A significant portion of the meeting revolved around the proposed lighting regulations, with board members and residents expressing divergent views on its potential impact. I don’t have any doubt.” These differing legal interpretations have fueled the debate over whether the town should move forward with the bylaw as a general regulation or convert it into a zoning bylaw.

Public engagement, or the lack thereof, was also a point of concern. A member highlighted the disconnect between the article’s initial publication and its substantial amendments, which now affect approximately 10,000 parcels in Brookline. They worried that the public remained largely unaware of the proposed changes, commenting, “I would dare to say that the public has no clue that we are going to regulate their lighting.” Such concerns were compounded by the evolving nature of the article, which began as a nuisance regulation and now includes broader standards, like those for dark skies.

Enforcement challenges were a recurring theme, with the building commissioner, Dan Bennett, pointing out staffing limitations. He noted, “I don’t have the staff or the time to really play this out to the fullest extent,” emphasizing the practical difficulties of implementing the new regulations. Another board member argued that the article’s complaint-driven nature would not lead to an unsustainable rise in enforcement actions. This perspective contrasted with concerns that the bylaw might increase the number of complaints, a worry voiced by a member who referenced personal experiences with lighting disturbances.

Clint Richmond, a town meeting member, brought attention to the health implications of light pollution, urging support for the article. He cited a doctor’s memo shared with the board, which underscored the need for regulation. The proposal’s complexity was further highlighted by discussions on the subjective nature of glare and its measurement, with a member distinguishing between glare and brightness, the latter of which can be quantified with a light meter.

The meeting also addressed community-specific lighting concerns, such as those in Dayne Park. A resident detailed the excessive glare affecting their home and their neighbors, comparing the situation to the brightness of Fenway Park. The resident’s testimony emphasized the personal impact of inadequate lighting regulations and bolstered calls for board action.

Apart from lighting, the meeting considered several other warrant articles. Notably, Article 9, which concerned a renters’ handbook, was revisited. The board discussed resolving constables’ liability concerns by making handbook delivery optional rather than mandatory. The Office of Housing Stability was tasked with developing the handbook. The amended article passed unanimously.

The board also deliberated on Article 10, which proposed renaming a baseball diamond. Aligning with the advisory committee’s recommendation, the board struck the effective date from the proposal. Another topic was Article 18, regarding the posting of meeting videos. Concerns were raised about the separation of powers and the scope of the select board’s handbook. The board decided to await further input from the advisory committee before reconsidering the article, preferring a cautious approach.