The meeting prominently featured a grievance raised by a resident, Mr. Chris Foy, who alleged that a spotlight from an adjacent solar farm was disrupting his son’s sleep by shining into his bedroom. Mr. Foy supported his claims with photographic evidence, comparing the light’s activation to “a freight train coming out of a tunnel.” Despite a site visit by representatives from the Massachusetts Conservation Services, no spotlight directly shining into the bedroom was observed. Mr. Foy argued that police had confirmed the presence of a light, a claim the police chief did not verify in discussions with the commission.

Mr. Foy asserted that the light, which he viewed with binoculars, originated from a control panel on the eastern side of the solar farm. He cited the town’s solar bylaws requiring adherence to dark sky standards, which prohibit lights from spilling into residential areas, and urged the commission to address the problem by relocating the light.

The commission engaged in a dialouge about the appropriateness of the complaint being handled by them rather than zoning officials. It was noted that the police chief is responsible for enforcing these bylaws, necessitating their involvement in Mr. Foy’s complaint. Discussion ensued about the motion-activated nature of the light, with speculation that it might be triggered by wildlife or human movement.

The chair mentioned that inspections showed the light did not directly shine into Mr. Foy’s property, attributing this to distance and tree coverage. Nonetheless, Mr. Foy countered that his home, particularly its glass back, was impacted despite assurances that the solar farm’s lights were angled downward and away from residences.

One commission member highlighted that Mr. Foy had previously enjoyed privacy prior to the solar farm’s installation.

The discussion shifted to the enforcement of solar bylaws, with historical complaints about lighting being cited. The commission considered potential replanting around solar installations to enhance privacy and reduce light pollution, emphasizing the need for future planning discussions.

The meeting also covered updates on current solar projects. It was noted that a specific solar project had yet to generate power to the grid due to delays in coordination with the power company following recent storms. Future inspections were anticipated to ensure compliance with stormwater management systems, particularly in response to heavy rainfalls. A local contact for project maintenance was identified, with assurance that their details would be provided.

Further discussions revealed that another solar project had closed its permits with no outstanding stormwater checklist items.

Administrative matters included updates on ongoing projects and logistical issues. A member raised concerns about incomplete checklist items from the building commissioner, particularly the need for visual screening at a site where vegetation had become overgrown. Discussion about ASB built plans revealed a delay due to pending revised stormwater reports. Communication with the planning board was emphasized as necessary, especially for issues tabled until further contact was established.

The commission also addressed the budget, noting it had been reduced as requested. Details of invoices from Weston and Samson were shared, reflecting personnel and hours worked on the stormwater bylaw project. An email from the EPA regarding a public comment period for a new MS4 permit was discussed, with concerns raised about the focus on watersheds outside southeastern Massachusetts.