0:00The committee engaged in an extensive examination of the bylaw proposals regarding ADUs, with particular focus on rental terms and site plan reviews. A discussion emerged about the implications of the proposed site plan review for ADUs, where concerns were raised about whether adding an ADU to a single-family home would necessitate categorizing it as a multi-unit property, thus triggering additional site review requirements. Melo addressed these concerns by noting that draft regulations had been adjusted to remove language imposing more requirements on ADUs than on single-family dwellings.

20:14Furthermore, the committee debated the legality and reasonableness of imposing restrictions on lease terms for ADUs, particularly regarding the proposed 12-month minimum rental period. There was apprehension that if the Attorney General deemed this provision unreasonable, it could lead to partial disapproval of the bylaw. The option of reducing the minimum rental period to six months was considered, but ultimately, the motion to amend this aspect of the bylaw did not pass. Members expressed a preference for maintaining the original 12-month requirement, arguing that it would ensure community stability and prevent frequent tenant turnover.

2:02:20In addition to ADUs, the committee scrutinized the proposed lighting bylaws, which aimed to address issues of light trespass and promote dark sky initiatives. Concerns were raised about the practicality and subjectivity of enforcing these regulations, particularly the dark sky provisions, which some members viewed as potentially excessive for a metropolitan area like Milton. The select board’s role as the enforcing authority was questioned, with suggestions that a building department might be better suited to manage such responsibilities. The committee recognized the need for clear guidelines and enforcement mechanisms to ensure objectivity and community compliance.

59:36The proposed lighting bylaws also sparked debate over their potential impact on existing lighting setups and community aesthetics. Questions were raised about whether pre-existing lights would be grandfathered under the new regulations and whether the proposed two-year compliance deadline was reasonable. Concerns extended to the bylaw’s penalties for violations, with discussions about how fines would be applied to persistent non-compliant lights. The lack of expert consultation during the bylaw’s drafting process was noted, emphasizing the need for further review and potential revisions to address technical and community concerns.

3:04:26Beyond the ADU and lighting discussions, the committee addressed financial matters, particularly regarding a motion to reduce the town’s legal budget by $250,000.

59:36The meeting also touched on the committee’s role in managing appropriations and financial oversight, particularly in the context of citizen petitions related to budget adjustments. The procedural aspects of encumbrances and the potential for supplemental appropriations were discussed, with members reflecting on past experiences and the importance of maintaining adequate funds for unforeseen legal expenses.