One notable issue debated was the proposed creation of a three-member committee to manage appeals related to lighting disputes among neighbors. The committee is intended to provide a structured channel for resolving conflicts, particularly when neighbors are unable to reach an amicable resolution regarding lighting disagreements. Suggestions were made to ensure the committee’s composition reflects a diversity of skills and backgrounds, ideally including members with expertise in building or lighting, such as architects or electricians. Cultural and geographic diversity were also emphasized as important considerations.

The committee would not necessarily include select board members, as some participants argued that the select board might not be the most suitable body to handle these disputes. Instead, there was a proposal to involve members from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), although concerns were raised about the ZBA’s capacity given its existing responsibilities. The select board showed openness to the ZBA’s participation if they expressed interest.

The discussion also touched on the proposed appeal process, with emphasis on the need for representation from all sides in these disputes and the potential for an impartial body to mediate. Members noted the importance of documenting the committee’s decisions in writing to ensure clarity and provide notice to involved parties, especially if further appeal rights are involved. Concerns about the timeline for hearing appeals were raised, with stipulations that decisions be made within 60 days, leading to questions about the feasibility of convening a full committee in a timely manner.

Another topic was the enforcement and penalties related to lighting violations. The committee discussed the current bylaw language, which mandates a maximum brightness level of 10 lux at the property line, prompting debates about its practicality. Members cited comparisons with other towns, noting that Milton’s proposed standard is stricter than those of Andover and Belmont, while Wellesley requires zero lux at the property line. Some members suggested starting with a higher lux level, arguing it would be easier to tighten regulations later if necessary, while others felt 10 lux might be too permissive.

The issue of fines for violations was also debated, with the current bylaw stipulating a flat rate of $300. Concerns were raised about the process leading to the imposition of fines, with discussions about whether a formal committee decision was necessary to establish a violation and whether fines would accrue during the appeal process. Members emphasized the need for clear language that the average citizen could understand, with calls for precise definitions of terms like “toll” and “stay” to avoid ambiguity.

Further discussions centered on the implications of the proposed bylaw for specific neighborhoods and the town’s parks. Participants considered the potential for neighborhood-wide violations and the challenges of enforcing strict lighting regulations in diverse areas.

A notable aspect of the meeting was the proposal to amend the bylaw language to include the words “incidentally limited” and remove the phrase “but otherwise complies with this bylaw,” which was approved by the committee. This amendment aimed to address concerns about the clarity and enforceability of the regulations, with an emphasis on ensuring the bylaw was practical for both enforcement and compliance.