's
the police department or the building inspector or so would we say police department or select board um and then I don't know no that's an excellent point I'm like I said I'm glad you raised this because it could be
um that could be probably identified more explicitly I I think it probably in my view anyway it's it I would take the position it's sufficiently covered but for good measure I it might might make sense to provided tell were to adopt it to to
amend it just to explicitly refer to an enforcing official or or um to the board in that in that paragraph okay yeah um and so even more nitpicky my colleagues will tell you that I like to pick nits
um if mgl 21d or whatever 21d the intent is that you can dismiss the criminal isue by paying a fine for your first offense you get a warning how do you pay a fine if you only got a
warning is is that is that to nit picky is that a reasonable question no yeah of course no um no I think you would [Music] um I think probably as as I'm sitting here I guess if I would say that um the
the 40 21d process would be available as of the second violation but um okay so sort of the Common Sense answer the first one they get a warning that's it yeah well because the paragraph that invokes
21d contemplates that so I think that's yeah that's how I would assum okay so um M Brian actually you're up yeah I have a three questions um the first one do you know if any
experts were consulted on this these two Arles well Engineers or leting experts no I don't because you don't know where like the 2700 and the do Sky thing 2700 kin Kevin where that came from
I'm this all I I guess when I looked at this um I I viewed it through the prism of okay this mlu looked at this and flagged these issues so um you know I I don't
know that an engineer was consulted but I think that that tracks the U similar language or the same language in the new Mar provision yeah um why do you know why this like holiday lights were
excluded from these two articles no so you can't technically theoretically have any holiday lights Christmas Halloween rights I would think or they could violate they theoretically could violate right I don't know if that was
intentional or War on Christmas imagine shielded Holiday Lights bright white like 2700 tell it is basically warm lighting maybe we can invent only shielded Holiday Lights light bulb you
mean light bulb a color Blinky Blinky I think all the stop signs that go Blinky Blinky everywhere need to be removed light like an emergency safety measure Blinky Blinky
okay that's what I was wondering if somebody could come in and show us with 2700 no 2700 would be like old warm incandescent light bulb that's it wow this is probably closer to 35 5,000 we found our expert bright light
please tell me what's 2700 compare it to something a candle old no old old incandescent light bulb oh when you're back to like the screw kind the F okay so bright bright white LEDs are probably
somewhere between 5 and 6,000 Kelvin yeah these uh and these are probably 35 to 4,000 C what's a full moon we have to ban that I'm just down not
right Moon that's glowing of the so no experts no consideration on holiday lights um yeah on this um I think the experts I don't I'm not sure but I think the the when
you say no consideration of holiday lights what do you what do you mean like like technically like you can't have am I wrong and that's you can't have Christmas lights for hallowe lights so if they're above 2700 what if they're above
2700 yeah so bright no bright holiday lights right dim ones I when you I mean I guess um conservative lighting when you think of holiday lighting that's it gets a little bit um I think you have to be a little careful
and defining it kind of intersects with it intersects with like religious you know you have to just be a little careful about uh about those types of issues but um but I as I'm sitting here I'm not in
um a great position to answer that exact question um yeah I mean I don't like 2700 Kelvin does that mean two bulbs you know is no no it's not not it's not lumens is like the brightness yeah Kelvin is a color
temperature like warm or cold light and so I can understand where this came from which is um a reaction to when LED bulbs first came out and people started putting them on exterior lighting it was like daylight SP um and very very
different from when people had incandescent bulbs in they're like oh this is I find this much more offensive and some people have genuine visceral reactions to Bright Lights and I get it I don't love it but I
understand it and new Marboro I can like I just looked it up on the map it is it's in the sticks 2,000 people live there it's like makes great barington which is nearby look Urban right great barington is urban I've never heard
those two I looked I mean I see it these did a great job Brian you have any yeah one more question uh so was this particular law set of laws just written for one issue one problem do you know in Milton
one complaint for the entire town know was it a that's to my knowledge series of issues you don't know no it's not well what was the what started this you know you LED bulbs years ago in all serious I
what LED bulbs years ago M that's why that they've adopted different they've the bulbs have evolved to LEDs come in all temperature ranges now Liz actually BR you do you have anything
yeah I mean that's not but what started the PE this these two articles in Milton what prompted them that's what I meant what issue case I just review the language all right Li I feel like if a neighbor had a
problem with a neighbor for like light shining in your house like Bright Lights you could bring a civil action for trust for nuisance I guess it is or for trespass of Lights if a neighbor had is that true if a neighbor if a neighbor had an issue
with their next door neighbor like shining bright lights in their house or something they could bring nuisance a regular nuisance complaint sure okay so there are like some Provisions to protect you if your neighbor is shining bright lights directly in your eyeball
this is more of like trying to have a like a character of the town to have more like warm soft oldtime re lighting like I'm just saying if we were not to you know vote on this in town meeting we to not vote for it people
would still have some protection for like light trespass for light trespass well I guess if um under typical tort law if if the display of uh
lights is in INF fringed upon your quiet use and enjoyment of your property like theoretically yeah that I think that you might have a claim and there's probably you know it's probably rare for a reason I guess
but hard to prove that's also why nobody ever wants Stadium lights loud MH cuz they're never warm lights Xenon bright white lights yeah you and you know committee I
I just like to mention this too like in terms of enforcement you know you're and I understand that the town goes to the Court quiny District takes out complaints for bylaw violations you know know and you know sometimes I I know for
health issues I think it's bigger if there's constant problems I think I I believe the town takes that step and it's either resolved prior to an arraignment but you got to remember someone's someone could catch a case a criminal case catch a
case for for for having like two bright of light bulbs they're talking about indictment indictment well we might not have a legal department well that's right but yeah don't have any but the the indictment would be by the Attorney General the count or the County district attorney and bring and remove the matter
to the superior court time to install your lights I mean the the penalty is it could be a fine or I don't think it's but you got to remember some you get a criminal record if if if the town proceeds and I
I don't know I just you know I just wanted to bring that up to the theoretically and that's language from the from the ml's decision in New maror um it actually specifically cited those two mechanisms I'll say anecdotally or as a
practical matter um the the more common approach um by many many multiples is is um the non-criminal disposition process and you know whatever that's worth it's
I think it's it's not the criminal processes isn't as typical a path um in my experience and I and I know there's often great you know they take lengths to avoid that like the language being in
there is just concerning anyway so I just want it it's more of a comment than anything else um morning committee I just want to mention um as to this um attorney Mel's here Town Council um I'm I'm hoping that
we have a guest a visitor to speak to this in terms of enforcement and I am expecting comments from the select board by Next by over the weekend at some point that I can share with the
committee um I was planning on having a speaker come in the day after President's Day um to address enforcement um and obviously and it would give me the select board enough time time to kind of draft up some
comments that I can share with everybody here so I just wanted to to point that out to everybody um that there could be I could have a little more feedback about this so if there's any if anybody has any more questions just concerning the legality or some of the specific
language and verbage or whatever used here um here's our chance so I just want to say this there could be more coming on this for our consideration like exhausting the issue I just want to make sure you know this is something the select board put forward and I want to give it all the
due diligence we and it's obviously not a speak now forever hold your piece situation I'm happy to address any follow questions sure yeah you're getting the brunt of it all it's no this is um an important process
and this is the kind of vetting that um that you know serves the town well I think so um I don't see any more hands up so are we exhausted this issue
tonight he probably exhausted a attack attorney mow I I would trust uh attorney mow thank you very much for coming and uh putting up with us sorry for thank you and our condolences to your family
thank you um sincerely um and I know uh members if you do have other questions and you know attorney Melo I think would be happy to answer them um I'm sure town meeting will have questions um and maybe uh when I receed more comments from the
select board maybe would be in a position to to maybe take a vote on this and that's another reason I I think this is um a helpful process because you know it's um this is good a good um
um you know testing ground is probably not the right phrase but it this is good precursor to town meeting I mean these are the types of questions it's good practice um and I like to hear questions that you all have because um you guys do a really thorough
job of really you know studying everything and thinking about hard questions and um if you can if you can make it here you can make it anywhere right I get I can get by warrant committee I can make it um so I appreciate it and
any followup questions I'm happy to be available Town Council thank you so much appreciate it see you at town meeting okay great okay so I would like to hold off in the
lighting I'd like to give inspection services or um another uh the opportunity to come in and answer some more questions and then comments from the slug board member uh we okay with that we okay coming back maybe
Tuesday nice kind of pre pre we could also use that as a pre pre preet for the special town meeting can talk about that a little bit post anybody else think it's odd that the select board is an enforcement agency yes I I
in my experience in town meeting uh with bylaws I do you think it's odd or I think it's odd I think they have a lot on their plate normally wouldn't it be wouldn't I would have thought it'd be building town engineer building department or something the building
department or some part-time somebody and if we're driving home and like there's a light that's completely out of call chair Wells I'm sorry we have a
light that is shining brightly on the side well they don't necessarily have to be the reporting agency but but the enforcement agency I I just it just something about it feels weird to me I'm back to New Malboro sorry no
thank you I have a question does anybody think this is a good idea seriously I mean just Tom I to be disrespectful I know that you know we're going to get yeah we're going to beat beat this uh thing
down what do you see if you can make it here you can make it anywhere I like that get t-shirt but this just seems crazy absolutely crazy I said this before and I'm just repeating it again and I I can't imagine that we're going
to recommend this regardless of what information comes our way I'm certainly not going to look for it just seems crazy to me I just want to repeat that again I appreciate it I'd like to respond to Sure colleague so I think the
Dark Skies law has a lot more problems and a lot fewer upside I think the light trespass law has fewer problems and more upside I think it has more potential to do good uh What I don't know and I
probably won't be here when the warrant committee um decides this we've got a couple options we can as a warrant committee say ah the light trespass law it's good enough and it and it has some upside we can say we recommend it or or
we can say we don't recommend it and if we say we don't recommend it I think I hope I'm not getting too far off topic but for the light for the Dark Skies law I think our warrant committee chair can stand up and give a lot of
reasons as to why we're recommending no to the town meeting and I always want to be able to communicate to town meeting why recommending something especially if recommending against what another board suggests so for the and we don't have to decide this now I don't know if we can
decide it now but for the like trespass law will our chair have a similar a list of reasons why we're not ready to do it or or why this isn't the right type of law or will will our chair
or will the warrant committee say we got two laws at the same time law number one was clearly not well thought out law number two we worry because it it was the twin sibling of law number one which is not well thought out and we need more
time so that's what I'm sort of wondering and I don't know what decision will make J I just want to clarify I was only talking about the dark sky law oh okay that's okay um the dark sky law seems kind of just silly even naming it
dark sky here in in a metropolitan area uh with all the lights on but the trespass I could see that if somebody's shining a light and puts a new driveway up or the example I used was a skating rink uh on a residential property with
Stadium lights you need to be able and there's there was no enforcement mechanism this gentleman could just basically say nope keeping them up keeping them on and that was the deal so I'm I'm I'm
with you on that I Am pro trespass and anti- darkk Sky uh Liz and Judy I guess and Alison for J Jay's comment for the purpose of like completion of um discussion I would say I would like to
hear from inspectional services and the select board not because it necessarily would change my I leave my mind open to be changed but I think because then maybe like whoever is writing the
comment I can just see if I were in town meeting and not having watched all of this um or in town meeting without that I guess if I were in town meeting and that discussion hadn't taken place I'd say well did anybody check with inspectional services or what was the
select board thinking like why so I guess just for educational purposes for other people I be willing to hear absolutely but will it change anybody's mind I don't know maybe not I'm actually hoping that there's a reason here that I
missed yeah I'd like to hear kind of some of the reasoning as well I really would like to know where this came from okay can I can I uh can we just go to so we got some other people okay you got Judy then Allison and
Brian uh thank you um it seems to me on the dark skies and attorney Melo tried to address and make it um objective however when the
enforcement board or department or committee it's really becoming more subjective because who on in this case we the article is determined in that the
select board will be the enforcer um and it could have been any Department gu now who's going to take training is it going to be a training course so that
you can be objective and not subjective I can go to lizz's house and point out a subjective opinion about her driveway lights but what what am I determining
whether she's in violation or not so there would have to be some sort of training and strict guidelines and I think Brian I know you're asking the
question and maybe I don't know Mr chair I mean should we should we should we talk about the elephant in the room yes yeah what's the elephant J one yeah in the room has turn his P Because
unless you're moving van pulled up this morning and you are a new Resident excited to be here um I think anyone that hasn't been asleep too much pretty much
knows that this has been an isue at let's talk about beavers for Dark Skies um and a select board member on record um on Facebook which I guess is really a
record um worrying about the critters down there the wildlife the habitants of the wildlife being destroyed by said lights from one and I think to Brian's
point this is how it's started in this time although if we really look at the towns around us they have they do have do Sky initiatives How They Came Upon
introducing in that to their Town bylaws is much more research than I would commit myself to um but I think in this Town that's when the impetus to because
there was no law on record to address the lights from one property ATT turn as on so you know what the heck I'll be the one to say it
um it's pretty well known in town I'm not going to debate whether the lights are um okay not okay we should worry about them we should not worry about them that's a whole other
buling um but before us is this article to have our turn become one of the many towns in the Commonwealth who have a dark skies bylaws for whatever reason maybe they're trying to protect
conservation areas um they're trying to distinguish residential neighborhoods from their Town centers that um have a lot of business and likes to go with that type of um
property whatever their reasons are we're not an outlayer and asking for a do skies initiative so I guess to Brian's question um because I was
somewhat track tracking that not you know obsessively but I kept my eyes in the ears out for information on that down there and um it it's a tough thing
um when certain things can't be enforced but they're problematic for a large enough group of people so that's um Brian that one for you thank
you okay Allison Brian Peter and then Liz let's try to yeah mine's gonna be quick because I mean I think we're I mean beating this to a dead horse on some of these topics
but um you know that's that was a uh a article created not by the selectboard just so we're aware but it was created by one of the members so the select board hasn't discussed this so this is
not a um fully vetted or communicated article just so that people are aware um and this was uh based around the resident at Turners Pond and I just think that it's important to note that
it did create for an environment for others where we begin to look at this resident and and I felt really bad um I don't think it's anything intentional but um you know there's there's safety
concerns for him as well um you know with it being a high active area um I think they put up a sign for that the pond closes that duck but you know so so
that being important to um know uh because you know the goal here uh is not to create where neighbor go against each other um but to work together so I think it's important to note that this type of
uh creation of a bylaw could further create divisiveness amongst those that should be working um in favor of of communication um and in working so I don't I think there's more to that so we we can't
really uh approve this based on you know uh we have to do as like right for for the bylaws going forward so and if we want to be a town that uh works together I think this could be very
divisive um so I think that's important to note but hopefully that gives enough context and that the select board didn't discuss or this is coming from one person on the select board area thanks uh thanks for that comment Allison and Brian before you go uh Allison's correct
I don't think there's been an open formal discussion of this bylaw by the select board there has been no comment uh from them on it uh that may happen the night of town meeting which it frequently does or before and that's up
to the chair of the select board so Allison is correct and I thought her comments I don't know I'm just gonna add to that was a good comment I thought about that a little myself Brian thanks um just uh I'll try to be quick um Peter I agree with you completely on the law
um and Judy thank you for bringing up the elephant in the room and I think that is probably one of the issues is that they're trying to write a lot for Maybe One Singular item but I think it's like I don't know what point where I think you could try to pick a bot and say well this we should have a light
trespass law we should address it but it doesn't sound like this was well thought out at all and there's so many holes in it and um what point do you say well just go back to the beginning and yeah you know I mean do we re the whole thing for them or does somebody that's my
thought yeah and Bri many issues I can try to answer that and someone can chime in but you know um you know there are we either recommend uh you know recommend Tom meeting Vote or we say no uh give our reasons why or we um we suggest that it
be sent back for further review and maybe a little more work and uh maybe the select board we working with the planning board this time I I don't know but I mean those are those are really our options
um that's it okay um Peter I'm good good Peter Liz so to agree with Allison um I think that you know your point Allison about sewing not wanting to
encourage division in the town is a really good one I also worry kind of um to the point about I think Andrew you're the one that anyway anyway somebody made it about was it weird that the select board was the one was that you yeah that would be enforcing it so I thought of
another concern I don't worry about this with this select board but some future select board maybe um if the select board the select board are elected and I would rather have a employee because if
you're elected then I am concerned that and again not our current select board because I think they're all very honorable people but if you had a select board that was different people um you you know you go after kind of oh these
people are with me those people aren't with me I'm this person's my friend they voted for me they donated to me I I would think that it should be an employee of the Town who's consistently works here no matter which way the wind
blows in terms of politics and as Judy said Can inform themselves have training and apply it consistently and then I think that that will also help not to you know as Alison mentioned we're trying to avoid but would help not to
sew division so that's just another thing that I thought is kind of an issue but your question about the select board enforcing it I thought yes that's true because why they're so busy like this seems lower tier but also I do worry
about Allison's point and I I also am aware of this whole Turner Pond situation and just to add to kind of Allison's point and um I think your point Peter like to have a law kind of driven by one person I would like to
hear from whoever on the select board that you're having come in to sort of talk about the Genesis of this and the intent because if that's the case then I would find that problematic just add please com I find
lots of parts of the law problematic but I do understand some of the rationale and the example I would give is two different examples I would give is if you drive down a gas lanter district and all of a
sudden they swap those out with 6,000 Kelvin bulbs which is like daylight you'd be like this is not pleasant and the same goes for a long stretch of street if everybody on but you had these bright white exterior
lights you'd be like this I this is not pleasant it's like daylight and the the flip side would also be driving down Cav towards Blue Hills and all of a sudden everybody started turning on light
everybody on that street decided to turn on really bright lights you you'd be like this the the town has lost its character now feels like a metropolis um so from that perspective I sort of
get it I don't know that we necessarily need to regulate it this way and I definitely don't think having anything that potentially allows for criminal records belongs on there whether they plan on enforcing it that way or not
like I don't see any reason why you should have um why it should be anything other than a civil penalty uh so I I just want to add the Counterpoint I don't have as visile
reaction to it as um some of the other members but I also want to State for the record that I find many pieces of it problematic thank you I I agree I mean there are certainly
I I agree with everything you said so and Jay again did a great job delineating a number of the issues but I think it was rushed even though it took forever to get here and I think it this I would refer it back it needs
to start over and it should probably be a zoning bylaw to have a public process okay yeah I'm and I'm thinking about the light trespass bylaw because that seems to be the one that that we're
undecided about maybe uh as far as a select board being the enforcing Authority I'm not concerned with what Liz said because I sort of thought about this also when the the alcohol question came up oh will the select board discriminate and who they give alcohol
permission for well the selectboard already gives uh one- day liquor licenses they give permanent liquor licenses uh the planning board gives approval and not approval and somehow through wise Town
employees and wise Town Council we have avoided discrimination on the the decisions that the select board and the planning board and others make so far so I'm not terribly worried about that aspect of them being this deciding factor um what makes me less happy is I
think I know why the SL board is the decision-making Authority because that's who it was in new Marboro Massachusetts um would it be better if it was I don't even know the building inspector I don't know what the building inspector does but I'm just throwing out words would it
be better for as a certain Town employee probably is that a change that we can amend between now and town meeting uh maybe not very well is it so then with the light trespass bylaw I think it has a few flaws question is
is it worse to implement it is there it worse not to implement it and I'm not sure so you're welcome for that wisdom from me no thank you Jay Ron I think this discussion is great I think we're debating the laws before we have the remaining guests I would just
say we could probably go home and listen to these other people and then talk about this stuff the same discussion days wise Ron great striking common sense into the chair of the committee uh you know the purpose of this too is there are people watching they're
drawing from us and you know this is why we exist and why we're appointed not elected so I appreciate the comments are we are we done with this we're going to come back one more time and we can vet this a little more
so right now uh it's 20 to 10 we have a meeting schedule for tomorrow night we need not have that meeting uh we can act on anything we'd like to act on tonight or we can wait till
tomorrow and maybe short discussion potentially vote vote maybe on something everything exception of the lighting bylaw like to give the select board you know the opportunity to present us with something but I'm committee it's your
time which ones are still outstanding we have the Adu the two citizens petitions and the lighting to lighting bylaw total of five it would be a total of five votus we vote on the Adu now yeah you
need a motion I'll make a motion to vote on at least the Adu part now okay Liz has a motion to vote on the Adu talk about the other ones in a minute but for now the Adu bylaw right as amended thank you by the select board with the war
que's help planning board I'm sorry you know what I'm talking the the planning board and approved by the planning board okay so Karen this would be our redlined
um draft that we did the other night is that the same one that's in this or is it changed it has it's changed from there I I can share it if just like Karen put it up so it's before us changing encourage
procedures and we were all I think most of us were present here when we went through that there was a very well well attended meeting appreciate it is that yesterday no no no it was like yeah a couple Monday remember when uh Cher Hall
was here and then Cheryl Tas and Maggie were here and then it was Monday were you at the first round of the bean pot was at the first there we go well it was very similar language to what's in the warrant just a few like kind of typo things were changed and Ron
yeah only thing with the Adu so tney melow was still waiting for feedback but we could still vote on it subject to the feedb gets correct we would correct at the meeting I guess discuss that I guess correct and and this can like if if there are issues I work with the
planning board I'll work with you we'll work with the Town Administrator and town meeting to get the correct language in there if there's a major issue did he say he was going to get something tomorrow no I think that was a remark that Lor made to me like if we they we were to find out tomorrow Jay we're
beholding so we have these uh the draft regs and there's a planning board meeting tomorrow yeah we don't know okay I thought something was coming from the state like something has has come from the state it's it's been prated we just haven't had the chance to like review it
and the planning board hasn't had the opportunity to see it so then I don't see why we'd vote tonight and as opposed to tomorrow or next week we're going to be meeting next week um
I I second it thank you I'm good to vote because we might not have to revote yeah yeah we always can R okay can can I sorry can I ask another question there was last time this was up there was discussion about the 12 month do we
scratch it do we not where did we end up no change no change I think yes unless someone wants to make a friendly Amendment you didn't make any changes there was no there was no change that we were just discussing it and waiting for Mr Melo to come in attorney melow to
come in because we thought the whole 61d was an issue and he said it he he said he didn't think it no he said he didn't think it was an issue correct um what that was a clarifying question that I had asked him which was um Macy
brought up the point that is in violation what she believed that it was not in line with the current rigs which defined short-term rentals as 31 days um the question that I had asked him be was
I thought I heard him say that um the AG's office was reluctant to take away the rights of the towns to regulate short short-term rentals and so I
basically asking him is there daylight between towns being able to define something greater than 31 days and what the state says M and I still think I got a waffling answer which is which is I'm not
sure he he didn't seem to think so but I thought that he said that if they if you vote on it they'll just kick it back to you and say you have to fix this I I thought what he said well they they can eliminate that the the the defective part of the provision and return it as a
whole yeah which is what the planning board told us right you know which is what we might find out tomorrow when they get it back because they could have it back tomorrow from the mlu yes yes and I
thought that what he was saying was that as with all of the things in the Adu that if it was determined that it was unreasonable so yes we can still regulate short-term rentals so things that are 31 days or
fewer so yes we can definitely not allow um the verbo and the whatever um Airbnb can we do anything between the 30 days and the 12 months somewhere in there yes and it would be whatever they determine is reasonable and we don't
know what that would be because they would have to determine it's kind of what I understood him to be saying agree yeah the state wants us to have adus but they're still Ling us they're giving us guard rails which was that he had reviewed that provision thought about it
decided that the language was okay correct yeah so that made me feel better about it so the motion I'm sorry we have a motion from ly has her hand up Macy thank you um I propose that we wait
until next Tuesday to vote because I I found some of his answers to be vague maybe it's just me um I don't know but that's my thought and I don't know if everyone else agrees or someone agrees but I feel like
there's a lot of things to vote on and I think at least for myself I like to be able to process it and incorporate comments and have a chance to review some of the bylaws before making a decision on them we have a motion that's been
seconded well we have lizz's motion on the floor to vote on the amended bylaw as it appears on the screen approved by the planning board after our meeting so there is a motion on the
table it's been seconded seconded can I add some I would like to um raise my hand for an amendment to the motion I guess would be the proper
procedure okay um that we concur with Macy's um okay okay no that's not an amendment Amendment it's not an amendment okay not an amendment C can I ask a procedural question sure and then if if
we vote tonight can we and we come back and we get funny different answers on Tuesday can we revote absolutely okay let's go for it then and I think we' be have I mean if if they if they're saying this is a noo
we're not standing up and telling tell meeting to vote on it so I mean we we would take corrective AC action Liz you're will to go forward so um the planning board looked at all of that decided it was okay Town Council
looked at all that and decided it was okay so I feel better about voting so I continue on with my motion that way it's so kindly seconded okay the motion's been seconded we have a Jay um I I would
like to make an amendment so I'd like to say that in the discussion last week there were two concerns with the 12 month there was the is it legal concern and there was the policy concern is this what we want or not and if we think we're okay with legal concerns there's
still the question of do we want it or not so in that vein I would like to make an amendment that where it says Adu may not be rented for periods less than 12 months at a time I would like to propose an amendment that 12 be
reduced to six okay so Jay has an amendment on the floor a friendly amendment to amend the zoning bylaw as it appears on the screen approved by the planning
board and can you just tell me the section C7 to change from 12 months to six [Applause] and I I personally am not going to say more to this because we discussed it at length the other meeting I don't know if everybody's there but thank you
[Music] Jeff okay uh once it comes up oh yeah take your time Karen thank you [Applause]
you okay thank you Karen it's up on our screen so this is a friendly Amendment to the amended bylaw accepted by the planning board to section c subsection 7 regarding the 12-month period and reducing A J from 12 to six
correct okay the motion on the floor do I hear a second second Julia has second the mo seconded the motion are we good to call a vote any comments can we talk about comment yeah
thank you I would like to hear your comment comment Brian comment comment as to J I think I'm against it I think that Milton is I I think it's a great Community I think we should stick with the planning board's recommendation I
think Milton is a series of neighborhoods it's a community I know all my neighbors I bet everybody else in this meeting probably knows them really well and I think that um you would want to have people there you know
long-term residents I think you want some continuity and I think you don't want people maybe moving around like every six months bouncing around I don't think it's good for like kids that that are in school possibly that might be there I don't think it's good for them I
just I don't think it's I think you want long term people longer term people if you can so I agree with the planning board's recommendation on it if I can say anything else okay Liz and Judy on the amendment Jay's friendly Amendment
well I mean my concern is that I also personally think that 6 months is a little bit long if we're trying to allow people to have less than year to year so you know I'm trying to just sort of put my own personal aside
and think okay the planning board um kind of recommended this but I almost think it's better to have what is it the mlu municipal law unit come back and say this is unreasonable and then refer us to what
is reasonable because maybe six months is unreasonable maybe anything more than one month is reasonable maybe 12 months is reasonable I think that they might indicate to us sort of what is appropriate I would expect them to they might say
you can't have even three months you have to have one I don't know what they'll do but okay thank you Liz anyone else Peter Judy oh Judy next Peter Macy just a comment I think this whole
Adu was um planned by the state to improve housing options um clearly um towns want to
not turn themselves into the hotel rental business but the spirit of the law is to create housing options in that bang the majority of rental housing
options are oneyear leases or what they call longterm um so I think we should keep that in mind the spirit and intent of this um
Adu by the state in 350 towns um is to create a housing option um there's plenty of hotels out there so
that's all I have to say thanks Judy Peter I think I'm with Brian on the 12 months the plan would put forth there spent a lot of time and effort putting that together um if it's not correct it
can be changed it will be changed and I'm just um going along with the uh document as it was written and approved by us or edited by us at the last thank you
Peter Liz anyone else I was I'm raising my hand or anything you just think I'm going to talk oh ncy I'm [Music] sorry I agree with Judy and Brian um I think the six months it seems and with
no disrespect um to Jay it seems like we're just pulling uh numbers out of the Hat um out of a rabbit's hat so I think we should stick with the 12mth um I understand the intent behind the 12 months which is to promote longevity in
our neighborhoods and investment in our neighborhoods and if there's a problem and if it comes back to us we can revisit the issue but either you know we keep it the way it is or we don't um at this point that's my thought thank you
Macy Andrew um not to create a road map for skirting the law but we we did discuss last time that there is no real enforcement mechanism so I don't think there's any harm in
having 12 months in there and uh regardless of whether I think 12 is arbitrary or six is arbitrary or whatever I think there's a lot of room for flexibility for renters and rentor so I'm I'm for leaving it as is as
written good okay are we maybe ready to take a vote kind of have a where people are going okay so as to Jay's friendly amendment to reduce section c of the U bylaw as the new addition as approved by
the planning board and that section c subsection 7 uh reducing from 12 to 6 Karen could you call the role sure Tom no Steve
no Lori no Liz I'm sorry I'm so confused six months six months months no I'm sorry jay yes Alison
no uh Julie she may have left Julie she's here no I'll call her again at the end Andrew no Macy no
Julia yes yes Peter no Brian no Aman no Ron yes Judy no I'll try just once more Julie
Joyce she's gone motion does not carry okay so now we're back to the original Amendment uh the original article as amended by the planning board the other night article 11 as written uh on the screen just a
few moments ago we're very familiar with it but I don't know if there's a law or has to be up there but um so we had a motion on the floor to vote right okay vot time to vote once anybody has a final comment
okay um Karen can you call the role as to the article Tom yes no excuse me no no it's the you're like voting the
opposite you're voting the same as you did for the six months maybe you want to do that yeah you can but we voting to approve the Adu article that was amended and approved as amended as approved by the planning board planning board as
well as yes and you're saying no you're saying no so you're a yes I'm a yes my vote is yes times that's why I was confused why we were saying no saying to the question sorry drown this vote Steve Ry
yes Lori Liz yes Jay yes Allison yeah uh Andrew yes Macy yes
Julia yes Peter yes Ryan Yes Aman yes Ron yes Judy yes motion carries
okay good job um can I make a motion to the return to cender on the dark sky wall okay well we have we have the citizens petitions yeah and we we're not going to
get anyone we're going to be getting comments from this as to the lightting going to be any comments I trusted from the select board the citizens petition you still don't think we're going to get anyone a citizen no one has availed themselves and I've asked all around and
all about with the exception of going to the specific addresses myself personally and knocking on the door which I think I just feel and I do have a comment though about the school citizens petition that was shared um by the chair of the uh school
committee in terms of um the appropriation article okay I invited the I invited them in the school committee yeah okay and they can't come in they have a lot going on right now as we all know
um they I it was indicated to me that they were not consulted okay when this was drafted um and they have not discussed it at all as a committee and could not render an
opinion if they were here tonight um there will be future meetings probably the week of town meeting where um they may have an opportunity to discuss but um and I similar to the select board I asked is there anything you'd like me to
to relate to the committee and it's just they have no position at this time because they haven't discussed it and they were not consulted when it was drafted so Li similarly Jay had asked chair Hall from the planning board
whether the planning board had discussed um the citizens petition regarding the select board going forward with the action plan and Meredith said at that time that they had not have you talked to her since then to see if
they've I know they haven't because I've watched the meeting but have they discussed that or are they planning on it uh the planning board I think is planning on discussing it I'm not sure though I'm just relaying the information I have concerning school and I think it was based upon your inquiry to me
correct yes y so run for these citizens petitions what are our options can we can vote to recommend it vote against it is there an option to send it back to who knows who 100 people could recommend an amendment the
S back would be to say we we don't take a vote today go back and re propose something so I think that would be like um just voting no and then they could it's like abstaining but I would re I would rather
recommend voting against it and I'm say I'm not telling you what I think I'm just asking what can we do so I don't know if that's an option that's a good question I can't answer I I have an opinion I mean it is within the universe of options to send
it to someone maybe not send it back but send it to someone but since both of these are relevant to things that are going to happen before the Maytown meeting it would be it wouldn't make any sense I don't think and we don't know who to send it to right first well I I
think citizens petitions um they can obvious just bring it back the next town meeting they could just sign it again have the 10 signatories uh who appear in the warrant and they can just bring it back uh um what they could I mean it's a good
point I was thinking about it it's like I mean we send it back to the 10 people and say next time show up yeah yeah it's fine you know it just it is what it is you know Judy and Alison but I I thought you were
uh Judy Allison and then Liz um I'm looking at almost 10 10 and we as a committee and I'm glad to see that we have so much
discussion and we're not a rubber stand um but it is 10 10 if we're going to keep voting how long do we think we're going to vote or should we put whatever we haven't
covered over to tomorrow's meeting thought I second that we can vot on these two I mean I'm G to leave it up to the committee I I have to be here so and and I ask you to
come back and and it's I know people we've been we've met so many times I'm going to leave it up to you what do you want to can I ask a next week question which will inform my tomorrow thoughts sure so if we were to vote on these two tomorrow and next week all we have left
is the lighting and we all kind of feel a certain way about that would the idea be that we would have how many meetings next week I prepared to post three meetings next week how many do you really think are going to happen I only think we need one okay but out of an
abundance of caution and based upon the advice of previous sele War committee chairs that's I think it'd be good to just have those out there and if we don't need them I will cancel them well just foror so we're not saving ourselves a meeting
tomorrow by doing it now because we have business to discuss tomorrow no no no so if we do it now we can avoid tomorrow and come back next week possibly one time yeah I love to see you all so I
don't mind either either way I'm just trying to understand what we're talking about and I will also stay up late so it's really up to everybody else and I I do think thank you I would assume a lot of Minds have probably made from the extensive discussions we've already had on article 14 and Article 15 so I would
hope there' be a short discussion on these but people can say whatever they want to say discuss I would agree we talked about them a lot anyways I'd rather do what we can tonight and not come back tomorrow if possible yeah right second is there a
motion oh oh oh yeah I'll make a motion Allison Allison um I agree I mean uh I would like to nothing's going to change no information is going to change your mind can we just move forward I mean I I I
would like to be with my family tomorrow in other dayses I mean these three meetings and this time I understand what we signed up for but it kind of seems like sometimes we go around in circles let's just get to voting into Point unless there's any new information that's going to change anyone's mind
thank you thank you Allison I repeat the question Ron is there a motion I will I would like to make a motion to not recommend proceeding with article 14 or I can't remember how you want to vote on it not
second what article 14 we're voting on it and then he's saying say no and we're gonna say is a yes against it no correct the motion is to vote against this and a yes agre which article is this 14 I know but
the law appropriation Judy thank you yep so my my motion is to vote no no Town vote no yes so if you vote Yes you're recommending the town vote no correct correct yes you say that again please so no vote is to not support it
is that correct incorrect no so the motion is to vote no on article 14 so if you agree with voting no on 14 you would say yes on the motion so yes means you're
against article 14 yes it's oppos it's opposite okay so okay was there a second little late it's been a long day so I apologize apologize so it's late a no votes is saying we are not agreeing with to appropriate the the
monies is that correct no yes is that petition one I'm sorry 14 well if you don't have the number in front of you yes it's petition one okay thank you so Ron is proposing that the
committee vote to recommend that the Town vote no on article 14 which again means if you think the town should vote no you're going to vote Yes when I call your name if you don't think the town should vote no you're gonna vote no when I call your name Jay thank you yeah I I
I would like to speak to this motion sure um I I and I'm I'm gonna be a minute or two I apologize no it's fine so one thing our role is to be the wise advisers to town meeting we Shephard town meeting and I'll say from the start
I don't want to take20 and something dollars out of the legal budget I do not I very much do not so to that end how do we achieve that with town meeting we are if if we say no then the motion before town meeting is take
$250,000 out of the law budget now I the other day said how about if we change this to $1 and I heard a lot of objections that were very philosophical a lot of objections saying that's setting a bad precedent that's sending a
bad message I am not a philosophical guy what I want is for town meeting to not move $200,000 and to that end I think the most likely way in my opinion is for us
to recommend moving $1 why do I think that I'm dividing town meeting members into three groups one group is team yes they're going to vote to gut this budget one group as team no they're not going to want to take anything out but then
there's who I call the third team team question mark and team question mark does not want to go suing the state about NBTA things but team question mark also doesn't want to empty the budget so so what's going to happen when the motion before the body is take
$250,000 out of the law budget well that depends on team question mark I don't know how they'll go they don't like voting yes and they don't like voting no and if they tip the wrong way we've gutted our talent our law budget that's what I don't want to see so I want to
see us make a recommendation to take out $1 what if we what if the motion before the body is to move $1 well then team yes the people who signed this they're not going to be happy they're not happy I'm saying this right now at all and they're going to amend it to be $200,000 well team no and team question
mark are going to vote against that Amendment and it's going to be either taken $1 out will either succeed or fail but we'll have achieved the goal of not gutting the law budget and that's what I want so um where does that leave us it leaves us
in a bit of a quantry right now it I don't so far when it comes to me suggesting crazy things to the warrant committee I'm at like 0 for 30 but maybe this will be the one time people agree with me um if people do agree with me then we don't want to do it Ron
suggested and we do want to take this up and we want amendment to say instead of $250,000 $1 I really think that is the best way to guide town meeting to not get the budget if people agree with me agree
with me if you don't don't so if Ron's motion goes through I'll vote no to Ron's motion for that reason I have a question sure so on Monday is that Monday Tuesday
yesterday yeah yes I watched the video so I feel kind of prepared to talk about it but whatever other conversation so um but I watched the video so on yesterday we were talking about how much money was going to be spent not on the
MBTA and we kind of referenced it here but really um Nick was the one that had more of that specific information then attorney melow wouldn't really be um the one to ask about that but Nick Milano Our Town Administrator had
referenced different amounts of money that were being used for things other than the MBTA and so to Jay's Point could we limit it to $283,000 or $250,000
minus whatever amount of money that Nick Milano thought that we would need I don't know that he actually had a number but something that we would think would be appropriate if people wanted to follow Jay's plan I don't really like the I'm not saying this no
putting out a tick so I don't know that the he does it to me too Liz he does it to me too well know the $1 but if people wanted to go down that
road um maybe it could be different number that would be more likely to cover what Nick was talking about the other kinds of legal action besides the MBTA because to Jay's point if there are
people who are like yes I am going to agree with this 100% And Then There are people that are like nope absolutely not but those middle people that say I don't want to spend the money on this but I also don't want to hamstring us from all the things that we
talked about that's just a thought so if we came up with the number based on what Nick had told us or ask him but I think he kind of mentioned um what a budget would be minus that
because we had paid Goodwin Proctor like $250,000 but it was I think but it was a flat fee so we don't know what ongoing if there will be ongoing litigation what that would cost we know kind of what their oneoff like emails very minimal he
said um so we don't know what that would cost but if we could calculate what the legal budget might be minus that maybe it is $250,000 you know okay Andrew Steve Lori I two quick
comments one question which is can't we just recommend no and don't we write a reason rationale why we vote no anyway yeah so in my mind what difference does it make whether it's $1 or Zer dollar if
we're say no because of this reason the other other is with regards to incumbrances what attorney Melo also mentioned was that it it was a fuzzy definition so whether it is there's a PO purchase order that's already been
issued or it's a what we believe to be a a likely future expenditure we can the Town Administrator can Define what an encumbrance is and it could be $283,000 sorry
go Steve yes Steve oh thank you um just trying to take it all in I I don't agree with respect I don't agree using a dollar as a reference I think it's they think it could be perceived um in many ways right
when you're negotiating you come back you respond with a dollar they ask for like 33,000 whatever the big concern I have with this is moving we were in a financial crisis in town and we're moving money out of an area that we know
covers Us for risk it it does not seem logical to me to move money out where we need it it's like saying uh you know we we don't have any water for our fire hoses I don't understand why would do this to be honest with you so I'm sorry I just I know it's late but I don't
agree with moving this money over there like that at all Lori so I just want to make the point that in the last eight years we're budgeting at this level and we're
spending the money and it's been one year that the MBTA there was money left and it didn't we didn't have to go back and get extra money so it's not like we don't incur legal expenses every year so
I would just vote no Liz J Peter Brian yeah that was my question so I think he just answered it but I remembered that um Nick had said that this was in line
with previous year's budgets because we didn't know that that all was necessarily that that was all going to happen but we didn't have to ask for more money so that was in line with the previous year
okay my question uh I'd like to address um Andrew who said what difference does it make saying no versus saying $1 the difference is the Parliamentary procedure at town meeting if we say no then the motion before town meeting is take
$250,000 out and I don't know where that's going to go apparently 250 is illegal they're going to have a friendly amendment to get a different number they're going to try to figure out the number on the floor of town meeting it will be Anarchy or if we suggest
$1 I don't think any amendments up will change will will move it I guess what I'm saying is we provide guidance to town meeting and we we get to determine what the main motion on the floor is and that's a lot of power and we can really
use that power if we say the motion before the body is to move $1 it's going to be hard for them to get the legal budget if it's $250,000 I don't know what's going to happen so for it's for parliamentary procedur purposes
point I announc do we Peter yeah I think the big the best bet for no vote is exactly this because the we know that this is not this is not the right number there cannot be this number of 200 $83,000 because we don't have
$283,000 and we'd have to I mean technically again probably not one of the few not lawyers here um 283 is is a non-existent number it doesn't exist
right now it cannot be pulled because there isn't $283,000 so Jay to your your point of conversation among the town me that would have to be the town meeting discussion rather than I mean I guess it
get there the other way our recommendation to Andrew's point would be that the town has already encumbered a number of dollars from this budget and so our recommendation would be
no for that that reason and the fact that the the uh select board is going to need additional legal reference in a comment why couldn't we do that recommend no to this for good what I would consider to be good legal
standing which is these this number is non-existent want answer can I answer you um the reason is because that'll be written in a comment that they'll pick up as they walk into town meeting but then the motion before the body will be
$250,000 I I'm inter said there's not a whole lot of difference between $1 and z i mean do we know that there is $250,000 I don't no there's probably not it sounds like there's not right it'll be so much simpler if we recommend $1 it'll be so we'll all go home earlier if
we recommend $1 no but if they not tonight but at meeting but if they don't know how much is unencumbered they then they can pick a if they pick $250,000 and it exceeds the actual incumbrance then it's invalid and
if that pass this town meeting then what's going to happen I trying toid they they can't pull get it Brian then Liz then Ron I knew you were first I just raised my hand and move them go ahead honestly I don't really understand the logic behind the
one doll I know he explained it tonight a couple nights ago no offense I don't understand it I think it's um and I think the town meeting members aren't going to understand it either it's going to be confusing to them I think it's horrible precedent to ow something like
this and on the face of it if it's a dollar $10 $283,000 I think it's really bad precedent to go with something like this and it and it's not even a well completely well thought out um petition there so many other
issues with it and so I think we should just flat out vote no and I it would be great to be unanimous instead of confusing the issue because just going to confuse things if you go to a dollar I think that's my two cents thank you li I do see Jay's point about the
Parliamentary procedure I see Steve's point about the $1 sending a certain kind of message but I think that you're right some of that might be lost on town meeting I think
that because the 250 or 280 this is in line with what previous budgets have been because we're going to be sitting there for a while while this is all debated anyway hopefully in the comment we can try to kind of
explain I think we should just vote but on your motion that you had but you want to make an amendment no I wasn't going to make an amendment okay okay we have Ron and then Julia yeah I
think I agree that I think adding options here will confuse the issue I think it's better to have a very Stark option and it's either you take out 250 and you screw up the budget and if people can vote for that if they're not fiscally concerned that's their opinion
everyone has opin a vote but I think when you start adding options it'll just get way too complicated I think it'll leave for a very complex night so that that's my opinion um and I would ask that we vote on the uh the motion okay thank you Ron
I'd like to end with Julia um I think that no matter what we do what will end up happening is um you know the the citizens who organize this petition many of whom are town meeting members will have watched this meeting
they will have watched the meeting on Monday they will come with a revised number I think it will likely pass so I to some degree don't want to overthink this because I actually don't think that whatever we do is going to have a huge
influence I feel like if I was a betting person that is what I would bet on what happens at town meeting well that says a lot thank you jul that's pretty that I mean that that's a hard statement to hear because
then it just means Warren's not like a a a body that's being respected and that says that the town meeting member of who are members are skewed and that's not an accurate I I disagree I think the Warr well that's the difference I think the
warrant committee is skewed not the Representative members okay okay I think um that's a joke let's let's wrap this up and let's vote on Jay's motion for $1 oh I just know second I didn't make an amendment it's getting very
late I think it's the original motion original motion on the table and you seconded it yes okay yeah okay okay and that is a um no vote a no vote so if you want to agree with you
then you say yes yes and a yes is no to the article as written okay are we clear right any questions to this okay ready Tom
yes Steve yes Lori yes Liz can you come back to me Jay no Allison yes Andrew yes
Macy yes Julia yes Peter yes Brian yes Aman yes Ron yes Judy
yes Liz yes motion carries okay we have one more Citizen's petition and it's to direct the planning board to adopt the MBTA
communities uh and actually the article is to see if the town will vote to instruct the planning board to prepare for a vote the 2025 annual town meeting a zoning article to amend chapter 275 of the general bylaws um to allow multif family housing
permitted as of right accordance with Section 3A of the zoning act under Massachusetts general laws 40a and consistent with the Massachusetts Supreme Jal Court's decision in Comm with the town of Milton in compliance with the regulations for multi family
zoning districts I I move that the warrant committee recommends the citizens petition as written a second okay I don't understand that so the vote is
to recommend the petition as written oh so to it's to vote Yes right okay right I was like wait okay and is this a binary Choice Mr chair like if this fails does that mean we're recommending a
no am I is it too late to contemplate that no it's not to it's contemplated but it no I don't think it does me yeah it means that then you could have
an amendment I guess oh I would vote Yes and then if that didn't work you could say well I would like to propose something different I I don't know he just said really can't force them to do this is kind of binary like if this fails are we expecting someone from the warrant committee to recommend a no
recommendation to move for a no rec we haven't done that on the other ones no we haven't you're right we we certainly did not do that under our previous chair why I'm asking we agreed unanimously with all the other ones to do it so yes you'd have to say no because otherwise somebody could make an amendment that
they didn't I'm agreeing with your point I don't have a point I don't understand the point did yeah I I I don't understand the point either what happens if so Jay moved yes on this if that
fails do somebody have to then propose voting no on this is it a binary like automatically if we don't pass what Jay recommended then that's a no or does some somebody should then have the motion for
no I anyone else want to speak to us well I feel like we should follow the same uh logic that we did on the first one just so it's not confusing and maybe
we should say somebody should make a motion to vote no to go against petition I made a motion I know that yes no nobody so then we're going to have to vote yeah then does if it's all no does it
does it fails okay I guess it doesn't matter so that goes to my earlier question can we take a send it back vote right because it's either yes no or send it back those are three things not on this citizens thing nobody to send it back to no time for them to do anything
if we didn't say yes somebody else could propose an amendment to it right right so it's not an automatic no if your thing doesn't pass somebody else could say stop one one speaker at a time here it didn't attorney melow just say that
it's not binding yes but we cannot instruct the planning board to do anything yes advis I thought I thought you said that we you could instruct them but it's not enforcable he was very specific about that I asked him that so you could pass this but it would not
have a mandatory effect on exactly it is not illegal opinion this is what town meting thinks instructions forc them to follow instructions no okay we know it's isn't it my understanding is that our vote is
non-binding on the planning board is that correct that's correct correct seems like we shouldn't even be voting then I want like it doesn't matter it it doesn't really matter it's like bad it's like not even a real
article it isn't on the procedural question the J race which I love procedure so I wanted to get back to that I think that that if Jay moves yes if that were to fail meaning that people
said no I don't agree that we should vote Yes I don't think that automatically means no because somebody could then say well that didn't work but maybe we have an amendment so I think it's fine to go with Jay's thing but like just keeping that in mind procedurally I I to Lorie's point so
it's not binding but I also think think like I like a check and balance so having us tell the planning board select board should do something Town meetings I don't know I like a check and
balance in my life so and I mean I understand what Allison's saying and I said this before I kind of view like we don't there is some you know whatever between town meeting and the warrant committee but I think again that's a check and balance so not everybody has
to agree with each other but does that mean that I have to instruct a different department elected officials what to do I mean Congress doesn't always have to agree with the president doesn't always have to agree with the Judiciary but they're not supposed to tell each other
what to do exactly separation of powers yeah I don't know Ron so my my comment on this is that I I haven't been overly obsessed with all the all the back and forth in
town on the zoning law but I do understand that the planning board at one of their planning board meetings they were taking advice from somebody who's a lawyer then if they're taking advice from people who are lawyers who live in this town I'm sure he very talented and educated then the this warant committee
can also have an opinion and my opinion is just if the Supreme Court has come down with a requirement for this town I think this town should follow the requirement there could be different opinions and we don't the law but that's all it says to me is there was a decision by the court and this is for
town meeting to inform the planning board to follow that instruction now I think there's opinions that you don't have to follow that instruction and that that would just be a different opinion so that's why I would suggest that we do vote on this and it could be a no Vote or yes vote whatever you guys think so everyone's got to vote so the
Supreme Court said that we have you know the governor has the right well the AG has the right to enforce laws you know zoning laws but they didn't follow the proper procedure so it got kicked back because they didn't follow eoh hlc didn't follow the popular
procedure so they can't enforce it right now because they didn't follow the procedure with Tom and Milton so technically we We are following they are following the courts because they saying no we should not we shouldn't be uh doing it that's what the issue is I mean
it was like a split decision but that it's they are following it because it's not this technically according to the Supreme Court so if if they're following the the the direction by the court then that's fine then we should say yes follow the
decision by the court if the court said you don't have to Milton doesn't have to do this then do whatever the court said this is this is sort of the exact opposite of that though isn't it it's I following the NBTA no this is on the NBTA yeah it says follow 3A so
with the emergency rigs that haven't been promulgated as per the SJC and I don't think zoning is an emergency yes J I mean if if we cut through all the paragraphs what this says is town meeting wants the planning
board to give a so-called 25% plan by May that that's whether you think that's a good idea or a bad idea that's what town meeting is saying please give us this plan um it does seem reasonable for the planning board to provide such a plan to the town meeting they've done a
lot of the work they told us want to be ready last May it's not an unreasonable request for if the majority of town meeting wants to ask for the planning board to give a so-called 25% plan I think that's not an unreasonable request this is saying
specifically to not follow the Supreme Court decision because it's saying saying follow the emergency orders that's being challenged in court right now and which seem to bypass the whole NBTA thing they're trying to jump it
which is what they tried to do the entire time so it's actually this is like not abiding by what the supreme Supreme Court is saying to do if you read it and it it sounds like
it's just I don't you know um I don't agree I think that they shouldn't do it I don't think that I think they should follow the court which is saying they should follow the law and they didn't do that so go back and follow the
law I want on it just to um I know this is going to be a thing that's talked about at town meeting so um just to shortcut out a little bit again I maintain my separation of power sort of thought but
um I don't know know that everybody would agree with that interpretation of the Supreme Court decision I mean I think that it is a split decision it was determined that the um uhlc didn't promulgate the
regulations properly that's true there is the emergency compliance regulation so to your point whether or not those are going to ultimately be determined to be valid and people could have differences of opinion about whether we should be
having a zoning article based on those emergency regulations but technically the emergency regulations I don't know that they're invalid until that's determined so I'm just saying that I don't know that if the planning board
were to prepare a zoning article pursuant to chapter 275 of the J that that would violate the sjc's order that's the part that I'm taking kind of picking I think that they could do that consistently
with that decision now whether or not people want to that's up to people um but the emergency regulations do exist and I think that it's saying follow those regulations and whether or not those regulations were proper because it
is or it isn't an emergency I mean we could have differences of opinion about that I still maintain my you know yes in this instance maybe some people would agree is that the precedent that we want to set where one side tells the other
department what to do these elected officials tell those elected officials I don't know I think it's okay to have and maybe I like it maybe I don't like it but I think it's okay to
have the executive branch disagree with the legislative branch so the select board disagree or you know the select board disagree with town meeting or the planning board disagree with town
meeting and vice versa and the warrant committee can agree with one or the other of them but I don't know that it's proper for one side to tell the other Branch what to do Peter didn't I hear from the on
Council that exactly that that one body couldn't tell the other body I know that happened we could tell them they just don't have to enforce it well can't enforce it but it's unenforceable so so this happens all the time the president
can tell the senate he wants something to happen they don't have to do it but he can say I want to see this happen and that's just politics right that's just how the government runs the president can't say You must do this so you're all going to be put in jail we did the same thing with the we
did the same thing with the adus we voted on it even though it was 12 months not enforceable there's no enforcement mechanis we don't know what that is it could be regardless but regardless of what they set as a the date there's no enforcement
mechanism built into it but the president can also have emergency orders which he's doing and those can be overturned by the Supreme Court it can be overturned by by courts and that that you don't have to do them that's the same thing and that's kind of similar same thing that's happened here in the
state the governor didn't like the outcome so she came up with emergency orders that now have to get relitigated you know it's the same thing should we vote yeah okay so
just so everyone knows what's your vote for is it a yes and what does yes mean Jay Yes means that we uh we the warrant committee recommend that we do what the citizen position said which is you know as I
would paraphrase it ask the planning board to bring a so-called 25% plan to the Maytown meeting okay and a no vote would be so a yes vote did you get a second he
did run run second yes vote supports the citizens petition the yes vote means force them to do the 25% nobody's forcing any well but but we int strongly suggest okay
but Peter what do you need to say I I just I just don't understand why we're doing something is it to that that's unenforceable that just I don't know I mean why why is this even why
we there's a reason they wrote this again I guess for the fact that they wrote it good um but the fact that it's unenforceable should we just basically state that it's unenforceable that would be that would be in the comment right so what
difference you have to vote on it matter you have to vote on so it doesn't doesn't make sense to me to vote something that just isn't something yeah and one can abstain if they wish yeah I would say I mean two things I'm not sure which one you're talking about but the warrant committee has to give an opinion
on every single thing in the article we don't have the choice of saying no opinion and why would town meeting do it if you're asking that town meeting would do it to express their opinion that's the only reason first I've seen in 15 years but um
okay so we have yes a yes vote is to support the Citizen's petition and instruct the planning board to come into compliance with the emergency Provisions in the Comm Von of Milton to recommend that the town
meeting votes to do so yes and no vote would be we not accepting the citizens petition and we're recommending that town meeting vote no on this we're clear I think I'm clear okay Karen
could you call the role yes Tom no Steve no come back at the end said no no I said no sorry all right Steve's Steve is a no that's correct Steve is a no okay
Liz I have Jay yes Allison no Andrew no Macy
no Julia yes Peter no Brian no Aman abstain Ron yes
Judy [Music] no motion does not carry 392 can I make a motion to vote on the dark sky law with the Return to Sender second I want to hear from
you know I I told the select board you know he moved that I I know and I'm looking at Andrew you know I out of respect to the select board member I was I I don't want to drag these out I'm not looking to do that but I kind of like to
give that person the opportunity to give some feedback I'd like to and then the U gentleman from potentially inspectional Services coming in and I I I I understand this is this is um maybe a little bit of operation overkill on this
one but mhm like I said it's it's out of my difference to a select board member and that's why I'm asking the Committees uh to uh to give me that favor as the chair if you would okay um as long as you believe they they can
fix I mean there there are a lot of lot of I don't material defects no I understand that and I can't represent that like I think some other members said that this is going to change anybody's position but it's just an
opportunity for the person who is the proponent on the select Board of this just to let uh their feelings you know or their thought process and Analysis be heard and that's really all it is and we can incorporate that into the common if necessary so on
Tuesday I with throw my motion okay was that withraw okay uh thank you Andrew very much I appreciate that you will sit here alone on tomorrow no we're going to cancel the meeting oh you you said you'd be here we
all heard him say that I know you're gonna be here alone tomorrow I got a lot of spirit um okay I really appreciate it everyone okay so we we have our
votes keep an eye on your email if I get any materials I forward them to you we have a I don't know as of yet but by tomorrow there'll be a posted meeting for Tuesday 7 o'clock lighting bylaw we can make it really quick I'll be reading the
information if the speaker can come in we will discuss enforcement and complaints with that person potentially and be able to vote Liz if we are unable to do that which days do you have planned for the rest of the week I have Tuesday
Wednesday Thursday I do not trust that we would need those days it's okay but if the planning if something happens um I would like to take a day off maybe address something on Thursday if it's far more complex we'll have to come in on
Wednesday if we need the planning board to come in which I I hope we don't have to but we don't know I believe Jay is unavailable next week correct I'm also traveling I'll try and call I assume we'll still have a quum yeah
if yeah that's another thing too is it's school vacation it's school vacation week um can I get a general sense will will people be around will I have a quorum there on Tuesday I'll be here Tuesday I'll be be here I'll be here all next week okay okay so we'll have
a we'll have a quorum anybody is not going to be here you want to send me an email anything You' like me to mention please do that and I will mention any comments you may have thanks I make a motion to adjourn
seconded yes favor I I thank you thank [Music]
the he [Music]