The primary focus of the meeting was on the proposed revisions to Chelmsford’s outdoor lighting bylaws, which seek to address the obsolescence of existing regulations due to advances in LED technology. The current bylaw, in place for over 25 years, primarily regulates outdoor lighting brightness and mandates that lights above a certain brightness must be pointed downward. However, with the advent of brighter LED lights, the bylaw has become outdated. The new proposal aims to be more comprehensive, addressing both current issues and ensuring future compliance. Notably, the proposed changes introduce a 10-year sunset clause for transitioning existing non-conforming lighting fixtures into compliance and encompass municipal and utility lighting. The introduction of a lighting standards officer position was also discussed, with the possibility of this role being part of the building commissioner’s office or handled externally as needed.

Concerns had been raised in previous meetings regarding the residential lighting restrictions and enforcement mechanisms. The board acknowledged that nuisance complaints typically involve police as the first responders, as the Building Commissioner does not generally manage such issues. Changes have been made to alleviate some residential restrictions by adopting a preference-based approach over strict requirements, allowing flexibility while signaling preferred standards to residents. The proposed bylaws specify that individual lights exceeding 1,000 lumens or multiple fixtures exceeding 2,000 lumens must be fully shielded. The bylaws also suggest a curfew for certain types of lighting, proposing they be turned off between midnight and 6 a.m., aligning with industry guidelines.

The board also tackled the implications of lighting regulations for single-family and multi-family dwellings, particularly in light of new ADU laws. Concerns were expressed about the enforceability of preferences in bylaws and the potential for inconsistent enforcement across different dwelling types. The conversation highlighted the need for uniform treatment under the bylaws to avoid legal challenges and ensure compliance.

In addition to lighting bylaws, the board delved into zoning changes for parcels at Kate’s Corner, where recent developments have prompted a review of zoning parameters. The board sought to maintain the neighborhood’s character while addressing conflicting zoning requirements. Discussions emphasized the need for a new zoning category to accommodate the area’s unique characteristics without negatively impacting current businesses. A consensus emerged that residential uses should be evaluated based on their surroundings, especially in transition zones between industrial and residential developments.

The meeting also touched upon various zoning uses and regulations, including the potential introduction of new uses such as helipads for hospitals, commercial agricultural operations, and adjustments to retail and industrial zoning categories. Concerns were raised about the appropriateness of certain uses in residential zones and the implications for neighborhood character and compliance.

The board discussed the implications of the proposed zoning overlay district, specifically regarding 103 Drum Hill Road, where a parking reduction was sought due to a business change. Despite an increased parking deficit, the board found no issues with the current parking situation and unanimously approved the proposal. Further zoning discussions involved potential impacts on properties like that of Ed Gr Turner Jr., who expressed concerns about the proposed residential zoning changes potentially diminishing his property’s value and infringing upon established agricultural protections.