2026-10-15 - Select Board

07:44Mhm.

12:42>> Good evening, everyone. Welcome to this

12:45meeting of the Select Board on a

12:46Thursday special meeting Thursday,

12:48October 15th here is after 6:00 p.m. at

12:51Memorial Hall. If you are so able,

12:53please stand and join us in the Pledge

12:54of Allegiance.

12:57>> Pledge allegiance to the flag of the

13:00United States of America.

13:02To the republic for which it stands, one

13:05nation under God, indivisible, with

13:08liberty and justice for all.

13:13>> Okay, thank you. And this meeting is

13:15being live streamed and recorded by

13:17Westborough TV.

13:20Uh we have two main agenda items today,

13:22but as always we start with open forum.

13:25Is there

13:28Are you

13:29>> Yes.

13:29>> have to mention

13:32station. That's her

13:33>> I'll mention Channel 25 is also here

13:36recording this evening.

13:39Um do we have anyone here for open

13:40forum? Yes, please.

13:44Okay. I don't know

13:46Is there any way I can

13:47>> Hello. Hello.

13:49Is that better?

13:51>> Hello.

13:51>> I don't know if mine's working.

13:54Try your hands.

13:56Yeah. Give me in a bit.

14:02>> Is that better? Oh, yeah.

14:07Okay.

14:08Yeah. Yeah.

14:09Somebody was messing with me. Okay,

14:11maybe. All right.

14:13All right, Mr. Genay, please.

14:14>> Uh good evening, uh members of the

14:16board.

14:17Um thank you for having us here tonight

14:19and and

14:20>> Oh, sorry. And as always, name and

14:22address.

14:22>> What's that?

14:23>> Always name and address.

14:24>> Okay. Yeah, I I I probably should know

14:26that.

14:27Roy Genay, 17 Piccadilly Way. Thank you

14:29for uh allowing us to uh participate in

14:32open forum. I also want to express our

14:34appreciation of the collaborative

14:36approach we took at the last meeting. Um

14:38this is a uh subject of very high um

14:42public interest in the town and uh it's

14:44an it's an unpres- precedent proposal

14:47and uh we appreciate your approach to uh

14:49have a uh to do this collaboratively uh

14:52and together. I heard many many many

14:54positive comments from people in the

14:55town about that. So, I wanted to pass

14:57that along.

14:59Um we just received uh we've been

15:01working, I think, constructively the

15:03last few days uh with various drafts of

15:05the bylaw article. We appreciate that. I

15:07know Christie's turned around things

15:09quickly with town council. We appreciate

15:10that as well. We just received the most

15:12recent update minutes before tonight's

15:14meeting. Uh we're scouring that right

15:16now. Uh our uh we think we are looking

15:19forward to trying to do what you are,

15:21which is, I think, to finalize the draft

15:23tonight.

15:24We'll make a good uh hearted attempt to

15:25do that. Uh what might be helpful, as I

15:28talked about with James, since we're

15:29this is fresh off the presses, maybe

15:31just to go through the articles one by

15:32one. There may be many. It appears that

15:35we have no issue, they're fine as

15:37currently constructed. And then where

15:38there is uh several or a few that we

15:41have a issue, question, or need

15:42clarification, we would, you know, can

15:44focus on those. But that might be a

15:46productive approach.

15:47Um

15:48and um

15:51I think that is it. So, I think we're

15:53ready to go. And and thanks again for

15:55continuing this and giving the amount of

15:57time that I think it uh

15:58justly needs. Thank you.

16:00>> Yeah, thank you.

16:02Anyone else for open forum?

16:07Yes.

16:23>> Ooh, Bob Stam 21 Linda Street, Westport.

16:27Um um I have um

16:30um many years of experience in working

16:32on drone control systems for the Air

16:35Force and from Raytheon, I'm retired.

16:38And a question I have is when

16:41um might we get a view of the excluded

16:45areas of airspace that they will not be

16:49able to fly

16:50>> [clears throat]

16:51>> Usually in uh the work we've done

16:54in the past, they'd be areas that you

16:57would avoid.

16:58And a a simple map of that would be very

17:00useful um to understand the impact this

17:03will have on our community.

17:05And that and I asked that question

17:07before, but I haven't seen anything like

17:09that. They showed a map of an um Amazon

17:13meeting, they showed a map of I think

17:14like Denver or something in area around

17:16Denver. And

17:18>> [clears throat]

17:18>> it's interesting but I just don't Well,

17:20we we'd like to see what what it is

17:23around here. Like did they fly into the

17:25approaches to the

17:27Westover Airport that go through

17:29Westborough? Did they fly you know, you

17:31can imagine what I'm looking for.

17:33And do you have any insights into when

17:35or if they will get something like that?

17:38>> We have not received anything like that

17:40as of yet. I don't know if that would be

17:42potentially shared with the zoning board

17:45or planning board when they come before

17:47those boards.

17:49>> So that for that approval. I'll just end

17:51with saying that map of the airspace

17:54within which they would be flying or be

17:57excluded from flying is always critical

17:59to the operations

18:01we had to do. Okay? So

18:04that that's my question.

18:07>> Thank you very much. Yes, and I don't

18:09know what

18:10>> So I I don't expect to see it until the

18:12law is passed. That's what I'm hearing.

18:16>> I I don't know

18:18necessarily they would share before

18:21something like that.

18:22>> I mean to me it's like major critical to

18:25know what that is.

18:26>> Yeah.

18:27>> Right? There's there's decades of work

18:30on federal regulations for flying drones

18:32like this.

18:33>> I mean I'd say I'd say for us

18:35[clears throat] right now we're hoping

18:37that that doesn't matter.

18:39>> Well, it

18:40likely will.

18:42>> Well, no. No, I'm saying we're hoping it

18:44doesn't matter because they choose not

18:45to do this.

18:46>> Oh, I see what you're saying. Okay.

18:50>> But yeah.

18:51>> That the federal permitting process

18:53would require that. So but we haven't

18:55had visibility.

18:58Excuse me, [clears throat] into into

18:59those documents. And there's there's

19:00more permitting to be done at the FAA

19:03level. So we don't have it but

19:05we're trying to share everything when we

19:07get it. But it's good to know about so

19:09that we can update.

19:10>> I'm

19:12sure you are. I would

19:12>> appreciate that.

19:13>> Thank you.

19:13>> Thank you.

19:15>> So, my my recollection from their

19:18presentation was that they would not be

19:19sharing

19:20the specific flight plans.

19:23The my recollection was that that

19:25that flight plan that was shared was

19:27purely an example of what they do in

19:30their own

19:32uh systems, but that they don't publish

19:34make public those flight plans.

19:36>> I

19:37I expect out of their launch site and

19:39recovery site they'll be flying

19:42>> Yeah, it's

19:42>> anyway 360° around for 7.5 mi, but

19:45there'll be areas they'll be precluded

19:48from flying through and above.

19:49>> Correct. And those are determined by the

19:50FAA.

19:51>> looking for.

19:52>> Not by Amazon.

19:52>> You know, what would be the route it

19:54would take for precision

19:56>> that Amazon made, that diagram they

19:58showed, I believe was an FAA um

20:01uh uh di- diagram or map of where

20:03they're they're allowed to fly and what

20:05altitudes they're allowed to fly and

20:07what seasons of the year they're allowed

20:08to fly cuz there were migratory bird

20:10areas that they had

20:11uh that they explained as well. My

20:13understanding is that that the FAA will

20:15produce that as part of if they grant

20:17the license what their uh capable flight

20:19zones are.

20:20>> You might be that might be a

20:22misapprehension on your part that that's

20:25going to happen.

20:26Uh you have drones can fly up to 400 ft

20:29by law right now. I mean, I I can fly my

20:32little model airplane. I have a little

20:33drone

20:33>> I believe it's the FAA that provides

20:35that.

20:35>> But, there are geofenced in the areas

20:38that you can't fly in.

20:39>> Yeah.

20:40>> And then those geofenced areas are not

20:42necessarily provided by the FAA.

20:44>> Okay.

20:45>> Yeah.

20:45>> But, uh we should ask what they're using

20:48to determine the geofencing network

20:50precludes them to fly over certain

20:53things and see where they what that is.

20:55>> Thank you.

20:56>> Thank you.

20:56>> Thank you.

20:57>> I think that that just I mean, that that

20:59would be um if Mr. Stamm isn't able to

21:02attend the uh

21:03ZBA meeting, uh those who may be

21:06listening and maybe attending that may

21:08want to flag that as a question.

21:09>> All right. Thank you.

21:12Um, on to know anyone further for open

21:14forum.

21:16Okay. On to item number two on the

21:18agenda, amend the general bylaw on

21:20unmanned aircraft.

21:22So, we have a

21:25working draft that is up front here.

21:28Hopefully, everyone has a copy of it.

21:30Um, that's um, what we will be reviewing

21:33this evening, going through section by

21:36section,

21:37um, to determine if any updates need to

21:40be made.

21:44And so, with that

21:50>> Yeah, so I can um, I can plug in and I

21:53can explain uh, kind of what we're

21:55looking at if we want to go

21:57page by page.

22:06>> While we're doing that, Shawn, if I

22:07could take a moment, I just want to

22:08thank uh, our town manager and town

22:09manager's office and the work that

22:11they've done on such an urgent

22:12uh, way to support this this discussion.

22:15Um, and as well as the neighboring

22:17communities that are impacted with this

22:19that we've reached out to to have some

22:21preliminary understanding as far as what

22:23where we're at. So, I I really want to

22:24thank uh, our town manager, Christy

22:26Williams, for doing this work.

22:27>> Here, here.

22:28>> Thank you.

22:29>> Yeah.

22:31>> Yeah, I think we were supposed to snap

22:32or something.

22:33>> [laughter]

22:34>> I think we've all

22:35made this a priority, but none more

22:39than the town manager and her team.

22:41>> Yeah, thank you.

22:42Thank you.

22:43>> Recognize the

22:45>> Appreciate it.

22:46Um, so just kind of going back to the

22:50last time we were together on Tuesday,

22:52um, we had the draft that Shelby had

22:55submitted, um, and we did go through

22:57that, um, in detail. Um,

23:00and so, I took the comments that the

23:02board made at that point um, and one of

23:06the comments that was made was to also

23:07try to incorporate sections three

23:09through five of the

23:11submitted bylaws from um

23:14uh Mass Blue Skies. So um so we

23:18So yesterday we made all those changes

23:20based on what the board had said at the

23:22time and then did some level of

23:24incorporation of those three sections

23:26into the bylaw

23:28um and then and then we reformatted it

23:30to be with our current bylaws and we

23:33sent that over to Mass Blue Skies to

23:35review. Um they made several changes and

23:39then that was sent over to Town Council

23:41for their review of that completed

23:44bylaw.

23:45Um when we got that back from Town

23:47Council today

23:49uh we went through the comments that

23:51Town Council had provided and we

23:54incorporated several of the changes that

23:58were made by Mass Blue Skies but not all

24:00of them. Um and so what you have in

24:03front of you is and on the screen is

24:06that working draft that shows it marked

24:09up based on things that Mass Blue Skies

24:11had provided that we did incorporate.

24:14>> [snorts]

24:14>> Um some of the things that we did not

24:15incorporate are things that have were

24:18flagged by Town Council as potentially

24:20like more zoning um which was a concern

24:23that we had talked about on Tuesday.

24:25Um you also have in front of you a

24:27comparison of this

24:30draft of the bylaw to the Mass Blue

24:32Skies submitted one uh from yesterday

24:35so that you can have a conversation uh

24:38and discussion about some other things

24:40that maybe we didn't include that you

24:42want to include. Um I do want to be

24:44really clear though that there are

24:46several sections within this working

24:48draft that have been flagged by Town

24:50Council as potentially preempted. Um you

24:54know as we talked about and as you

24:56understand the whether or not to put

24:59this forward to town meeting as it

25:00exists um

25:02including things that might be preempted

25:04is a policy decision of this board and

25:06ultimately a decision of the town.

25:08Um town council's role is to just flag

25:10things for your understanding of

25:12potential preemption.

25:14>> [clears throat]

25:15>> Um he did have a conversation with the

25:17Attorney General's office.

25:19Um

25:20unfortunately with this tight timeline

25:22we obviously couldn't do any back and

25:24forth with that office though I'm you

25:26know we know that they would have been

25:28willing if we had more time. Um

25:30one thing that was highlighted was that

25:32while the Attorney General's office

25:33looks at conflicts with state law the

25:35MassDOT aeronautical division will have

25:38an eye for a lot of the preemption so

25:41just reminding you that

25:43um this bylaw unlike other bylaws goes

25:46through those two levels of review.

25:48Um I did ask the question about you know

25:51is it possible that the Attorney General

25:53would

25:54is in the past they've only

25:56disapproved certain portions or certain

25:59things that they find in conflict with

26:00state law. Sometimes they just give a

26:02warning that you know there could be an

26:04issue that's something you might want to

26:05consider but they might leave it in

26:08or they might just disapprove the thing

26:10in in total.

26:12Um

26:12you know so this is those are just sort

26:14of the I guess options

26:16um

26:17that that the that the Attorney

26:19General's office has. So

26:21>> I'm sorry Percy they did

26:25They they did not indicate if they would

26:28make wholesale changes, rejections or

26:30otherwise. You're just putting those out

26:32there as the options that may happen

26:35>> Right.

26:36Um so they um

26:38they've not reviewed this at all. Um

26:41once we have a version that we want to

26:42bring to town meeting they've asked for

26:44a draft of that.

26:45Um really just [clears throat] to start

26:47their own review which again that's a

26:4990-day review and often there's a

26:51request for extensions, particularly

26:53when there's a complex bylaw like like

26:55we're talking about. Um and they do not

26:57offer any sort of alternative language.

27:00It's just a approval or a non-approval.

27:02Um they will offer

27:04um

27:05they will cite, you know, case law or

27:07things as to why they're disapproving

27:09something, but they they don't offer

27:11alternative language. So.

27:14Um and then just as an update, so the

27:16motion for the article

27:18um

27:19will be very brief. Um it actually will

27:22just refer to whatever we title the

27:25handout. So, assuming the handout is

27:28called, making it up, you know, general

27:30bylaws article 34 dated October 15th,

27:33that's what we'll refer to in the

27:34motion. So, there's no one will have to

27:36read the full bylaw, um but we'll

27:38certainly have those handouts available.

27:42Um

27:43So, do you want to just start going

27:44through?

27:45>> Yeah, I I think that makes sense. Um

27:48and here we can go section by section.

27:52Um there are 14

27:55sections currently in this working

27:57draft.

27:58Um and folks can let me know if if there

28:01are

28:03things that they are um

28:06concerned about within a certain section

28:08cuz I may gloss over a couple of them at

28:10a higher level that don't seem to be as

28:12significant.

28:14Uh section one is the purpose and scope

28:18of the document where we describe why

28:20this bylaw is necessary to protect the

28:22health, safety, privacy, peace, quiet

28:25enjoyment, property rights, and general

28:27welfare of persons in Westborough.

28:31Um it's intended to regulate matters

28:34traditionally within police power,

28:36including nuisance, privacy, harassment,

28:39use of town property, local ground

28:41operations, and compliance with

28:42generally applicable town bylaws, not

28:46intended to regulate aviation safety.

28:49And then, of course, nothing in this

28:51bylaw shall be construed to grant

28:53authority to operate an unmanned

28:54aircraft system in violation of federal

28:57or state law.

28:59Any questions or

29:01>> Do you want me to just go through

29:03um

29:04what what's on the screen?

29:05>> Sure.

29:06>> Okay. Um so, for that first section, um

29:09I actually this this this is the only

29:11section where this was a change by town

29:13council. Um and his only comment was

29:16that the the bylaw speaks to several

29:19different kinds of unmanned aircraft,

29:21and that's why um his suggestion was

29:22that it not say commercial, and that's

29:24what we removed from that section.

29:29>> Section two?

29:30>> All right, we're good.

29:31>> [laughter]

29:32>> All right,

29:32one second.

29:36>> [laughter]

29:37>> That's great.

29:38>> Yeah.

29:39>> Um

29:42I can just Do you want me to keep going?

29:43>> Yeah.

29:44>> Okay. Uh section two,

29:46um

29:47this is the changes that you see were

29:50offered by um Mass Blue Skies um and

29:53didn't seem to raise any flags with town

29:55council.

29:56Um and so, this is just the changes to

29:58those couple defined terms.

30:00Um

30:03I don't There were a couple other

30:05changes that

30:08Mass Blue Skies had offered. Um

30:11one of them I'll just mention here with

30:12this unmanned aircraft one. Um

30:15there was a They did offer some changes

30:18to this definition. Um town council

30:20advised that

30:21um

30:23the that the definition as it exists,

30:25what you see here, is consistent with um

30:30uh with the federal definition. So,

30:33that's So, I left it alone. Um but there

30:35are a couple other

30:37changes that they had offered that we

30:39didn't include, so I don't know how you

30:40want to handle that at this point.

30:43>> So it seems like one of the

30:46um

30:46uh definitions that Mass Blue Skies

30:48offered was the protected neighborhood

30:50space that was not incorporated.

30:53Um it looks like

30:55um

30:58Kit Kristy, can we assume that that sort

31:01of gets into zoning?

31:02>> That was one of the primary concerns

31:04that town council identified was that

31:06zoning and that partic- that wasn't the

31:08only section, but that particular

31:11um

31:12regulation of land use or um creation of

31:16spaces um really

31:19I guess walks the line with zoning.

31:22>> Okay. Yes.

31:25Yes.

31:26>> Um yeah, quick question Kristy on that.

31:28So uh there was two things I think that

31:31might have run a foul of of a zoning and

31:33that one is that it referred to buffers

31:35or safety areas. Um but there was also

31:39the 500-ft distance to residential

31:41structures or business structures or

31:43public roadways, which is different.

31:44That doesn't create a space, it just

31:46says to make this safe you have to keep

31:48that a certain distance away from those

31:50structures. So is it the fact that a

31:54zone or buffer area was suggested, which

31:58we I think can easily eliminate and just

31:59have the distances. Um

32:02but then again I look forward to the

32:04next section and it pretty much

32:06eliminates the possibility of launch

32:09or dropping on private property. So it

32:11may be that it's not needed. I guess

32:14that's the question.

32:15>> Yeah.

32:18>> So where it's referred to in the later

32:20section um and then also there the note

32:23was made that it was

32:25um

32:26could be considered a zoning based on

32:28land use restriction. So um so it was

32:31flagged.

32:32>> So the fact that it was citing distances

32:34itself was that was that the primary

32:36issue?

32:37>> I think because it's creating regulation

32:39around specific types of spaces.

32:41>> Okay.

32:41>> Yeah.

32:42>> Um it seems like when you go forward to

32:44the next section it may be moved based

32:46on what comes after that. So, I'll for

32:48now we can pass on that and say we're

32:50okay with it.

32:51>> So, Rod, I'm sorry. Thank you, Sean. One

32:54of One of the council's comments was

32:57that there were several

32:59terms in the definition in the

33:03definition of protected

33:05>> neighborhood neighborhood space

33:06>> Yep.

33:06>> that themselves are not defined.

33:09>> Okay.

33:09>> And so, the there was a lot of ambiguity

33:12there.

33:13And also

33:14um

33:16basically there was unclear whether any

33:19land in town would be

33:22not protected neighborhood space.

33:25>> Which which would which would work

33:26against the section four, right? So,

33:27that's why I I think getting through

33:29section four is probably important

33:31because that may make this

33:33moot and and really not necessary. So,

33:35I'll

33:35>> I mean, I think thanks the whole town

33:37>> So, the definition if you were to keep

33:39it, I think that comment is something

33:41you would want to pay attention to. But

33:42in my conversation with town council,

33:45they

33:46specifically the protected neighborhood

33:48space made it too close to zoning.

33:50>> Okay.

33:51>> Got it.

33:51>> Okay. Thank you.

33:52>> All right. Thank you.

33:54Uh otherwise

33:56section two?

33:57>> I'm fine.

33:58>> Okay.

33:59Thank you very much. And then section

34:00three.

34:06>> Um

34:09Um section

34:11>> I don't think we're going to change

34:12anything in section

34:13>> Section three I think we were all on the

34:14same page.

34:15>> Yep.

34:17>> Yeah.

34:17>> Moving right along.

34:18>> Okay.

34:19>> Okay.

34:20>> Um section four.

34:23Um

34:26So, um one of the defined terms that was

34:29Oops, there's a typo there.

34:31Um was the commercial UAS. So, a lot of

34:33the changes you're seeing are just going

34:36um to the defined terms, which again,

34:37those were offered by um Mass Blue

34:39Sky's.

34:40Um, in terms of things that were not

34:44included

34:47>> Should it contain commercial UAS or all

34:50US UAS operations?

34:52>> You mean, are you talking about the

34:53first paragraph?

34:54>> Yes.

34:56>> Well, and and this title the title of

34:59section

35:00>> Four is also section

35:01>> Right. So, consistent with the start of

35:02the policy.

35:03>> Correct.

35:04>> Yeah, I mean, the bylaw, excuse me.

35:05>> Well, the the name of the bylaw is

35:08obviously all sections and some sections

35:10refer to recreation and public safety

35:12and other types. This section is

35:14specific to commercial.

35:17>> Yes, so it should all

35:18contain commercial.

35:19>> It should It should contain commercial.

35:21>> Yeah.

35:21>> Well, but hold on, and that implies, and

35:24I'm just looking at this quickly, that

35:25implies there's other sections for

35:26non-commercial.

35:28So, uh I don't see other sections for

35:30non-commercial, so I think that this is

35:32the only section that refers to

35:33specifically

35:35to the drone itself and what its

35:37limitations are.

35:38>> Um, it's section eight.

35:40>> Section eight. I'm sorry,

35:41[clears throat] I only flipped one

35:42section.

35:42>> it just doesn't You didn't catch it

35:44because it doesn't talk about the way

35:52>> Cuz we have In the definitions, we got

35:53public UAS, recreational UAS,

35:56and commercial UAS.

35:58Um, do we have equivalent I'm just

36:01looking at this now and thinking about

36:02it as we're striking that word

36:04commercial.

36:05Does this section not apply to all UAS

36:07operations or just specifically the

36:10defined commercial UAS operations?

36:12>> is related to commercial. The entire

36:14bylaw, because it has those other

36:16defined terms, is more general.

36:18>> Yeah, so what I would say, Patrick, is

36:19let's

36:20>> Yeah, I'm fine.

36:21>> Yeah, look at four and then make sure

36:22when we get further down that we don't

36:24lose those other terms.

36:26>> Exactly.

36:27Yep.

36:28>> I have a question from Mass V Sky show.

36:32>> Yes.

36:33>> A question of clarification. I

36:35Again, it may be two things that

36:36contradict. So, on A, I'm wondering why

36:40A is

36:41So, A says no person conducting UAS

36:44ground operations for commercial UAS may

36:46use private property as a staging launch

36:49landing, loading, unloading, and

36:50delivery location without the

36:51authorization of the owner of the

36:53or other person lawfully entitled to

36:55control their property. So, if you just

36:57read that, it would say that anybody

36:58could could launch it, right? Cuz you if

37:00you own the property, you can launch it.

37:02So, Amazon could launch it.

37:04And then in C,

37:06it says um

37:09ground operations of a commercial UAS

37:11shall be conducted so as to not create

37:13include

37:17Okay, no, it's it's D. So, no person,

37:20which person, by the way, just for the

37:22for the public's information, means any

37:24entity, corporate person, or otherwise,

37:27any legal entity.

37:29Um no person shall establish, utilize,

37:32or operate any ground-level staging

37:34point, launch pad, nesting grid, or

37:37property end point for the physical acts

37:39of vehicle takeoff or landing for any

37:41commercial purposes. So, that kind of

37:44it almost seems like that contradicts A

37:46because A's saying if you have the

37:48permission of the owner, you can do it.

37:51And and and D says you can't do it.

37:54>> So, that point, I would actually say

37:55that D actually usurps all A, B, and C,

37:58and I have not gotten to E and F.

38:00Basically, it says that it doesn't

38:01matter. Any person cannot launch any

38:03commercial UAS anywhere at any time.

38:08No person shall establish, utilize, or

38:10operate any ground-level staging point,

38:12launch pad, nesting grid, or property

38:13end point for physical acts of vehicle

38:16takeoff or landing up for any commercial

38:17purpose. That is pretty clear.

38:20You you're not you you cannot use

38:22commercial drones.

38:23>> I guess my concern there though is that

38:25if the AG decides that

38:29D is unlawful then you really haven't

38:33have nothing else to at least

38:35>> fall back on.

38:36>> Yeah.

38:36>> Yep.

38:39>> Fair.

38:39>> Well

38:45>> Can't go ahead and

38:46>> I think that Chris is going to

38:47>> So

38:48A uh

38:49I'm just

38:50wondering if person

38:52>> Uh microphone.

38:53>> Uh in A, I'm just wondering if person

38:55should be capitalized the way it is in D

38:58because it it's a legal it becomes a

39:00legal definition.

39:01>> Definitely. I I agree with you.

39:04>> Yep.

39:04>> There is because of the uh

39:07the speed with which we had to proofread

39:09these things, I think sometimes the

39:10capitalization didn't carry through the

39:12entire document. So, I think somebody

39:13should proofread that and make sure that

39:15the definitions carry through.

39:17>> We'll definitely get another review

39:18after this.

39:19>> Yep.

39:20>> Right.

39:20>> Where's the other one, James?

39:21>> Okay. Last last line.

39:23>> Okay.

39:23>> But that's the individual, isn't it?

39:25>> Okay.

39:26>> Thank you. But back to

39:29I guess the merits of

39:31A, B, C, and D.

39:32>> Yeah.

39:34I Sean, I agree with your point. I mean,

39:36if we're trying to a little bit of a

39:37catchall here, right? So, if D is not

39:41approved, right? The fallback is

39:46A, B, and C.

39:47>> If it's determined we've overreached in

39:50D.

39:50>> And that's why the distance thing was in

39:53there as well. So, the you know what I'm

39:55saying? That that is a fault pretty

39:57strong fallback. Um

40:00but again, that may be more risky with

40:02the AG than than D itself.

40:06>> Yeah, let's let's keep track of the

40:07distances we go through this. Yes.

40:10Yes.

40:11>> Before Christie, that this section D was

40:15not flagged by council. Is that my

40:18understanding as I read this?

40:19>> Right.

40:20>> Okay, thank you.

40:21>> Um

40:22well

40:24Right. They they flagged some of the

40:26other language that had been offered by

40:27Mass Blue Skies, but not the as it

40:29stands.

40:30>> As it stands in the draft we're looking

40:31at on the screen, um council is not

40:34flagged. Okay, thank you.

40:34>> Right. I mean, you could add so

40:37um you could add what

40:39Mass Blue Skies offered, which is

40:42um no person shall establish, utilize,

40:44or operate any ground-level staging

40:46point, launch pad, or area landing pad

40:48or area nesting grid or property

40:51endpoint for physical acts of commercial

40:53UAS vehicle or land takeoff or landing.

40:55>> So, just add the word area, you're

40:56saying?

40:57>> Uh adding commercial UAS, which just

40:59didn't make it into this version.

41:01>> Yeah, it says commercial purpose, but

41:03yeah.

41:04>> And it's under the commercial

41:05>> Commercial UAS should be added just as

41:07Christie said, cuz that's the defined

41:08term, and then for any commercial

41:10purpose at the end should be deleted.

41:13>> I got you.

41:14>> So, after physical acts

41:16>> [snorts]

41:19>> of commercial UAS.

41:25So, we're taking out vehicle

41:27>> put the period after landing. We're

41:29We're taking out vehicle takeoff or

41:30landing

41:31and uh

41:33etc. and changing that to commercial

41:35UAS.

41:36>> No, it No, it should say property Sorry,

41:39thank you, Christie.

41:44>> What What section again?

41:45>> Right here.

41:46>> Yeah, okay.

41:47Commercial UAS vehicle to Okay, so we're

41:49leaving leaving in, just inserting. Got

41:52it.

41:52>> Got it.

41:54>> Thank you.

41:54>> And then you would need to decide if you

41:56wanted to add

41:57launch pad or area landing pad or area.

42:03So, this is what

42:05>> I'm not sure what a nesting grid is. I'm

42:07assuming that's the equipment that's

42:08used,

42:10but

42:12>> It's launch pad.

42:16>> I mean, does it hurt to put in area? Why

42:18not, right?

42:21>> I was going to say, if I remember the

42:22site plan, they had

42:24a launch area with a couple of places to

42:27launch, and they also had an emergency

42:28landing area. So, those actually would

42:29have been two different areas. So, I

42:30think including the landing area in

42:32addition to the launch area is actually

42:34a good add.

42:34>> To make it cleaner, should we say launch

42:36and landing pad areas?

42:39>> That's fine.

42:41>> Yeah.

42:45>> Can I offer two other quick edits on

42:47this section?

42:48>> Sure.

42:49>> Uh one is there's another person in the

42:51last line of A that should be

42:52capitalized.

42:54>> Well, I was questioning whether or not

42:55it's appropriate cuz that is the

42:56individual as opposed to the entity.

42:59Is that I I I don't know if

43:03>> But doesn't capitalize P just represent

43:06either?

43:07>> Yeah, because it could be a commercial

43:09like an LLC

43:10>> Okay, that's fine. Okay, that's fine. If

43:11if we're saying two commercial entities

43:13are in play here, I guess that makes

43:15sense.

43:16>> So, the capitalized P is a defined term,

43:18which is an individual partnership,

43:19corporation, association, limited

43:21liability company, governmental, or

43:23other legal entity.

43:24>> Okay.

43:25Yeah, that's pretty broad.

43:26>> So, for example, if someone owned their

43:27house through an insurance trust, you

43:29would want that capitalized to cover

43:30that.

43:31>> Yep.

43:33Good catch.

43:33>> And then the other change I would

43:35suggest cuz the concept in the A

43:38that includes in the middle line

43:41loading, unloading, or delivery

43:43relocation.

43:45And I think that should be added after

43:46the word landing in D.

43:51Because it's a ground use

43:54to drop the packages.

43:56>> Isn't it in there? Did I miss it?

43:58>> In D.

43:59>> Where is that?

43:59>> In A or D?

44:00>> Adding A to D.

44:02>> A has language that includes loading,

44:04unloading, or delivery.

44:06>> Oh, okay, yep.

44:07>> And what I'm suggesting is that the

44:09prohibited physical acts in D

44:12talk about vehicle takeoff or landing.

44:15>> Oh.

44:15>> That should be expanded to include the

44:17concepts of loading, unloading, or

44:19delivery.

44:19>> Got it.

44:24I'm I'm fine with that.

44:25>> So, so should we change property end

44:28point

44:29in D?

44:31I mean, I I feel like we're

44:34we don't have property end point in A.

44:37>> Or add it to both.

44:40>> I think adding it to both probably.

44:41>> Chris, the language should go after the

44:43word landing towards the end of the

44:44sentence.

44:46>> What I find interesting between these A

44:48and D is that A is the action of

44:50actually

44:51the activity of ground operations,

44:53whereas D is

44:55the actual utilization of space. That's

44:58the way I would kind of define these two

44:59sections.

45:01Um should they be in alignment almost

45:04entirely in their language

45:07um and speak to the operations versus

45:09the space itself in D.

45:12>> So, sorry, is that what you meant? What

45:14I just did?

45:15>> Yeah, that's what

45:16>> Loading, unloading, or delivery at the

45:17end. Okay.

45:21>> Add a comma right there in your golden.

45:23>> So, uh

45:24the delivery end point to be consistent.

45:27Uh delivery location, we changed it in

45:29A. Okay, forget it.

45:31>> Patrick, could you repeat that, please?

45:32I wasn't following.

45:33>> Well, so A is about the operations,

45:36right? So, it's the act actual activity.

45:38D is about the space itself. Am I

45:41correct in my

45:43reading here?

45:44>> Yeah, but I think that's what we're

45:45trying to do.

45:45>> does use the word utilize and operate in

45:48D.

45:50>> But

45:53But it's speaking to an actual physical

45:55space, right? A staging point, launch

45:57pad, landing pad areas. It's talking

45:59about the space, whereas the A is

46:01talking about the actual activity of

46:03doing the loading, unloading, staging,

46:04etc.

46:05>> And what are you proposing?

46:06>> I'm just wondering if

46:08should they almost be identical except

46:09for one is

46:11no person shall establish or utilize

46:12operate ground level ground.

46:16>> Yeah, I think thought that's what we

46:17were trying to get to by by

46:20repeating some of the

46:23the you know, loading

46:25loading unloading or delivery location

46:27like

46:29I I think I

46:30>> Could we just simply say in A no person

46:32conducting UAS ground operations

46:35can can conduct UAS ground operations or

46:38utilize or operate ground level staging

46:40points, etc. Can you can they be

46:42combined?

46:43>> Yeah.

46:46>> I'm you know, I'm I'm I'm worried

46:48something too far. Just leave it. It's

46:50It's

46:51just leave it. I I think it covers it. I

46:52just was trying to

46:54simplify it a little bit.

46:56>> Can Can I ask a question of

46:58clarification? I always assume that

47:01there may be a work around for to to do

47:03something that we're trying to prevent.

47:06Um

47:07what if the company had a launching pad

47:11on the roof of a building on their site?

47:13So, for example, an elevated roof or

47:15landing area. I would think we would

47:17want to make sure this stops that as

47:19well but that would not be a work around

47:22to this bylaw because I could see them

47:24very easily just building a structure,

47:26say it's no longer on the ground, it's

47:28on an elevated roof. And that there are

47:30heliports on roofs, there I'm sure there

47:32are drone drone ports on roofs.

47:34Um but I think we we want to make sure

47:36that we achieve the same objective

47:38without any work arounds.

47:40>> So,

47:41to that end in D, should we take out

47:43ground level?

47:44>> Right.

47:44>> All ground level uh

47:47or I don't think you want to take it out

47:49because I think it Well, I thought part

47:51of the way to avoid FAA preemption was

47:54to keep mentioning that throughout the

47:55articles to make sure we're talking

47:57about the ground,

47:58but there should be something to the

47:59effect that uh a structure on the ground

48:03uh shall uh the roof of that structure

48:06some no portion of that structure shall

48:08be used to circumvent this

48:10um uh this article or something to that

48:12effect. I'm not an attorney.

48:14>> Yeah.

48:14>> Yeah, so something like use of use of

48:16the like basically use of the roof is

48:18considered for this purpose is

48:20prohibited is expressly prohibited.

48:23>> Right. I agree.

48:24>> Yeah.

48:24>> Rather restrict rule for any any portion

48:27of the the building structure so there's

48:28no semantics games.

48:31>> So that would be and I would agree with

48:32Mark, you remove the ground level and

48:33that's that catches all of it.

48:36>> Right, but I think keeping that ground

48:38level in

48:40ties us to the or

48:43doesn't raise red flags around the FAA

48:45portion. I like keeping the ground level

48:47and adding like a language that says

48:51use of a structure

48:54um

48:55for said purposes is expressly

48:58prohibited.

48:58>> I think it's more restrictive though. I

49:00I excuse me, I think it's less

49:01restrictive cuz it's only speaking about

49:03ground level. If I put it up off the

49:04ground and put it on the roof, it

49:06wouldn't be

49:07>> So can I ask a question? I'm sorry.

49:09>> No, no, let let let her finish.

49:10>> What what I'm saying though is I think

49:13again

49:14you know me, I like more words than

49:15fewer so

49:17I think having this ground level

49:18language in there

49:20like is good anchoring for the town and

49:22protective around the FAA

49:25concern

49:26and then we add a uh I mean we could

49:28even add a

49:31DC whatever I mean another letter that

49:33says no

49:35that speaks to the building if we want

49:37to just create another letter.

49:39An another section here that talks about

49:41use of a building like as a as a ground

49:45level landing that happens to be

49:46elevated.

49:47>> Well, we certainly can add more

49:48language. I just think you can catch

49:49that all if that's your intent is to

49:51prevent those actions at regardless if

49:54it's on the ground or if it's on the top

49:56of a roof of a building, you can do that

49:58simply by just removing the ground

49:59level.

50:00>> Yeah, I

50:01>> But I I think that creates I I think

50:04that gets

50:05>> No, I I the reason why I'm saying that,

50:06I understand the the the FAA preemption

50:08piece and and the fact that we're

50:09talking about on the ground, we're also

50:12we're catching both. You're saying if

50:14you remove ground level, you're saying

50:16any space whether it's on the ground or

50:18on the building

50:20or on a tree, doesn't matter wherever

50:22it's at, it it violates. They can't

50:24launch from the air.

50:27You you know, they can't you know

50:29It's not in the It has to start from

50:30someplace. Removing ground level says

50:32you can't start from any place.

50:35>> I Can I suggest a an option I think

50:38which maybe marries the two but maybe

50:39not, we'll find out. Um could we just

50:42say for the purposes of this section uh

50:46ground operations should include

50:49operations conducted from any portion of

50:51a structure on the property.

50:54>> Sure, we can I mean like Shelly said,

50:55you can add a whole another section. I

50:57just think it's it's redundant if

50:59>> I

51:00Redundant for the sake of clarity I

51:02always think is an okay thing, but

51:03anyway, that would be my two cents

51:05worth.

51:07>> Well, I

51:09I think A covers it because you have

51:10private property, so that would include

51:12the buildings.

51:14Right?

51:16>> But that's just private property that

51:19you don't have permission to use.

51:20>> And yeah, and Amazon can do it under a

51:22just just they would fall under D we

51:24need to add something about uh

51:28any ground any real estate staging point

51:31or I I mean I'm just thinking real

51:32estate incorporates all the ground level

51:35and all the buildings.

51:36>> I think we can mention this to

51:39>> council.

51:40>> to council and just make sure, you know,

51:42including any structure connected to the

51:44ground.

51:45>> national ground up. Should we use

51:46definitions up front to define ground

51:49operations as including anything

51:50conducted off the ground or off any

51:52structure located in the in the town?

51:55>> Yeah, that's a good question for

51:56council. I

51:56>> It does say UAS ground operations as a

51:58definition.

51:59>> And uh does that that maybe could be

52:02refined to include the uh

52:04any structures?

52:06>> Uh land-based activities directly

52:08associated with UAS operation including

52:10the staging, launch, takeoff from

52:12property, landing onto property, pay

52:14loading or unloading, and the placement

52:17or receipt of cargo on other physical

52:20items on property. So

52:21>> I I think maybe including land and

52:23structures in that same sentence just to

52:25make it absolutely clear.

52:29Or or does it already do that? So

52:30>> Land and structure-based activities?

52:33>> Well, I think buildings are property.

52:35>> I I I think and whether we refer to them

52:38as real property, I don't know, but um

52:40>> If If we picked up Rod's suggestion,

52:43we could keep the definition of UAS

52:45ground operations and add a separate

52:47definition of just ground operations.

52:50And the separate definition of ground

52:52operations would say

52:54everything that it currently says

52:58except for the words directly associated

53:00with a UAS operation.

53:04>> I'm confused.

53:06>> I think we should take uh Sean's

53:08suggestion and bring this to council as

53:11a

53:12>> Rod.

53:13>> I think we should take Sean's

53:15suggestion, bring this to council as a

53:17concern, and let him work up language

53:19that would

53:21um

53:22you know, cover CY, cover our

53:25you know what?

53:26>> Yep.

53:27>> I agree I agree 100%. So the the intent

53:29is clear that we want to prevent the

53:30takeoff or launching or landing

53:32>> Regardless of where it's at.

53:33>> no matter where it is in the town, but

53:35not in the ground, not on a structure.

53:36>> Right.

53:37>> Can I just um go back to letter A just

53:40to um

53:41so I understand D is sort of the

53:44catchall no person which

53:47I guess I want to make sure that that

53:49includes

53:52commercial anything like person

53:55represents commercial we're 100% solid

53:57on that

53:58>> capital P

53:58>> capital P represents because of the

54:00definition therein okay so

54:04>> capital P person does not in and of

54:05itself cover commercial it just covers

54:08entities in addition to individuals but

54:10the use of the word

54:12commercial

54:13UAS builds into it the commercial

54:16purpose so collectively you you you get

54:19there

54:19>> okay but when I so

54:22what you just said

54:25is not in D

54:28but it is in A and A

54:31the way I read it implies that

54:34it only limits ground operations from

54:37using private property

54:40as staging what so

54:42does that mean

54:45is their own property private property

54:48>> it is

54:48>> I'm not trying to be stupid here but

54:51it's not like

54:52Patrick's property is private property

54:56>> so it's both I just want I just want to

54:58make sure we're not like sort of

54:59allowing them to like A and D

55:02>> my understanding of private property is

55:03anything that's not town or municipal

55:05property or state property

55:06>> okay okay

55:08all right

55:08>> A and D each have limits

55:12A's limit is that it's about a specific

55:15property without the owner's consent so

55:17if you don't consent

55:19they can't do this on your property

55:21>> right but could they but they could do

55:23it from their property

55:25>> which is what like D covers right

55:27>> D D says no you can't okay

55:30>> that's what

55:31>> just to flag something in A um

55:35it talks about delivery location needing

55:37authorization and one thing that was

55:40identified is that if

55:43say Amazon does drone delivery service,

55:45they might someone might order something

55:48to deliver as a gift to someone and that

55:51just hasn't been contemplated in the

55:52federal regulation. So it's possible

55:55that that delivery location

55:57language could be

55:59stricken.

56:08>> Okay. Chris

56:10>> Hold on. That that that actually well in

56:12the case of how Amazon is planning on

56:14operating you they you only the owner of

56:17the property can request that a drone be

56:20allowed to drop on the property. So I

56:21can't send something to my mother's

56:23house on my account and say drop it

56:26there.

56:26>> Yeah, you're not

56:27>> I'm not the property owner. That's part

56:28of their system. You have to allow it

56:30through your account which is attached

56:31to your property.

56:33>> The Amazon rep at the hearing

56:36added a little bit of squishiness around

56:38that.

56:38>> Okay.

56:38>> He said that currently their plans are

56:40that you need to opt in to drone

56:41delivery

56:42>> Right.

56:42>> and that that may change over time. And

56:45I wouldn't be surprised if you have to

56:46change to expressly opt out.

56:48>> I opted in, right, and and my mother

56:51wanted to send me a gift

56:53it's possible because the address has

56:55opted in.

56:57Right?

56:57>> I don't know how Amazon handles that.

56:59>> understanding.

57:00>> Oh, so I thought that you

57:02just like you choose sort of where

57:04anything you order on Amazon is going to

57:06go.

57:06>> And and it should look beyond Amazon

57:09because because

57:10>> you know, you could order I don't know a

57:12pizza for somebody else too, you know,

57:14so

57:16>> But I do understand

57:17>> flagged is that something that could be

57:19preempted? It's flagged as something

57:20that could be an issue because of the

57:21potential gift.

57:22>> But my understanding is is that you have

57:25to delineate a landing zone before

57:28Amazon will deliver to you.

57:30>> I think it's one of those things that

57:33might not be how things operate now as

57:36we understand it but could change in the

57:38future.

57:38>> I think we have to

57:41assume that if they change their

57:43operational parameters we're not going

57:45to have much say over that once this

57:46bylaw ends this be bylaw either prevents

57:49it or

57:51they can change around.

57:52>> Because it's a general bylaw it can

57:53always be changed again.

57:57>> And probably will be.

58:00>> So we're going to have council take a

58:01look at

58:03uh

58:04Do we need to look at E and F here?

58:07>> Well, I had a question on B.

58:09Um my question on B is around Apple Hill

58:11Town bylaw.

58:13Is that Is that inclusive of zoning

58:15bylaws concerning noise and nuisance and

58:17private property?

58:19It is so it's all inclusive.

58:21Not just not just the by the general

58:23bylaw. Okay.

58:24>> It's not but you can be explicit if you

58:26want to be.

58:27>> No, I want it to cover all.

58:29>> Right. I'm just saying if you want to

58:30say general and zoning you can but it

58:33town bylaws they they're all town

58:34bylaws.

58:36>> But you know it's a an interesting

58:41>> Yeah.

58:41>> Cuz we

58:42Yeah, I think we should call it out.

58:44>> Okay.

58:44>> Yeah.

58:45>> Make it very clear.

58:47>> Instead of just it should be town zoning

58:50and general bylaws.

58:51>> Town general and

58:53zoning

58:55>> specific right? So we just

58:59>> Say that again China I'm sorry.

59:02>> They they're all bylaws is what

59:03Christie's saying. So maybe we don't

59:05need the word zoning. I don't know. I

59:06just guess.

59:08>> The Correct.

59:10>> Yeah, I worry more about the zoning word

59:11being put back in when we're trying to

59:13avoid it like the plague. We're doing

59:15>> Well, you're just referencing a bylaw

59:16that that it may or may not conflict

59:18with.

59:18>> I guess what now as it is I mean the

59:21fact of the matter is you're always

59:23subject to the local zoning bylaws

59:25right? So what whether we need to say

59:27that explicitly each type of by-law, I

59:29don't I wouldn't think is necessary, but

59:33>> But you're right. I mean, that kind of

59:34speaks to why do we have B at all, but

59:36we're just clarifying that point in this

59:38particular one.

59:39>> [snorts]

59:39>> Somebody reads this, they know that no

59:41authorization by the customer can happen

59:43in relation is applicable

59:45between in this case general and zoning

59:47by-law. I'm okay with it either way, but

59:49it further clarifies that both are part

59:51of this and the reason I say that is

59:53people in the room understand

59:55our zoning by-law specifically speaks to

59:57noise and nuisance. So, and

59:59>> imagine we have this language in other

1:00:02by-laws.

1:00:03>> If you're going to be if we're going to

1:00:05be explicit saying general and zoning,

1:00:08then we need to do it throughout.

1:00:10>> Yes. So, yeah, can I take it out?

1:00:12>> I mean, it's redundant. So, I I'm not

1:00:15certain it's necessary.

1:00:17>> No, I Shelby's point

1:00:19Sorry, can I just say something?

1:00:20>> Yeah.

1:00:21>> Uh I think we should take out general

1:00:23and zoning and leave town by-law. Uh and

1:00:25the reason is

1:00:27if this doesn't get the job done, we

1:00:29might have a noise by-law general by-law

1:00:31coming through. We might have I mean,

1:00:33I think town by-law is all by-laws.

1:00:35Could be board of health. It could

1:00:38>> No, I agree with you. I agree with him.

1:00:40>> Should that be capitalized?

1:00:42What?

1:00:43Town not by-laws?

1:00:47>> I don't I don't think so.

1:00:50>> Okay.

1:00:51So, we're taking general and zoning.

1:00:53>> Yeah, we're just putting it on back to

1:00:54the original version. I just wanted to

1:00:55clarify that town covered all of them

1:00:57and I got my answer.

1:01:04>> Okay.

1:01:04>> So, I think A through D we're fine,

1:01:05right?

1:01:06>> Yep.

1:01:06>> Okay, so we're up to E.

1:01:08>> I think you should add

1:01:11or regulation because

1:01:13board of health has regulations related

1:01:16to nuisance.

1:01:16>> Yeah, I like that idea.

1:01:18>> Okay. Thank you.

1:01:21Okay.

1:01:26>> Welcome, Ian.

1:01:27>> Okay. Concerns on E. It was It was

1:01:30flagged that the term commercial

1:01:32property is not defined.

1:01:43So, potentially, if we

1:01:45don't amend this,

1:01:47we add a definition for commercial

1:01:49property.

1:01:53>> Is that something that you want

1:01:54>> I think it looks good from our

1:01:56standpoint.

1:01:56>> something that you want to do? Is add a

1:01:58definition for commercial property?

1:02:01>> It sounds like town council thinks it's

1:02:03necessary.

1:02:03>> Right.

1:02:04>> Yes, so.

1:02:05>> Can I I I I just um going back to what

1:02:07we just talked about a moment a few

1:02:08moments ago, right? There is There's

1:02:10only two types of property, if I'm

1:02:11understanding correctly, private and

1:02:13public.

1:02:14So, do we even need Can we just say no

1:02:16parcel of

1:02:18of

1:02:19private and public property.

1:02:23And that's inclusive of public roadways

1:02:25and commercial property and residential

1:02:26property.

1:02:28So, we don't need to call them out all

1:02:29individually. I'm just wondering if

1:02:30we're not calling out something. So,

1:02:31just simply say

1:02:33no private or public property

1:02:35within the town of Westborough.

1:02:37>> I agree with you. We could say private

1:02:39and don't need commercial. I think the

1:02:40way the current definition of town

1:02:42property is drafted only

1:02:45it wasn't as expansive as public.

1:02:47And it didn't necessarily cover

1:02:48roadways. So, as long as we get it all

1:02:50the

1:02:51>> Public will cover roadways, right?

1:02:52>> Public will cover schools, it'll cover

1:02:55this building, every roadway in town.

1:02:57>> Yeah.

1:02:57>> So, that's only two categories, public

1:02:59and private.

1:03:00>> So,

1:03:00I agree with you. Can we just make sure

1:03:02back to definitions, town property, that

1:03:04everyone agrees that the roadways are

1:03:06included?

1:03:08>> If you're going to just do private

1:03:10property, you have to take out private

1:03:11residential.

1:03:13>> Right.

1:03:13>> Right. Okay.

1:03:14>> That's right.

1:03:15>> That's what we did. So, can we just make

1:03:17sure that the definition in section two

1:03:20for town property, everyone agrees that

1:03:22that includes roadways?

1:03:25>> What are you going to do?

1:03:26>> Leave the public roadways in.

1:03:28>> well, I I guess what I'm saying is town

1:03:29property and public roadways are public

1:03:31property, right? So, we don't need town

1:03:34property or public roadways within the

1:03:35town of Westborough. All we need is

1:03:37no parcel of private or public property

1:03:40or

1:03:41within the town of Westborough shall be

1:03:43established, designated, or utilized as

1:03:45a commercial drop drop zone, delivery

1:03:47endpoint, or staging ground for the

1:03:48receipt of payload.

1:03:50So,

1:03:51anything that's state would be public

1:03:52property. The courthouse, all the state

1:03:55property in town. Okay, so

1:03:58I think it's a good idea to leave

1:03:59roadways. Okay.

1:04:02Yeah. I mean, you can delete town

1:04:03property if you want, but I think it's a

1:04:05good idea to leave roadways.

1:04:07All right, so it would read then

1:04:12no parcel of private or public property

1:04:15or public roadway private or public or

1:04:17public roadways within the town of

1:04:19Westborough shall be established.

1:04:25Okay.

1:04:26Tweak the possible commas later and

1:04:28stuff.

1:04:32Are you good?

1:04:34Okay.

1:04:35Good.

1:04:36So, see um

1:04:39because it's regulating a nuisance, the

1:04:41that was just flagged as something that

1:04:43might be approved with caution.

1:04:45Um where where are we going? I'm sorry.

1:04:47Okay.

1:04:48Yeah.

1:04:50Um

1:04:51and then

1:04:57uh

1:04:57see

1:05:00um where it says

1:05:02shall be established, designated, or

1:05:03utilized as a commercial drop drop zone,

1:05:06delivery endpoint, or staging ground for

1:05:07the receipt of payload. Um that was just

1:05:10noted as something that may be preempted

1:05:11by the FAA.

1:05:12>> As what?

1:05:13>> Preempted.

1:05:14>> Which Which part?

1:05:16>> Um the second part of E.

1:05:20>> Where we're just regulating delivery,

1:05:22which technically it's they're not

1:05:24landing.

1:05:25>> Right.

1:05:26>> Right.

1:05:26>> The packages.

1:05:28>> Yeah. But

1:05:28>> just landing?

1:05:29>> Yeah. So, I mean, potentially there's

1:05:31concerns there.

1:05:34>> It would It would be hard to argue

1:05:35though, I would think, that the package

1:05:38hitting the ground from a

1:05:40an aircraft is not a safety issue on the

1:05:42ground.

1:05:44>> I mean, we leave it in there.

1:05:45>> Mhm.

1:05:46>> Yeah. We don't need to be

1:05:47>> Yeah. I think it's great as it is. Let's

1:05:48hope it's it passes muster.

1:05:51>> Um just to stay consistent, sorry. Use

1:05:54Just to stay consistent, I I with the

1:05:56concept we just talked about around

1:05:58public and and uh private property, um

1:06:01under C,

1:06:02should we not be also saying

1:06:05um interference with the use and

1:06:07enjoyment of abutting public and private

1:06:09properties, as opposed to residential or

1:06:11commercial?

1:06:14I'm just trying to be consistent

1:06:15throughout here, right? If we're

1:06:23>> [snorts]

1:06:25>> Okay.

1:06:27>> Yep. All right. F.

1:06:30Oops. Go down a little bit.

1:06:31>> To address uh Christie's last point on

1:06:34E,

1:06:35would it help if we eliminated

1:06:37established and designated

1:06:39and just said used, cuz all that really

1:06:41matters is whether or not they drop it,

1:06:42not what you call it.

1:06:46>> You scroll down to E.

1:06:47>> Or used

1:06:49as a delivery end point?

1:06:51>> What does it say now?

1:06:52>> what you're saying?

1:06:56>> E established or used

1:06:57>> recommending to strike?

1:06:59>> To strike the words established, {comma}

1:07:01designated, or

1:07:10>> Well, I I think the

1:07:11>> I'm just wondering if that might help

1:07:12>> the problem with that is that if the the

1:07:14drone is launched from I think the

1:07:15problem with that is if a drone is

1:07:17launched from another town

1:07:19and

1:07:20flies into Westborough

1:07:22that may be preempted by FAA.

1:07:25If we have that language in but I we can

1:07:28leave it in and just see whether they

1:07:29preempt it. I

1:07:30I

1:07:31I don't think it's the the language

1:07:33specifically. I think it's the

1:07:35what we're trying to regulate.

1:07:36>> I'm with you on that. Yeah.

1:07:38>> Yeah, this to me is more in the intent

1:07:40of what I think you're hoping.

1:07:42We'll see what happens.

1:07:48>> Okay, uh

1:07:51>> Okay, are we ready on E or F?

1:07:53>> F.

1:07:53>> F, okay.

1:07:56>> Um

1:08:06This one was also just noted as

1:08:08potential preemption.

1:08:14>> Yeah.

1:08:15I think that's so I think those are both

1:08:18so important that they uh

1:08:21it's a risk worth taking.

1:08:25If the if the word can be altered

1:08:27slightly but achieve the same objective,

1:08:28so be it. But I mean if uh

1:08:31if they move this launch pad to

1:08:32Northborough and then continue to just

1:08:34do the same stuff in Westborough

1:08:35dropping off packages and having the

1:08:37drones hover up and down they've

1:08:39essentially done the same thing.

1:08:41Except it would be better for the people

1:08:43out by Route 9.

1:08:44>> I get Can you Can you explain this

1:08:46section? I I I want to understand the

1:08:47intent of this a little bit better.

1:08:50>> Which one? E or F?

1:08:51>> F.

1:08:51>> F.

1:09:01So I I think the fact of the matter is

1:09:03that yards run together, properties run

1:09:04together.

1:09:05And so, by somebody consenting to have

1:09:08something dropped from the air,

1:09:11you can't really separate up backyards.

1:09:12They all run together. So, kids are

1:09:14running between yards, dogs and pets are

1:09:16running between yards. And the thought

1:09:18that it's okay for one yard to consent

1:09:20to have things dropped from the air

1:09:22without any safety risk to people in

1:09:24neighboring properties is we're saying

1:09:27that you can't it can't be contained

1:09:29within one part

1:09:30>> It's just not the way properties

1:09:31operate.

1:09:32>> There is not a wall or fence between

1:09:34every part every every parcel of land.

1:09:37And in fact, in our neighborhood, for

1:09:38example, the the yards all run together.

1:09:40So, dogs run between yards, kids run

1:09:43between yards. So, you can't contain the

1:09:45safety risk of dropping packages from

1:09:46the air into one parcel by definition.

1:09:50>> I think I mean, my read on this is that

1:09:53you've already covered that. I mean, I

1:09:55think I think

1:09:57other sections of this section already

1:10:00speak to the inability to be able to

1:10:03utilize

1:10:05public or private property

1:10:07for the

1:10:08for these purposes. So, I don't know if

1:10:10F is really necessary.

1:10:13>> Well, I like it because it I I I like it

1:10:15because it references safety. And not

1:10:17only is it not safe to just be dropping

1:10:20packages,

1:10:21you know, you've got these drones that

1:10:23are inevitably

1:10:25something will go wrong and it may crash

1:10:28down on But, the action is still

1:10:30>> We have that in

1:10:31first sentence in the section in section

1:10:33four. It says to prevent a public

1:10:35acoustic nuisance and ensure the basic

1:10:37safety of public ways and private We

1:10:40could We should strike out residential

1:10:42up there.

1:10:43Public ways

1:10:45>> and private properties.

1:10:46>> And and public and pri- and

1:10:49private property.

1:10:50>> Let's make it public and private

1:10:51properties and roadways.

1:10:53>> I I think it might be argued by property

1:10:55owners, this is my property. I should be

1:10:56able to consent to dropping off anything

1:10:58from anywhere. I think this just makes

1:11:00it ironclad and crystal clear that we

1:11:02understand that that that's what Amazon

1:11:04thinks is okay, but it's not what the

1:11:07town thinks is okay.

1:11:10>> So, would could we I mean, I understand

1:11:12the intent if we stopped at that first

1:11:16sentence that ends with of this bylaw?

1:11:20Does that

1:11:22Do we need the rest of it?

1:11:31>> Any commercial drone takeoffs need

1:11:32delivery destination or pickup line.

1:11:35>> Um

1:11:37Yeah, it may not be necessary verbage to

1:11:39accomplish the same thing.

1:11:41>> Are you okay with striking that last

1:11:43one?

1:11:43>> Yep.

1:11:49>> I mean, we're I think we're okay with

1:11:51eliminating that last sentence if we get

1:11:52the first part in.

1:11:53>> But then you've been the nothing

1:11:55in the section regulates the routes.

1:11:57>> Yeah, I moved that to I that was

1:12:00inadvertently added to that section. It

1:12:01would This is supposed to be its own

1:12:03section.

1:12:04>> Yeah, yeah.

1:12:05>> Can we go back to the intro sentence of

1:12:08of section four though

1:12:10that you just alluded to, Shelby?

1:12:12>> Yep.

1:12:13I mean, Christie's in control of this

1:12:15bylaw.

1:12:16>> No, but you just brought this up that uh

1:12:19to prevent acoustic nuisance and ensure

1:12:22the basic safety of

1:12:24should it be

1:12:25public ways, {comma} public property,

1:12:28and private property and not private

1:12:31residential property?

1:12:32>> Right.

1:12:33>> Right. To To be consistent with the

1:12:35other section.

1:12:36>> public, private, and roadways if you

1:12:38want to be consistent with the other

1:12:39sections. Those are the three.

1:12:41>> Agreed.

1:12:53>> Is basic just a to be there to put

1:12:55emphasis or does it actually have a

1:12:56meaning?

1:12:57I mean safety to me to ensure the safety

1:12:59of public.

1:13:01>> So

1:13:02Christie, I'm sorry backing up there

1:13:03that makes it sound like private

1:13:05roadways.

1:13:06The way you wrote it.

1:13:10>> Well, I think it should be public

1:13:12roadways.

1:13:14>> Just a feel like

1:13:15>> Do we want to add people?

1:13:19>> Yeah, sure.

1:13:20>> I like that.

1:13:22Basic safety of people comma public and

1:13:25private property.

1:13:26>> Yes.

1:13:30>> I'm fine with that.

1:13:31>> This is all about people so

1:13:33>> Okay, well

1:13:34>> Not just the property.

1:13:35>> But I'm just saying safety in general it

1:13:36captures basic. I basic to me is just an

1:13:38emphasis word. Is that what your the

1:13:40intent is that I don't think it's

1:13:41necessary.

1:13:43Okay.

1:13:43>> The the uh

1:13:44>> Can we go back to E when we are

1:13:47>> Going to go back to F.

1:13:48>> Excuse me F.

1:13:49>> F.

1:13:50>> Uh so so F the last sentence I realize

1:13:52it does bring in the public nuisance

1:13:54part of this which I think is separate

1:13:56from public safety and just as

1:13:57important.

1:13:59So they may have data that suggests that

1:14:01they can hover this thing down in

1:14:0399.999%

1:14:05of the time it's safe but it is always a

1:14:07public nuisance so

1:14:10containing a public nuisance with one

1:14:12within one property parcel is impossible

1:14:15if you're lowering this drone down at 13

1:14:17ft above the ground

1:14:19creating all sorts of noise and

1:14:20threatening intimidation of this giant

1:14:22thing hovering over your your right next

1:14:24to your property. So I think that

1:14:26sentence does have some value in terms

1:14:27of it adds the public nuisance portion

1:14:29of this which is also under the auspices

1:14:32I think of the select board and the

1:14:33police department so

1:14:35um maybe that can be combined in the

1:14:37first sentence but the way it stands it

1:14:39does add additional element to the first

1:14:41sentence.

1:14:42>> I I I'm okay with the way E is actually

1:14:44me F is written now and the striking of

1:14:45the last sentence. That makes sense to

1:14:47me.

1:14:48>> Okay, we'll move into last sentence.

1:14:50>> Removing it, striking the last sentence,

1:14:51yeah.

1:14:51>> Or moving or moving to a separate

1:14:52section.

1:14:53>> There's a whole other noise and nuisance

1:14:55section.

1:14:56>> Yeah, I just wonder if

1:14:58I mean, if we're striking it, it won't

1:15:00matter, but

1:15:01are there any public nuisances that are

1:15:02permitted?

1:15:05Just unpermitted public nuisance seems

1:15:07Right.

1:15:07>> I Well, I think I think the when we

1:15:09started this

1:15:11scrubbing of the the bylaw, there were

1:15:13kind of three areas: public safety,

1:15:15public nuisance, and noise

1:15:17were the three areas, and we wanted to

1:15:18stick to that, and we wanted to stick to

1:15:20the ground. So, I think sometimes

1:15:21there's value in cuz some things can be

1:15:23a safety risk without necessarily being

1:15:25a public nuisance, and also vice versa,

1:15:28and this covers both of those aspects of

1:15:30the

1:15:31of dropping packages from the sky.

1:15:38>> I mean, I I don't have a problem leaving

1:15:40in the sentence any commercial ground

1:15:42takeoff. I don't I don't have a problem

1:15:43leaving it. I just don't know that it's

1:15:44necessary. It's sort of like is

1:15:47emphasizing the the

1:15:50the rest of the paragraph.

1:15:51>> Yes.

1:15:52I would say

1:15:54I would

1:15:55Maybe half of the None of this language

1:15:57was necessary if we could just say no

1:15:58drones.

1:15:59>> Yeah, I know.

1:16:00>> Yeah, the bylaw, you know, but it's all

1:16:02language, and if if it if it's if it's

1:16:05going to just make something stronger,

1:16:07I can leave it in. I don't see the a

1:16:09detriment to leaving it in.

1:16:13I mean, it may get struck, but we said

1:16:15that about a quite a few portions of

1:16:17this, so

1:16:18>> So, leave in What I'm hearing is there's

1:16:20an interest in leaving in that last

1:16:22sentence, any commercial ground takeoff,

1:16:24landing, or delivery destination

1:16:25constitutes a public nuisance

1:16:29affecting the entire neighborhood.

1:16:32>> I'm okay with that.

1:16:33>> Okay. Just take out the word

1:16:34unpermitted.

1:16:38>> If it goes back in, the only other

1:16:39change that is just a a error.

1:16:42Uncapitalized commercial should be

1:16:44defined term commercial UAS.

1:16:50>> Oh, yeah.

1:16:54So, are we keeping that sentence?

1:16:55>> Yeah, I think that's

1:16:57Yeah, I think that's where we landed.

1:16:58>> But that capitalized commercial UAS.

1:17:01>> Yeah, yeah. And then

1:17:04>> Take out unpermitted.

1:17:06>> I I

1:17:07>> And do we have to define commercial UAS

1:17:08then?

1:17:09>> We already did.

1:17:11>> Oh, I see it. Okay.

1:17:14>> So, so I

1:17:16apologize for joining late. Um

1:17:19Yes.

1:17:21Sorry, I just flew in. Um

1:17:22>> Not on a drone.

1:17:23>> Not on a drone.

1:17:24Um would have been faster than the

1:17:26>> And not dropping 13 ft.

1:17:29>> Um but just

1:17:33cuz I think I came in right on D, but if

1:17:34I Am I reading this correctly? If I read

1:17:36D,

1:17:37we have a stuff about

1:17:39you have to get permission to have a

1:17:40ground operation, but D basically says

1:17:42you can't have any ground operation.

1:17:43>> Exactly.

1:17:44>> And so then F

1:17:46says it again. So, that's what we're

1:17:48talking about.

1:17:49>> Yeah, and and D was understood that that

1:17:52might be language that might be wholly

1:17:54removed, but the rest of this language

1:17:57>> Okay.

1:17:58>> gives us cover.

1:18:00Yeah.

1:18:00>> Backups on backups. Okay, perfect.

1:18:03Sorry, I was late. Sorry, I apologize.

1:18:05>> fair observation and just one of the

1:18:06things we discussed earlier just so

1:18:09we're on the same page is

1:18:11we realized some of this may be subject

1:18:13to

1:18:14being carved back and or preemption

1:18:17and or other

1:18:18>> edits.

1:18:20>> And so, what we're trying to create is

1:18:22sort of a lattice

1:18:23of interlocking

1:18:26bylaw provisions that collectively, even

1:18:29if some of them might be struck down,

1:18:30achieve the overall goals. So, if you're

1:18:32saying, "Hey, this seems like there's

1:18:33some overlap here."

1:18:34>> There is.

1:18:35>> Yep, makes sense.

1:18:37I just wanted to make sure I wasn't

1:18:38missing something, so

1:18:39makes sense. Thank you.

1:18:40>> Um, just a quick comment on G. To me,

1:18:42that might be better suited as A because

1:18:45it speaks to the entire section and

1:18:47therefore

1:18:48um

1:18:49would be

1:18:50>> a good point.

1:18:50>> would be good appropriate at the

1:18:51beginning.

1:18:52>> Well, no, G, I think is just a reminder

1:18:56>> Yes, I think it goes at the end.

1:18:57>> not trying to regulate

1:18:59>> I think it's helpful at the beginning to

1:19:01state that.

1:19:02So that would be so that you have to

1:19:04summarize it. So that you have that

1:19:05context as you go through because if

1:19:07you're thinking all along as you're

1:19:08reading A B C D E that this is trying to

1:19:11regulate those. If you call it out in

1:19:12the beginning, there's it's very clear.

1:19:15>> I disagree.

1:19:16>> But that's a note that it's actually not

1:19:18clear that it is trying to regulate. It

1:19:21It would likely be found to try to I

1:19:23mean, you can leave the sentence in

1:19:24there, but the other A through F um

1:19:30do regulate um or or could be

1:19:33interpreted as regulating some airspace

1:19:35because of the way that the drones

1:19:37deliver.

1:19:39>> And And that does follow I Pardon me,

1:19:42that does follow other sections, right?

1:19:44Where in section one, the last paragraph

1:19:46was nothing in this bio by law should

1:19:49>> Yeah, I get it. And I I guess I I would

1:19:50say to that um I would say that it's

1:19:52appropriate in all of the sections to

1:19:54move it to the top because again, it's a

1:19:55parameter for the whole section to set

1:19:57the expectation of what you're now going

1:19:59to read.

1:20:00>> But I I like it at the end. I like it at

1:20:01the end of the summation.

1:20:02>> I'm not I'm not going to die on the hill

1:20:04for I'm just saying I think it's clearer

1:20:05at the beginning.

1:20:06>> It's in there, it's fine. I just it's

1:20:08much clearer if it's at the beginning.

1:20:10>> Okay.

1:20:12>> You got section five yet?

1:20:13>> We are.

1:20:13>> Yep.

1:20:14>> Okay.

1:20:15So

1:20:18I'm concerned about the first paragraph

1:20:21in section five.

1:20:23I think we are

1:20:25considerably overreaching

1:20:29trying to control in-state decimals

1:20:32within this paragraph.

1:20:33>> Well, I think we said this the other

1:20:34night. I think what we need to do is

1:20:36reference our own our zoning bylaws

1:20:38already. I mean, we're talking about

1:20:39those earlier.

1:20:40>> This is stricter. This is stricter than

1:20:42that.

1:20:43>> It it's more specific. I actually think

1:20:45our zone A3A is actually more strict

1:20:47than this because it it literally says

1:20:49any noise is not any perceptible noise

1:20:51is not permissible.

1:20:53>> But that's hundreds of feet away though.

1:20:55It's not saying any perceptible noise.

1:20:56It's saying hundreds feet away. This is

1:20:58saying

1:21:00>> This is specific to certain times of the

1:21:01day, at certain distances, and

1:21:04>> specifically to

1:21:07unmanned aircraft.

1:21:09Whereas the other noise ordinance is

1:21:11just generic.

1:21:12>> Yeah.

1:21:13>> So, if we leave it in, worst case

1:21:16the AG says it's not appropriate for a

1:21:20general bylaw, it's appropriate for a

1:21:21zoning bylaw,

1:21:23they take it out,

1:21:25and then we by then we've worked on a

1:21:28noise bylaw that would

1:21:31>> Well, I I I I think my other concern is

1:21:34I understand if if certain items are

1:21:37pulled out of here,

1:21:38I am concerned if they consider too much

1:21:41of this

1:21:42to be overreaching, they could

1:21:44potentially reject the whole thing.

1:21:48Like I look at this paragraph,

1:21:50I feel like it's got zero chance.

1:21:54>> Well, would you suggest something cuz

1:21:57as an alternate Sean around reference

1:22:00saying maybe our

1:22:02um 8.3A or are we hesitant to do that?

1:22:06>> I don't think we can reference uh I'm

1:22:08sorry, I interrupted. Go ahead, finish

1:22:10your thought.

1:22:10>> But I think we do reference that. I'm

1:22:12saying we leave A, B, C, and D in. I'm

1:22:14saying that paragraph up above where

1:22:17we're saying, you know, 55 decibels 7:00

1:22:19to 7:00 and

1:22:2145 at night, like

1:22:25we don't make

1:22:27It's hard to I think target a specific

1:22:30source of noise at different decimal

1:22:33levels versus any other noise within

1:22:35town.

1:22:36>> I think we're saying the same thing. I

1:22:37think you and I are saying the same

1:22:38thing. I think you're saying keep A, B,

1:22:40and C but eliminate what's in red up

1:22:42there.

1:22:42>> Yes.

1:22:43>> That that is exactly what I'm saying.

1:22:45When you say A, B, and C you mean 1, 2,

1:22:463, and 4?

1:22:47>> No, A, B, C, D.

1:22:48>> Section 5 A, B, and C. And I don't know

1:22:50if it be

1:22:54Cuz A specifically talks about nuisance

1:22:56bylaws and our zoning bylaw has a

1:22:59nuisance bylaw on it. Section 5.

1:23:00>> 83A is a nuisance bylaw.

1:23:02>> Oh, I see.

1:23:06>> So so in other words strike the 3A. It's

1:23:09By the way the first paragraph also does

1:23:11mention residential zoning and again I

1:23:12think we want to stay stay clear of all

1:23:14that.

1:23:15>> Exactly.

1:23:15>> Mention there. So so A, B, C, and D if

1:23:18we just left that in and strike the

1:23:20first paragraph would that be?

1:23:22>> Let's do that.

1:23:23>> That makes sense.

1:23:24>> Yeah.

1:23:24>> So I I think I I just I just feel like

1:23:27that first section's got like

1:23:29If it I think that one had a chance.

1:23:31>> And we can't get into any distances or

1:23:33anything. That's my concern on this

1:23:34because that really to me falls under

1:23:36zoning. So

1:23:37>> Okay, fair. Yeah, we're okay with that.

1:23:39>> Okay.

1:23:41>> So do we want to specifically go through

1:23:44A, B, C, D or we generally

1:23:46>> There is a note that A might be

1:23:48preempted.

1:23:53>> But it's ground operations.

1:23:57I think it's fine.

1:23:58>> Yeah.

1:24:00>> Yeah. I mean

1:24:00>> I think it's because the FAA has their

1:24:02own standards related to noise and so it

1:24:05could be preempted. I'm just raising

1:24:08these up so everyone hears it when

1:24:10>> [laughter]

1:24:11>> Yes. Thank you but I think that's

1:24:13general, right? Saying they should apply

1:24:16with our and so

1:24:18Um

1:24:19>> Plus if you if you got an aircraft,

1:24:21right?

1:24:22I mean with the aircraft, they they have

1:24:24to get a special permit for an aircraft

1:24:26or an airport. Here, they're trying to

1:24:28work through the town without any

1:24:29special permit, so there's no noise

1:24:32restrictions. So, I think referring to

1:24:33the bylaws like you suggested A, B, C,

1:24:35and D and making sure they stick to

1:24:36those. Because because they don't have a

1:24:39special permit for an airport or

1:24:40anything special here. So, they have to

1:24:42go by the regular town bylaws.

1:24:44>> Well, no. I think I think the zoning

1:24:46bylaws are are are in a play regardless

1:24:48of it's a special permit or a

1:24:51by right. It's still in play.

1:24:52>> Right. Right. But, what I'm saying is

1:24:53when you're talking about airports, they

1:24:55have to go get a special permit and

1:24:56there would be all sorts of different

1:24:58noise regulations that they would have

1:24:59to create for that airport. But, we

1:25:02don't have such an airport or any

1:25:04unmanned aircraft port, so we just have

1:25:06the regular zoning bylaws and they need

1:25:08to apply to them.

1:25:10>> Absolutely.

1:25:14>> So, do we end up with A, B, C, and D and

1:25:16strike the whole first paragraph?

1:25:17>> I think so.

1:25:19>> Just in C back up above, just kind of

1:25:22going through with clear eyes on the

1:25:24drafting.

1:25:25Um

1:25:26>> Where are we still at?

1:25:27>> just want to add at the very end after

1:25:28the word impacts of commercial UAS?

1:25:32>> Where are we?

1:25:33>> Yeah, that's a good point.

1:25:34>> It's just too broad as drafted.

1:25:37>> Which one is that? I'm sorry.

1:25:38>> C.

1:25:39>> It's at the end. Localized ground

1:25:41impacts of commercial

1:25:43>> Okay, can we just say related to this

1:25:44bylaw?

1:25:46How about

1:25:48>> I don't think it needs to be commercial

1:25:50UAS. Say hello, Jen.

1:25:51>> I think it's any unmanned aircraft

1:25:53systems.

1:25:54>> Great point. Yeah. It just needs

1:25:55something there.

1:25:56>> Okay, can we just say related to this

1:25:57bylaw?

1:26:01>> Yeah.

1:26:02>> Yes.

1:26:02>> That works, too.

1:26:03>> Related related to this bylaw, so that's

1:26:04why we don't miss anything.

1:26:11>> Okay.

1:26:12>> So.

1:26:13>> Okay.

1:26:14>> So, six is employee safety.

1:26:17>> This this is an interesting section.

1:26:19>> It's an interesting section, but

1:26:21depending on what gets strike down, it

1:26:23it may be a fallback section.

1:26:27>> So, the

1:26:30the first part of the sentence of

1:26:31section B in strict accordance with

1:26:33federal safety thresholds.

1:26:35Um

1:26:36there's just a note that

1:26:38>> That could be preempted.

1:26:38>> could be preempted.

1:26:40>> Right, we don't determine federal

1:26:42safety.

1:26:43>> Why don't we just take out that

1:26:44>> Take it out.

1:26:45>> in strict

1:26:46accordance with

1:26:48and just leave it at no

1:26:50>> Yeah, I think we were just trying to

1:26:51show them that we're doing what you

1:26:52asked and but we don't need to do that.

1:26:54So, it's confusing.

1:26:57>> Okay.

1:26:57>> any

1:26:58>> Section seven.

1:26:59>> Wait, wait, wait, just one second,

1:27:01please.

1:27:02>> Yes, sir.

1:27:03>> I like the way you're going.

1:27:05>> It's going to get Again, is this

1:27:06specific to only commercial UAS?

1:27:09Or is it no UAS shall initiate ground

1:27:11launch sequence?

1:27:13>> Well, it says shall apply to all in the

1:27:15intro.

1:27:18It

1:27:19speaks to the commercial.

1:27:29>> So, my question is should it should this

1:27:32section apply to all UASes?

1:27:35>> Not just commercial.

1:27:36>> Not just commercial.

1:27:43I think it should.

1:27:44>> it's not employee safety, right? Then

1:27:45it's just safety.

1:27:47>> Correct. We're talking about safety of

1:27:49all

1:27:50UAS staging ground operations.

1:28:02>> Sorry, I just missed this before. We we

1:28:03changed this to unmanned.

1:28:04[clears throat]

1:28:05So, that the zoning is just is unmanned

1:28:07aircraft systems, correct?

1:28:09>> Right.

1:28:09>> And does Does include just

1:28:12my drone if I I don't own one, but if I

1:28:15did?

1:28:16Is that what we're covering here?

1:28:18>> Right.

1:28:18>> That could have some unintended

1:28:19consequences on the recreational UAS and

1:28:22also the town

1:28:24UAS.

1:28:25>> Westborough TV would have to say,

1:28:27"Everybody get out of the We're We're

1:28:28going to video this, but you can't be

1:28:30around."

1:28:30>> Well, we do we do a section

1:28:31>> So, your options are to go through and

1:28:33carve out recreational and town from

1:28:35each Is it each provision that Cuz

1:28:38Patrick, your point makes sense, right?

1:28:40Then you'd have to carve it out in each

1:28:41spot, or

1:28:42you just specify this one's just

1:28:44commercial. And whether or not

1:28:46additional safety regs should apply to

1:28:47recreation is sort of

1:28:49a story for a different day, right?

1:28:51>> Can I ask you a question? I mean, like I

1:28:53mean, we're all up in arms about

1:28:55commercial.

1:28:57But

1:28:58what if every household was flying

1:29:00recreational drones?

1:29:03Would we be okay with that?

1:29:04>> I got a number from my neighborhood.

1:29:06All the kids all do.

1:29:06>> I have a question. What if I buy a drone

1:29:08that can go pick up my food for me?

1:29:10Right? Are we going to We want to

1:29:11regulate that, right?

1:29:12>> Yeah, no, I

1:29:13>> Not only that, I think

1:29:15you know, it's good to have a regulation

1:29:17that says if you're going to fly a

1:29:19recreational zone

1:29:21>> drone.

1:29:22>> Even it well, it whether it be

1:29:23Westborough TV, that there's some

1:29:25precautions taken

1:29:28for safety.

1:29:31>> Well, section 8 just

1:29:33speaks to authorized emergency immediate

1:29:36operations and what they can do, but it

1:29:38doesn't speak to ground safety.

1:29:40>> Right.

1:29:41>> Right.

1:29:41>> So, if you take out commercial and just

1:29:43make it apply to any unmanned aircraft

1:29:45systems,

1:29:47what you're basically saying is that

1:29:51you can't be within 150 ft of a

1:29:54an employee parking area.

1:29:57I mean, I

1:29:58>> Yeah, it really was written for the for

1:30:00the Amazon product. I mean, it's a it's

1:30:02a for a

1:30:04commercial UAS that has for a company

1:30:06that has employees, and if you're going

1:30:08to do that then you have to provide

1:30:11safety regulations around those. So,

1:30:13that's the reason it's here.

1:30:16It's kind of hard to graft on top of

1:30:18that with this language some other thing

1:30:20that affects

1:30:21commercial you could potentially do that

1:30:23at a future bylaw. But given that we

1:30:26have limited time and we need to get

1:30:27this bylaw done perhaps that could be a

1:30:29future bylaw.

1:30:30>> Yeah, bylaw revision.

1:30:32>> The bylaw revision.

1:30:33>> Rule of mind of not trying to create

1:30:35perfection here, right? But trying to

1:30:37get something. I I'll retract my earlier

1:30:39comment.

1:30:40>> I agree.

1:30:40>> I don't think anybody's under that.

1:30:42>> Yeah, that's it.

1:30:43>> Perfection is the enemy of good.

1:30:44>> Yes.

1:30:45>> So, there was only that one change.

1:30:47>> We just taking out in strict accordance.

1:30:49>> Okay.

1:30:49>> I do think that we should make a note of

1:30:51that.

1:30:53That if we're going to be regulating

1:30:54drones that we we want to make sure that

1:30:57people using these for recreational and

1:30:59other purposes are using them safely.

1:31:02Um

1:31:03>> Yeah.

1:31:04>> You know, with

1:31:05>> As to the best we can. I mean

1:31:06>> Yeah.

1:31:07>> Yeah, I mean I think what Yeah, I think

1:31:09>> But I don't necessarily know that we can

1:31:11revise this section. This is

1:31:13>> And and quite honestly I I don't

1:31:16We haven't looked at anything about

1:31:17recreational drones either. I don't know

1:31:19what the rules are. I don't know where

1:31:20the FAA comes in or doesn't. I just

1:31:22don't know. So, trying to put stuff in

1:31:24there now could just muddy the waters.

1:31:26>> I think it's I think it's we need to be

1:31:27aware of it and it might be for a future

1:31:29>> Yes, yes, okay.

1:31:30>> So, section seven has been identified as

1:31:33unnecessary

1:31:35because

1:31:36there are already laws that protect

1:31:37people and they the specifically noted

1:31:40that MassDOT approved it in other bylaws

1:31:44but just identified them as unnecessary.

1:31:51>> So, sec- section you were fine. That's

1:31:54section seven we

1:31:55>> I had a similar thought on earlier

1:31:57draft. I'm okay removing.

1:31:59>> Removing it?

1:31:59>> I'm fine with it.

1:32:00>> How do you all feel it?

1:32:03>> I'm fine.

1:32:04>> I the only question it would be whether

1:32:07there's a huge debate at town meeting or

1:32:09why aren't you protecting our privacy?

1:32:11>> It Why why is it being recommended to

1:32:14not include Why is it being recommended

1:32:16to not include section 7, Christie? I

1:32:18didn't hear you.

1:32:18>> It's just noted that there it's

1:32:20unnecessary because there are already

1:32:24applicable privacy laws that speak to

1:32:26both of these things and MassDOT

1:32:28specifically noted that when approving

1:32:30other similar bylaws.

1:32:32>> It is Are there laws that are specific

1:32:34to unmanned aircraft

1:32:36in this area? Cuz I have I was unaware

1:32:38of that, but maybe

1:32:39>> Yeah,

1:32:39there there's been a few.

1:32:42Not [clears throat]

1:32:43Well,

1:32:44they're different than what we're doing,

1:32:46but

1:32:47>> I don't think they're specific to

1:32:48drones. I think they're just specific to

1:32:50privacy laws.

1:32:52>> Christie, did you say that MassDOT

1:32:54allowed this in other provisions or

1:32:55didn't not did not allow it?

1:32:56>> They did with the comment that the

1:32:58provision is unnecessary.

1:33:00So, so you can leave it if you want to,

1:33:03but it's been noted as not being

1:33:05necessary.

1:33:07>> So, I think

1:33:08I don't know if that was Mark or Patrick

1:33:10who said, "I would worry

1:33:13because privacy was has been a big

1:33:16point of the conversation publicly.

1:33:19If it wasn't removed before, I think we

1:33:21should leave it in."

1:33:22>> My concern is, and I can be persuaded

1:33:24either way, is that as I think Christie

1:33:27mentioned at the beginning,

1:33:29there's a fine line we're trying to

1:33:30tread here, right? The Attorney General

1:33:33could strike this thing entirely, right?

1:33:35And I don't know what the threshold is,

1:33:36right? Is it 50% of it they don't like,

1:33:38therefore we're going to get rid of it?

1:33:40Or is it five things? Or is it one key

1:33:42thing? I don't know. But the more we put

1:33:43in there that's likely unnecessary or

1:33:46that could potentially raise their

1:33:47eyebrow, I'm concerned that they could

1:33:50you know, that that tally of we're not

1:33:53going to accept this at all might go up.

1:33:55>> Well, I'd be shocked if the threshold is

1:33:59well, you don't need that because

1:34:03we have laws in place on privacy.

1:34:05>> Yeah, I don't think it's right the whole

1:34:07thing with that.

1:34:08>> You know, it's it's just reinforcing

1:34:10that we have laws in place

1:34:11>> I'm saying I think it's

1:34:12I think it's

1:34:13I think it's fine to keep this as it was

1:34:14only noted as unnecessary.

1:34:16>> The straw that breaks the camel's back.

1:34:17That's all I'm saying.

1:34:18>> Yeah, I don't think it's problematic.

1:34:20Yeah, unnecessary is the

1:34:21>> I I don't think it's as as problematic.

1:34:23>> Well, they didn't remove it from before.

1:34:24They noted it, but they never removed

1:34:26it. They just said you don't need it,

1:34:27but we're not going to remove it. It's

1:34:28still can't put in there. So, it's like

1:34:30it's like belts and suspenders.

1:34:31>> And I

1:34:32I have a suggestion that maybe we we

1:34:34could minimize it and still keep because

1:34:36I think the importance that people are

1:34:37desiring for this number one is what

1:34:39Patrick articulated about it

1:34:41and shall be about

1:34:43giving a nod to the privacy concerns.

1:34:45Also,

1:34:47when we were at the first hearing with

1:34:48Amazon

1:34:49and someone raised privacy issue, the

1:34:51Amazon rep said, "We're Amazon." I'm

1:34:54paraphrasing. "We take your privacy very

1:34:56seriously."

1:34:57And unprompted and stereo, all 300

1:34:59attendees laughed at the person.

1:35:01Loudly. So, I think it would be nice to

1:35:04have something on on further

1:35:05consideration in here. What if we

1:35:07deleted B,

1:35:08deleted C,

1:35:10and ended A where it says

1:35:13"in a manner that violates." We just say

1:35:15"in a manner that violates

1:35:17applicable law."

1:35:19And we get rid of reasonable

1:35:21expectations. And we're just saying

1:35:24to Rod's point,

1:35:26it's pretty hard. I don't know that

1:35:28current laws on around privacy have ever

1:35:30been applied to the video recording

1:35:32of commercial drones because commercial

1:35:34drones are new.

1:35:35And they need

1:35:37the video recording capability to fly.

1:35:39That they told us.

1:35:41And people are very concerned about what

1:35:42happens with that. And we've been told

1:35:44they kind of like security in a

1:35:45convenience mart. It gets taped over

1:35:47unless there's an incident.

1:35:49But it's an unknown factor. So, we just

1:35:52said you can't use

1:35:54I'm giving you the principle here, not

1:35:55the language, but you can't use unmanned

1:35:57aircraft systems to record blah blah

1:35:59blah in a manner that violates law, then

1:36:01leave it to the courts to decide, but at

1:36:03least we have a hook.

1:36:05And then you can strike B and C and it's

1:36:07probably less objectionable.

1:36:08>> Okay, I'm I'm fine with that, but then

1:36:10we don't need to

1:36:11label it A. We just add it to Then we

1:36:14don't need to label it A. We just add it

1:36:16to the

1:36:16previous paragraph.

1:36:17>> I think you leave a version of C.

1:36:19>> Oh, yeah. I'm fine with that. Yeah.

1:36:21>> Well,

1:36:21>> I think you because because in every

1:36:23section we have something that states

1:36:26what it doesn't do.

1:36:27>> Okay with that, too.

1:36:28>> All right. So, we just remove B.

1:36:30>> Remove B.

1:36:31>> Okay.

1:36:31>> Keep C. Therefore, it's A and B.

1:36:34>> A and B.

1:36:34>> Okay.

1:36:35>> A and C.

1:36:35>> Yeah. It becomes

1:36:36>> It becomes A and B.

1:36:37>> Okay.

1:36:40>> All right. Eight

1:36:41>> scroll back up one second, Kristen?

1:36:47Perfect. Thank you so much.

1:36:48>> Thank you.

1:36:49>> Okay. Uh wait a second. It says this

1:36:51privacy

1:36:54in sections apply to all UAS operators

1:36:56including

1:36:59operators of recreational. So, now we're

1:37:01bringing in recreational here.

1:37:04Are we intending to do that? I thought

1:37:06it was just commercial.

1:37:08>> I think what we're saying you can't

1:37:09stalk people. I think that includes

1:37:12recreation because up top here

1:37:14up top here it just says unmanned

1:37:16aircraft.

1:37:17>> fine. I just wanted to

1:37:18>> I I think it's good and just outside of

1:37:21this whole Amazon thing and that's one

1:37:23of the concerns of mine and I said it

1:37:24but there's a lot of drones that

1:37:27>> Yeah. I'm in my backyard, in my pool,

1:37:29relaxing and I'm

1:37:30>> Exactly. And what this

1:37:32my neighbor's drone is hovering over me

1:37:34in my hot tub.

1:37:35>> Right. Right.

1:37:36>> Not me.

1:37:38>> [laughter]

1:37:38>> I'm confident that I'm confident

1:37:41I'm confident no matter what our police

1:37:43chief and our police staff are know

1:37:45what's legal and not legal regardless of

1:37:47its residential or commercial. So

1:37:49>> That's fine. I just

1:37:50we just had this whole conversation

1:37:52about residential. I just want to make

1:37:53sure I'm good.

1:37:54>> Section 8

1:37:55>> Wait, section 8 now?

1:37:55>> Section 8.

1:37:56>> Yeah, I think section 8 was pretty

1:37:58clean.

1:37:58>> Yep.

1:38:00>> I just one second, just

1:38:03just capital P.

1:38:05>> Basically makes exemptions for

1:38:07>> emergency personnel

1:38:08>> emergency

1:38:14>> Okay, so

1:38:15>> So the enforcement penalties, that was

1:38:17one area that we had hoped would be in

1:38:19here. I'm not sure if it

1:38:20is in here subsequently.

1:38:22>> So So So in this version um the master's

1:38:25guys have um stricken 9 and 10. But that

1:38:29was in your version. So they're still

1:38:31here in this version.

1:38:32>> All right. Can we Can we just take a

1:38:34quick look at that?

1:38:36Okay. Um

1:38:37>> I have a question, sir.

1:38:38>> Do we need, given all the work we've

1:38:42done, do we need section 9?

1:38:45>> I think

1:38:47one of the things we know we can control

1:38:49is town property.

1:38:51Like we know this makes it. So I think

1:38:54we just leave like

1:38:56>> Yeah.

1:38:56>> Yeah.

1:38:58>> Um

1:39:03There are services for lost pets that

1:39:06use drones to search for your lost pet.

1:39:08They're

1:39:09I believe you can hire them. Some of

1:39:11them are volunteer.

1:39:13Are we ex-

1:39:14cluding that?

1:39:16>> We are not uh

1:39:18>> I don't know what that is.

1:39:18>> providing that level of specificity in

1:39:21this bylaw.

1:39:21>> Okay, that's good.

1:39:22>> I mean, I would be surprised if somebody

1:39:25called up the police and said, "I

1:39:26understand somebody's looking for their

1:39:27lost dog, but they're using a drone."

1:39:30>> And I would be surprised, too, but you

1:39:32never know.

1:39:33>> Yeah. I I think we can

1:39:34>> our original draft we put in a section

1:39:36about um a way to register temporary use

1:39:40of commercial. So if somebody's doing a

1:39:42roofing job and they need a drone for

1:39:44one day to survey the rooftop, then they

1:39:46can go to town hall

1:39:47>> Section 10.

1:39:48>> and pull out a

1:39:49>> Yeah.

1:39:50>> Section 10.

1:39:51>> Yeah.

1:39:51>> Whatever it is. So, it's still in there.

1:39:52>> Yeah, I imagine. So, we're So, we're

1:39:54going forward we're going to use for

1:39:55conservation, for

1:39:58I mean that's but it's temporary. So,

1:39:59>> And we're

1:40:00going to start an end date.

1:40:01>> And we're still going through section by

1:40:03section.

1:40:03>> Yep.

1:40:04>> Okay, so section nine,

1:40:05we're okay?

1:40:06>> Yeah.

1:40:07>> There were a number of comments though.

1:40:08>> There are

1:40:08>> Yeah, so so delivery end point again Um

1:40:13there's a there's a proposal I guess to

1:40:16to make changes

1:40:18to say that no town employee official or

1:40:20agent may request an item be delivered

1:40:22to town property without prior written

1:40:24authorization from the town board

1:40:26officer or department head having lawful

1:40:28control of the property.

1:40:30>> I don't think we want to Well, this was

1:40:32part of our conversation I think on

1:40:35Tuesday, right? Do we want to keep the

1:40:37door open or do we just want to not

1:40:40allow it?

1:40:42>> Sorry, say again.

1:40:43>> Well, what Chris you just read I

1:40:44interpreted it to say that at some point

1:40:49with proper authorization a town

1:40:51official or employee could use town

1:40:54property as an end point drop area etc.

1:40:58That isn't what you just read.

1:41:00>> Yeah.

1:41:00>> Yeah.

1:41:01>> But not if the other provisions are in

1:41:02there.

1:41:04Cuz we're not allowing for drop areas.

1:41:06>> Then why would we have this language?

1:41:07>> would update number one to give that

1:41:09option. So, I think that's what the the

1:41:12proposal is is to update number one to

1:41:14be more specific about town employees,

1:41:16officials, that they can't just um

1:41:19request drone delivery to town property.

1:41:21And then that second part of that

1:41:24proposal you could you could keep or or

1:41:26remove which is without prior

1:41:28written authorization.

1:41:31>> I

1:41:34>> That makes sense to That makes

1:41:35>> I I don't know. Why why why is it okay

1:41:37that the town says

1:41:39we might we reserve the right to use

1:41:42drone delivery, but no one else can.

1:41:45>> Right.

1:41:46>> But why does it I think what Chrissy

1:41:47just said though, we if we take that

1:41:49bottom part out and just say

1:41:51we add in that no town employee official

1:41:54agent may request that an item be

1:41:55delivered to town property by UAS,

1:41:57period.

1:41:58>> Right.

1:41:58>> Oh, I'm sorry.

1:41:59>> Yes.

1:42:00>> I was saying you could that second part

1:42:01if you just leave it out then you I shut

1:42:03off my hearing aid.

1:42:04>> [laughter]

1:42:05>> Okay, that's fine.

1:42:06>> Yes. So in A though

1:42:08uh you have commercial

1:42:10>> Well, we're getting rid of A.

1:42:11>> We're getting rid of A.

1:42:12>> Okay.

1:42:14>> Okay.

1:42:15>> All right. So section nine

1:42:18>> substitute part of a common R-31 for

1:42:21this section.

1:42:22Is that right?

1:42:24>> Yeah.

1:42:25>> Okay.

1:42:26>> Thank you.

1:42:28>> Okay.

1:42:29Section 10.

1:42:43>> Do we want to to the question that was

1:42:45asked? I think it's a good one, Mark. Um

1:42:49do we want to

1:42:51kind of or are we are we covered with

1:42:53that with or similar short duration

1:42:56purposes?

1:42:58Does that cover for use?

1:42:59>> 10.

1:43:00>> Yeah. Do we specifically say lost pets?

1:43:05Or similar short duration

1:43:07>> covers it.

1:43:08>> Okay.

1:43:09>> The comment we have here though from

1:43:10council is temporary. Should we define

1:43:12temporary?

1:43:14Cuz someone else could say temporary is

1:43:15the next 10 years, but it's not.

1:43:26>> So

1:43:28going back to Mark's example though,

1:43:30right? This way it's written right now,

1:43:33it's talking about above a single

1:43:35property. I'm flying my drone up, I'm

1:43:37inspecting a roof, right? On that

1:43:39property.

1:43:40Mark's example, they're launching a

1:43:42drone and it could go off over fields to

1:43:44check for, you know,

1:43:45>> Well, it says here, land survey,

1:43:47utility, or infrastructure inspection.

1:43:49That could be

1:43:50all utility lines in town.

1:43:52>> Yeah, but you have to get all required

1:43:53property permissions.

1:43:55>> Correct.

1:43:55>> So, if I'm flying around town looking

1:43:58for a pet, I'm not going to get

1:43:59permission.

1:44:00>> Yeah.

1:44:00>> From over public roads.

1:44:03>> But if I'm flying over, you know, a park

1:44:05or, you know, anything, any

1:44:08You can't go out and get all those

1:44:09permissions. So, it's it's implying that

1:44:11it would only be over the property that

1:44:12you'd be surveying.

1:44:14>> Do we, I mean, I don't know, today when

1:44:16a realtor uses a drone, do they get

1:44:18permission? No. No.

1:44:20>> Westboro TV did stuff for the golf

1:44:22course and they've done stuff for

1:44:25other things. They've done the Turkey

1:44:26Trot.

1:44:28>> Westboro TV flew over the Amazon store.

1:44:32And that would be okay. I think under

1:44:33this language, that's okay because it's

1:44:35a single property. What Mark's example

1:44:37was, if I heard you correctly, Mark, was

1:44:39>> Yeah.

1:44:39>> we're searching for a dog that could be

1:44:41anywhere in town.

1:44:43>> No, that's what I'm saying, right? I

1:44:44understand. So,

1:44:46um

1:44:48but West, like using, well, I guess

1:44:50Westboro TV is a bad example because of

1:44:52what we already talked about what

1:44:53they're able to do cuz they can fly

1:44:54around and look at the rotary and they

1:44:55go down a street and presumably be over

1:44:58someone's house during that time, but

1:45:00they're exempted the way we've written

1:45:02this.

1:45:02>> Right.

1:45:03>> Um

1:45:05>> I think that doesn't apply to 10. Go

1:45:07ahead.

1:45:07>> I was saying that the bylaw was really

1:45:08meant to set up the structure, right?

1:45:10So, I assume there's going to be

1:45:11procedures that are set up by the select

1:45:13board, uh, you know, to administer these

1:45:15things. I mean, there'll probably be a

1:45:17procedure for short-term permits and uh,

1:45:20you know, if you find out they're

1:45:21unreasonable, then somebody flags, "Hey,

1:45:23this person is looking for a temporary

1:45:24permit for 3 months." And then they come

1:45:25and talk to somebody

1:45:27somebody else or the select board for

1:45:28that approval or it seems unreasonable,

1:45:30but but typically most of these things

1:45:32are pretty reasonable and

1:45:33straightforward. Well, real realtors are

1:45:35another one that do surveys of property

1:45:37for marketing pieces, but they're

1:45:39temporary with a short-term.

1:45:42>> Right. Well, the second paragraph does

1:45:44speak to that we could

1:45:47you know, we can establish reasonable

1:45:49permit or procedures. I mean, we could

1:45:52we could fix that language. I think that

1:45:54that in the first paragraph of section

1:45:5710, the last

1:45:59portion there

1:46:00around property permissions have been

1:46:02obtained.

1:46:05I don't know.

1:46:06>> Um

1:46:08maybe we could reference

1:46:11I don't want to say a permit, but since

1:46:13we're going to have new open government,

1:46:15we can create new permits. Maybe you

1:46:18have to get a permit to survey the

1:46:20roads.

1:46:21But I don't know.

1:46:23>> That's for another meeting.

1:46:25>> That becomes very expensive.

1:46:26>> Yeah, I'm just wondering though thinking

1:46:27about it. I you know, some people

1:46:29certainly dog lovers will say and I'm a

1:46:30dog lover.

1:46:32We'll certainly say uh

1:46:34you know, that they they see a search

1:46:35and rescue for their dog as being an

1:46:37emergency. I'm wondering if there's a we

1:46:38should add something to section E.

1:46:40>> Well, I just think that section section

1:46:41E has it in there. Search and rescue

1:46:43personnel performing official duties.

1:46:45>> But is that

1:46:46Right, but okay, but that to me people

1:46:49are thinking of our own police force,

1:46:51fire

1:46:51>> Sometimes it might be a private

1:46:52>> It could be a private entity.

1:46:54>> It doesn't say it.

1:46:56>> Well, it does in the title, but

1:46:58>> Right.

1:46:59>> Authorized emergency and media

1:47:01operations.

1:47:02I yeah, I don't know what those would be

1:47:04considered official duties.

1:47:06>> We look at something like that as an

1:47:08emergency.

1:47:08>> Can we just add

1:47:09>> We look at something like that. We're

1:47:10way overthinking this. We look at it

1:47:12something like that and say

1:47:14they'll ask forgiveness and not

1:47:15permission and

1:47:18it comes to that. It's Yeah, it's

1:47:19discussion for another day.

1:47:21>> We can wave the fine, right?

1:47:22>> Okay.

1:47:23>> We sure we don't want to add something

1:47:25in section 10 that like even a little

1:47:28separate paragraph that um

1:47:31>> calls [clears throat] that one thing

1:47:31out?

1:47:32>> No, cuz we're going to miss everything

1:47:33else.

1:47:33>> We're going to miss everything.

1:47:34>> Future board can wave the

1:47:35>> I'd rather be less specific than more

1:47:38specific.

1:47:38>> Yeah.

1:47:39>> If if if we end up slapping a fine on

1:47:41somebody that's doing that, then

1:47:43>> We're horrible people.

1:47:45>> Okay.

1:47:46>> We'll probably vote to wave it, yeah.

1:47:49>> Okay.

1:47:49>> So, the second one

1:47:50>> are we going to define temporary?

1:47:53>> No, I think we

1:47:54>> Can I Would we Would we say single day?

1:47:59>> I don't know if we have to because of

1:48:01the fact that we have that or similar

1:48:02short duration purposes.

1:48:06>> Sorry, Libby. You have something?

1:48:08>> Why don't we just take out temporary?

1:48:13>> Well, if it Well, no, cuz it it You

1:48:15don't want it to be permanent.

1:48:17>> Why don't we just call it short

1:48:18duration?

1:48:20>> Well, what's short duration?

1:48:22>> Yeah.

1:48:23>> I don't want to define it.

1:48:24>> Say temporary, and then I think we can

1:48:26come back and determine, I guess, with a

1:48:29some procedure that

1:48:30in theory they go to the bit Well,

1:48:35>> Nothing in this bylaw

1:48:36conductive for land survey I mean,

1:48:38you're giving specific use you know,

1:48:40times that

1:48:42people could use unmanned aircraft, land

1:48:45survey, structural roof inspection.

1:48:47>> Well, specific uses, not specific times.

1:48:49>> Could we say

1:48:50>> That's temporary.

1:48:50>> Temporary is determined by the select

1:48:52board, and then we could come back in a

1:48:54later date determine what we consider

1:48:56temporary.

1:48:59>> I think the intent of this is single day

1:49:01use.

1:49:02So, why wouldn't we call out single day?

1:49:04Yeah.

1:49:06Why not be specific? I mean, we have

1:49:07we've had some instances

1:49:10litigation in the past where that

1:49:13lack of clarity has caused issues. I

1:49:16think you should call it out.

1:49:17>> But how would you define So single

1:49:20Single day means what though?

1:49:22>> Cuz today

1:49:22>> Single 24-hour I think a single 24-hour

1:49:25period.

1:49:25>> Could you say individual?

1:49:28>> Individual day?

1:49:29>> No, just well, individual UAS

1:49:32operations.

1:49:33>> Can I Can I ask like maybe maybe we

1:49:36don't define the temporary

1:49:38and we see how it goes and then if we

1:49:40need to come back in and

1:49:43define because it's now all of a sudden

1:49:46a problem

1:49:47>> Right.

1:49:47>> then we either put some guidelines in

1:49:49that says refer to select board.

1:49:52>> I I think one person's temporary is a

1:49:54different temporary than somebody

1:49:55else's.

1:49:56>> But but again, going back to what

1:49:57>> So I'm I'm confused about why we would

1:49:59put single

1:49:59>> What time counsel said this is a this is

1:50:01not a provision that is going to get in

1:50:03their view will get struck. It's that it

1:50:08could create

1:50:09to the point you said it could create an

1:50:11issue.

1:50:13on interpretation lawsuit or some

1:50:14interpretation down the road.

1:50:16>> Right.

1:50:16>> I think

1:50:18>> Could you

1:50:18>> Trying to

1:50:19figure this out again now that this is

1:50:22like trying to get perfection here. I

1:50:24I When I read through this temporary

1:50:25sounds fine to me cuz people understand

1:50:27that temporary means short term.

1:50:30>> I agree, but

1:50:33185 185 for 90 days is going to be a

1:50:36temporary road closure. I don't expect

1:50:37it's going to be for 6 years.

1:50:39>> short on the single day cuz you said

1:50:41something there and I didn't quite catch

1:50:42it. What What was your reasoning not

1:50:44behind behind not putting a single day?

1:50:47>> Well, I just don't know how you would

1:50:48how [clears throat] you would apply

1:50:49that. So, I assume a realtor, right,

1:50:52might might do it in a single day, but

1:50:55multiple days over a month or a year.

1:50:58So, what if they do it today, tomorrow,

1:51:01and the next day? Like how do I I don't

1:51:02I don't I just don't know how you apply

1:51:04single

1:51:04>> so I would think that in this case you'd

1:51:07likely have as a as a as a resident or a

1:51:09property owner who says, "They've been

1:51:11flying this over here for 3 days now. It

1:51:13says single day." Right? And then that's

1:51:15how the violation gets

1:51:17implemented. It's not

1:51:19It's not 1 day isn't each is is a single

1:51:21day.

1:51:22>> Could you uh

1:51:23>> No, how about not conti-

1:51:24>> I'm sorry. Can we

1:51:26Can I get it Can I get it?

1:51:27>> Yep. Yep. All right. Yep.

1:51:28>> Uh

1:51:29Could we rephrase it to say, instead of

1:51:31nothing in this bylaw shall prohibit,

1:51:33could we just say UAS operations

1:51:35conducted Start with UAS operations

1:51:39uh for and or and then go or similar

1:51:41short duration purposes

1:51:44will not be impacted by this bylaw,

1:51:48provided that all property

1:51:51So, then this

1:51:52In other words, if nothing in this bylaw

1:51:54shall prohibit otherwise lawful

1:51:56temporary Start with UAS operations

1:51:59conducted for land surveys, structural

1:52:01or roof roof inspection

1:52:03etc. or similar short duration purposes

1:52:07will not be impacted by this bylaw.

1:52:11>> I like that.

1:52:12>> That's fine with me.

1:52:13>> Provided Take temporary out of there.

1:52:15>> Provided that

1:52:17And I guess then the duration Now, we

1:52:20didn't we didn't define short duration,

1:52:22but I think short duration

1:52:25because we're saying similar short

1:52:27duration, we're referencing

1:52:30actions that are

1:52:32pretty much

1:52:33short duration.

1:52:34>> Yeah, and I I think because we have in

1:52:35there all require property permissions,

1:52:37I would

1:52:40say that we could put policy in place

1:52:42that says there needs to be a permit or

1:52:44something. We could put something in

1:52:46place. We don't have to put in here, but

1:52:47could be a

1:52:49rule they have to follow.

1:52:50>> You may want to include some structure

1:52:52that just says to be further defined and

1:52:53determined and authorized by the Board

1:52:55of Selectmen, and then you can do

1:52:56whatever policies you want because then

1:52:57that gives you the flexibility. To me,

1:53:00it would be much like getting electrical

1:53:01permit or plumbing permit. Usually, it's

1:53:03a day, but

1:53:04>> ambiguity Ambiguity in a in a bylaw is

1:53:07not a good thing. So, I would not I

1:53:08would not want that. I would want to be

1:53:10more specific in that case.

1:53:11>> Another way you could do it.

1:53:13>> Allowed it the select board made

1:53:15determine this at another time. We can

1:53:17get to that.

1:53:17>> We can do that in the future. We said

1:53:18that earlier. We can change the bylaw

1:53:19anytime in the future. I'm not going to

1:53:20do that.

1:53:21>> We can't unless we go to Tommy.

1:53:22>> Could I make a suggestion into that

1:53:23effect that

1:53:25all required property permissions have

1:53:27been

1:53:28obtained and the operation complies with

1:53:31uh

1:53:33established town policy and applicable

1:53:37federal, state, and local law.

1:53:39Or I

1:53:40or just town policies and applicable

1:53:42federal, state, and local law.

1:53:45>> And and

1:53:46>> I would I would I would add at the end.

1:53:50>> I said the operation complies to the

1:53:51applicable federal, state, and local law

1:53:53and

1:53:55>> town board policy.

1:53:56>> and

1:53:57>> town policy.

1:53:58>> I was putting that before applicable

1:53:59applicable state. I have it either way

1:54:01either way.

1:54:02>> We should come before federal, state,

1:54:04and law.

1:54:05>> Why don't we put it after cuz there's

1:54:06local law and then if the local law

1:54:08doesn't cover it, we'll put a policy in

1:54:09place.

1:54:10>> You you you

1:54:10>> I don't want to put the I don't want to

1:54:12put the policy in here.

1:54:13>> Can I

1:54:14>> Christie's got it.

1:54:14>> You don't regulate within a bylaw.

1:54:16>> What what if you said applicable law and

1:54:19regulations that may be adopted from

1:54:21time to time?

1:54:22>> Well, what if How about and town

1:54:24policies?

1:54:24>> Yeah.

1:54:25>> We can't I'm sorry to add

1:54:28more gum to this, but if we go to the

1:54:31next paragraph, the second

1:54:35um sentence.

1:54:40>> It says temporary.

1:54:41>> No, well

1:54:42>> So, the whole permitting piece I think

1:54:44is problematic as it could conflict with

1:54:48could be preempted.

1:54:50It could conflict with with permitting

1:54:53and registration regulations under the

1:54:55FAA.

1:54:57>> Even for temporary use of things like

1:54:59what we're talking about.

1:55:00>> Um

1:55:02I assume related to the permitting

1:55:05piece. I mean, it's it's another thing

1:55:06where there just could be a risk of that

1:55:08being granted.

1:55:10>> Anyway, my point is is that that second

1:55:12sentence in this next paragraph says

1:55:14that they're we're not going to require

1:55:16a municipal permit for use of on private

1:55:19property.

1:55:21So, it seems to be confusing to me.

1:55:23>> I think you eliminate that paragraph.

1:55:24>> I agree. Eliminate the whole paragraph.

1:55:26>> Okay.

1:55:28>> And the purpose is fine.

1:55:29>> Can I just go back to the prior

1:55:31paragraph really quickly? Mark, I

1:55:32totally understand what you're doing

1:55:34with the change with the prohibit, but

1:55:37um

1:55:37in my experience, impact causes legal

1:55:40trouble

1:55:41because you don't know whether it's a

1:55:42positive impact, a negative impact, or

1:55:44how it might impact. I think it's

1:55:46allowed or it's prohibited. So, I I

1:55:48would suggest maybe to go back or just

1:55:50instead of impact

1:55:52>> Yeah, give me a different word. That's

1:55:53fine. I'll get my thesaurus out.

1:55:56We're taking temporary

1:55:57>> prohibited by this bylaw.

1:55:58>> temporary out of the beginning.

1:56:00>> Just put prohibited.

1:56:02>> It's a prohibited bylaw.

1:56:04>> Um

1:56:05you're taking temporary out of the

1:56:07beginning.

1:56:08>> Yes. Take temporary comes out.

1:56:10>> UAS operations conducted.

1:56:11>> Just UAS operations conducted.

1:56:13>> utility or short

1:56:14>> Okay. Thanks.

1:56:16>> will be allowed provided that all

1:56:19>> or similar short duration purposes.

1:56:26>> Okay.

1:56:26>> May be allowed?

1:56:28>> Should we say will be or maybe?

1:56:30>> It will be.

1:56:31>> Yeah, may is better.

1:56:33>> May is better?

1:56:36>> Yeah, especially if you're going to do a

1:56:37policy.

1:56:38>> Yeah.

1:56:39>> Okay.

1:56:40>> All right.

1:56:42>> Okay.

1:56:42>> Okay.

1:56:43>> Great.

1:56:43>> All right. I feel like I'm contributing.

1:56:45>> [laughter]

1:56:46>> That's right.

1:56:48>> I'm fine.

1:56:48>> All right. Section 11.

1:56:51>> Nothing was commented here.

1:56:52>> Yeah.

1:56:54>> This was removed though by Mass Coastal

1:56:56guys.

1:56:57>> Okay.

1:56:58>> Show me.

1:56:59>> again.

1:57:00>> 11, 12, and 13.

1:57:02Or all.

1:57:03>> We're performing your fish and chips.

1:57:09>> I think don't we didn't we cover this in

1:57:11eight?

1:57:12>> [clears throat]

1:57:16>> Yeah.

1:57:18That why?

1:57:19Is there anything additional?

1:57:23>> My AI may have been working overtime

1:57:25when I created this

1:57:27section.

1:57:28>> our version had the uh

1:57:31each individual offense, like for

1:57:33example, each landing

1:57:34>> No, we're not there. We're not there

1:57:35yet, Rob. We're on number 11.

1:57:37>> I think 11

1:57:38>> I think 11 is covered in section eight.

1:57:40>> Okay.

1:57:41>> So, I think we can remove 11.

1:57:42>> Just but I would like to everyone to be

1:57:44on the same page there.

1:57:45>> It's not anything that it's adding

1:57:47necessarily.

1:57:48>> Yeah. All right, strike it.

1:57:52All right, now we're on section 12,

1:57:54which will be renumbered at some point,

1:57:56but enforcement violations and

1:57:57penalties.

1:58:01>> [laughter]

1:58:03>> Okay.

1:58:07So,

1:58:09>> I like it.

1:58:10It leaves it open up for us to create

1:58:12the violation.

1:58:13>> But Mass Blue Skies struck it, so I'm

1:58:15interested in what

1:58:17they were

1:58:19>> Where's Where's the draft that we have?

1:58:21>> I think they struck it in favor of their

1:58:24proposed enforcement and penalties,

1:58:26which is at the bottom of page six of

1:58:29>> So, you have the section eight

1:58:30enforcement articles.

1:58:35It must have been a

1:58:36>> But you had a discussion on Tuesday

1:58:38about not defining the fine or not

1:58:41putting the fine in the

1:58:44bylaw.

1:58:46>> Yeah, I don't I don't personally agree

1:58:48with putting the amount of the fine in

1:58:49the bylaw. I think we should

1:58:51just leave it that we can

1:58:54>> Yeah.

1:58:54>> to institute fines and then

1:58:56>> Yep.

1:58:57>> we decide

1:58:58in our

1:59:01schedule of fines what the fine's going

1:59:02to be for this.

1:59:04>> Yeah.

1:59:05Yeah.

1:59:06>> Um

1:59:06>> That's a style of the fine for each

1:59:08offense.

1:59:08>> I I think it

1:59:09>> Like where did you come up Where did you

1:59:10come up with 300?

1:59:12>> Uh I believe it was the maximum um

1:59:16>> And so what if that maximum changes? Do

1:59:18we have to go back to town for a bylaw

1:59:20change?

1:59:20>> And I actually saw some that were 500.

1:59:22So I think there's Again, to your point,

1:59:24there's huge The way it's written in our

1:59:25version, it allows flexibility.

1:59:28>> I I think though that

1:59:30the bylaw Number one, certainly we don't

1:59:32want people

1:59:34violating the policy, but also recurring

1:59:36violations

1:59:38as well. In other words, if somebody

1:59:39only gets caught one time, but they've

1:59:41actually done it 100 times, they only

1:59:42get reported three or four times, but

1:59:44it's a nuisance to everybody.

1:59:45Um is there a way to make sure that

1:59:48doesn't happen? Um by piling up the

1:59:50fines and letting people know you're

1:59:52doing 300 and it's been daily and you've

1:59:54been doing this 10 times a day, so

1:59:55that's 3,000 a day. Uh you're now owing

1:59:58$100,000. That's a lot different than

2:00:00one person reported you and

2:00:02>> But I

2:00:03I equate it to like our liquor license

2:00:06violations. We have a We have a policy

2:00:08in place where the first offense is

2:00:11this, the second offense is this, the

2:00:12third offense is this. I think we would

2:00:14define all of that in a policy and and

2:00:17then in the policy, if the maximum

2:00:20allowable fine goes from 300 to 500 or

2:00:221,000,

2:00:24we can change it without going back to

2:00:26town meeting.

2:00:27>> The fine could change, but does it the

2:00:28recurring nature of another What

2:00:30constitutes a violation? Should it be

2:00:32each I would think it would be each

2:00:33flight. Each takeoff and landing is

2:00:35disruptive

2:00:36>> Right. Right. But I don't think we need

2:00:37to define that in the bylaw. I think we

2:00:39define that in our

2:00:40>> in a policy.

2:00:41>> in our policy.

2:00:42>> Yeah. I agree.

2:00:43>> And I'm not sure that the way we have

2:00:47>> [snorts]

2:00:50>> I mean I get

2:00:55>> We we basically have left it broad

2:00:56enough that it says for each offense

2:00:57that we can define what that offense is

2:00:59within the policy.

2:01:01That's how I would interpret it.

2:01:02Would be a

2:01:04>> a flight rather than a day.

2:01:05>> So we define what an offense what

2:01:07constitutes an offense.

2:01:08>> I mean if you get a speeding ticket,

2:01:09you're not

2:01:10exempt from another ticket that same

2:01:13day, right?

2:01:15>> I don't get that much, so I don't know.

2:01:17>> No, I mean I was

2:01:18>> [laughter]

2:01:18>> How do you know?

2:01:19>> I would say I would say

2:01:23I've gotten

2:01:23two speeding tickets in one day.

2:01:26>> [laughter]

2:01:26>> It's not unheard of.

2:01:28>> All right, so 12 is fine.

2:01:29>> Yes.

2:01:30>> Right?

2:01:30>> Yeah, I have I have one other

2:01:32>> What?

2:01:32>> pretty significant comment on 12, and

2:01:34it's not in the current text cuz it was

2:01:37in our prior draft, but as drafted, and

2:01:40I hear everything you said about the

2:01:41penalties and relying on a policy, so

2:01:43I'm

2:01:44happy to see that changed, but that only

2:01:46covers monetary damages.

2:01:49And I don't know if you need this from a

2:01:51town's perspective, but we'd like to

2:01:53have it just in case you do, which is to

2:01:55also allow the town to pursue equitable

2:01:58remedies, i.e. an injunction, like go to

2:02:00court and get someone to stop their

2:02:02behavior, which is different than

2:02:04assessing monetary fines.

2:02:07>> [clears throat]

2:02:08>> The example would be on speeding

2:02:10tickets, if you get five of them, then

2:02:11you lose your license. That would be a

2:02:14significant penalty for just recurring

2:02:16living with the recurring violation. And

2:02:18remember this is a

2:02:20We're we're talking about not just this

2:02:22company, but any company, cuz we know

2:02:23this is the tip of the iceberg when it

2:02:25comes to drones.

2:02:26That um

2:02:29They have a lot of money, so

2:02:31strategically, if they want to do drone

2:02:33thing, they they wouldn't care about

2:02:35$300 a trip, they would they would just

2:02:36pay that and call it the cost of the

2:02:38>> care if we escalated it per offense, per

2:02:41second offenses.

2:02:43>> I'm sorry. Is there a reason why that

2:02:45language would be problematic from the

2:02:47town's perspective?

2:02:49I this

2:02:50>> Is it not already assumed that we can

2:02:51put we

2:02:52>> I'm sorry. Go ahead.

2:02:53>> No, it's

2:02:54>> No, I was I think we were going to say

2:02:55the same thing. I mean, I don't I don't

2:02:57know why I don't think a bylaw needs to

2:03:00to explicitly give you the right, but

2:03:04um

2:03:06>> We already have the right to do that.

2:03:07>> If you if you could confirm with town

2:03:09council if the fact that it refers to

2:03:12this is the way to enforce only

2:03:14addresses monetary penalties, doesn't

2:03:17prevent the town from also seeking

2:03:19equitable remedies, I'm fine. I just my

2:03:21concern was it doesn't expressly allow

2:03:24it. If you're addressing otherwise how

2:03:26to police it, then is that addressing

2:03:28supposed to be

2:03:29>> I think that's a good suggestion. So,

2:03:31let's check with town council and see if

2:03:33we need to add something

2:03:35that would give us

2:03:37the ability to seek injunctive relief.

2:03:39>> Yeah.

2:03:39>> My question would be is what we already

2:03:41have in there in the last sentence which

2:03:43says violations may be enforced by

2:03:45non-criminal disposition

2:03:47under mass general law and the town's

2:03:49applicable general bylaws or by any

2:03:50other lawful process. So, does that

2:03:52other lawful process include what was

2:03:55put in yours which is the

2:03:57file civil action?

2:03:59So, I would just ask council if that

2:04:01would be covered in that.

2:04:02>> All right. Good question.

2:04:03>> Yep. All right. The last thing

2:04:04>> Okay.

2:04:05Is that it?

2:04:06>> Uh section 13

2:04:10We're we're we're close. We're close. 13

2:04:12>> 13 is covered from what we talked about

2:04:15previously in section

2:04:19Well, I shouldn't say that cuz that was

2:04:21around temporary.

2:04:24>> No, I think we did that.

2:04:25>> 13 is good because it gives you

2:04:28other powers the ability to establish

2:04:31rules and administrative procedures.

2:04:33>> Good. Keep it.

2:04:34>> 14

2:04:37>> Do you guys have a comment?

2:04:38>> Severability Yeah, I mean to the maximum

2:04:40extent I think we just want to make sure

2:04:42that we compartmentalize the language

2:04:44and make it severable so that if you

2:04:45lose

2:04:46you know a couple of fingers on your

2:04:48hand the rest of the hand still intact.

2:04:50So I I think that was just to make sure

2:04:51it's maximized and I would leave it up

2:04:53to legal counsel to figure out the best

2:04:55language to to achieve that. What do you

2:04:56think Phil?

2:04:58>> Yeah, I I I think the language there

2:05:00works.

2:05:01>> Okay.

2:05:01>> Okay.

2:05:02>> And and we had talked on Tuesday about

2:05:05removing the reference to the Attorney

2:05:07General based on counsel's comments.

2:05:10>> Couple of questions of clarity.

2:05:12So while this is being reviewed by the

2:05:14state AG providing assuming it passes

2:05:17town meeting um what happens in the

2:05:19interim? So let's I'll play out a

2:05:22scenario. Let's say the ZBA appeal we

2:05:25think we're on very solid footing with

2:05:26that appeal but we don't know that

2:05:28there's no guarantee of the result.

2:05:30Could be back in front of the planning

2:05:31board and there could be drones flying

2:05:33by December. So

2:05:34that's worst case scenario. So what

2:05:36would happen if this bylaw was on the

2:05:38book and being reviewed by the AG? What

2:05:40would be the status of their ability to

2:05:41do that?

2:05:44>> That's million dollar question.

2:05:46>> Well, I

2:05:46I think that

2:05:48probably nothing would stop them from

2:05:50doing that other than knowing that this

2:05:53was pending.

2:05:54Right?

2:05:55>> Mhm.

2:05:56>> But if this if this if this bylaw then

2:05:58gets put in place they have to stop. So

2:06:00the question would they want to put all

2:06:02the efforts in and then know they have

2:06:04to stop.

2:06:05>> The question it also has the retroactive

2:06:07penalties. In other words, is this

2:06:08effective the date of town meeting or is

2:06:10it effective only when the state AG

2:06:12approves it?

2:06:14>> I think it's when the state AG approves

2:06:15it and it's posted by the town clerk.

2:06:18>> Right?

2:06:18>> No, it's when it's approved.

2:06:20>> When it's approved.

2:06:21>> So it would be retroactive?

2:06:22>> I read it here.

2:06:23>> Right.

2:06:23>> By the AG, sorry.

2:06:25>> Approved by the AG.

2:06:26>> Um

2:06:27>> Oh, so the date is the approval by the

2:06:29AG?

2:06:29>> That's

2:06:30I believe it which is different than a

2:06:32zoning bylaw.

2:06:33>> Our town council said they would not

2:06:34take effect until approved by the AG's

2:06:37office and published by the town clerk.

2:06:39>> But I would also assume that if they

2:06:41were

2:06:43granted a site plan or special permit if

2:06:47it goes that way, depending on ZBA's

2:06:49decision,

2:06:50that somebody from the town, not

2:06:54necessarily you, but or somebody out

2:06:56there might appeal that decision.

2:06:59And then it would not go forward until

2:07:02that appeal was heard.

2:07:04>> Absolutely. We we've thought of all

2:07:06these scenarios and the only thing I the

2:07:08only reason I'm asking is to what degree

2:07:11this stops it. It sounds like it does

2:07:13not in the interim. While the review's

2:07:14happening, we should not depend on this

2:07:17uh to be

2:07:18>> not depend on this at all.

2:07:19I think we should have another bylaw

2:07:22that we start working on in case this

2:07:24one doesn't do the job.

2:07:26>> Absolutely.

2:07:28>> I I think we could also ask um our state

2:07:30officials if they could request some

2:07:33expedited review by the Attorney

2:07:35General. I don't know if I don't know

2:07:37how much that flies, but

2:07:39>> And by the way, just so you I'm sure you

2:07:42are probably aware about

2:07:44the other players like Walmart are

2:07:46coming with drones. So they've partnered

2:07:48with Google up in the Northwest, I think

2:07:50in the Seattle area, I read. So they're

2:07:51doing a pretty significant drone

2:07:53delivery program. So uh tip of the

2:07:55iceberg. And uh so I think this is very

2:07:57timely what the select board in the town

2:08:00meeting is doing.

2:08:01>> Lowes and Walmart. Actually, for the

2:08:03record on that, one final comment here,

2:08:06cuz I know we're being recorded and I

2:08:08know a lot of different people may be

2:08:09watching this for different purposes.

2:08:11We've been using Amazon a lot tonight as

2:08:13an example because they're the first and

2:08:16they're here. And we have named them and

2:08:18we've talked about them

2:08:20how various bylaws address their

2:08:23proposed operations. And for the record,

2:08:26I want it to be really that that's by

2:08:28way of illustration only and doesn't

2:08:30apply to Amazon. And what we've drafted

2:08:32is in no way targeting Amazon, but it's

2:08:35for any and all commercial delivery of

2:08:37the likes that we've talked about

2:08:38tonight. Walmart has Walmart has it

2:08:40already in operation. So, nothing that

2:08:43we or to my understanding the select

2:08:44board has been drafting tonight is

2:08:46targeting Amazon.

2:08:48And lastly, thank you all very very

2:08:50much. They say democracy can be messy.

2:08:54With the I think we had an hour the

2:08:55first time to look at the last draft of

2:08:57bylaws. So, a little chicken wire and

2:08:59duct tape never hurt anybody. From the

2:09:00bottom of our hearts, thank you very

2:09:02much.

2:09:02>> Thank you.

2:09:03Absolutely. And I echo the same remarks.

2:09:05And I was proud of the of the way that

2:09:07the collaborations happened over the

2:09:09last couple of weeks. And really

2:09:10appreciate the openness with which the

2:09:12board has treated us. And also, the way

2:09:14that they've listened to the residents

2:09:15and voters. So, thank you.

2:09:18>> Thank you.

2:09:18>> And I gentlemen, thank you both. And I

2:09:20think for us it's a huge benefit. Sort

2:09:22of

2:09:22this conversation would have happened

2:09:24Monday. So, I think it was very

2:09:25beneficial to us just to move it forward

2:09:28a few days to sort of give people an

2:09:30idea of what was going to be discussed.

2:09:32And then hopefully, instead of hours on

2:09:34Monday, it's

2:09:36compressed.

2:09:37>> Will there still be a pre-meeting

2:09:38Monday? Or what is the schedule for the

2:09:40selectmen if there happens to be one

2:09:42little thing or or something that was

2:09:44>> Yes, we always post one.

2:09:46>> Yeah.

2:09:47>> Just, you know, in case. Whether or not

2:09:49there will be anything communicated, it

2:09:52may be

2:09:53opening

2:09:54>> But I think you're saying what should we

2:09:55be bringing in front of us or the

2:09:56>> For example, so if we notice something

2:09:58that that we didn't notice tonight,

2:10:00which is possible, that we notify Chris

2:10:02and

2:10:03say we'd like to address this

2:10:05prior to the meeting.

2:10:05>> 6:30. 6:30. We've never had anyone there

2:10:09for open forum, but have we?

2:10:11>> Not open forum, but

2:10:12>> Just

2:10:13>> It's not really open forum. It's really

2:10:14kind of

2:10:14>> It's a it's a public

2:10:16>> It's a catch all.

2:10:17>> Have we already posted that pre-meeting?

2:10:19>> Yes.

2:10:20>> Okay. What time is it?

2:10:21>> 6:00.

2:10:22>> 6:00. Oh, it's 6:00. Okay.

2:10:24>> All right. Thank you.

2:10:27>> Christie, I'm not sure how much you

2:10:28thought thought about drones 3 weeks

2:10:30prior to this, but thank you for all the

2:10:32hard work and coordinating with town

2:10:33council, etc. Thank you.

2:10:36>> Okay, we we actually did have an item

2:10:38number three.

2:10:39>> Can you

2:10:41I think

2:10:42there should be some

2:10:44motion

2:10:47>> No, no, no. Yeah, I'm listening.

2:10:49>> finish Um so there should be some motion

2:10:52from the board that this is the one that

2:10:54you want to move forward with

2:10:56and then we would print that we would

2:10:57put it online. We have to file it with

2:10:59the town clerk.

2:11:01I think that you could

2:11:03make your motion

2:11:05authorizing me to finalize with town

2:11:07council because there are some things

2:11:09that you wanted to raise with him

2:11:11and then we would just finalize that and

2:11:12then if there was something that came up

2:11:14in the interim over the weekend or

2:11:17Monday, it would just be an amendment

2:11:19that would be made at that at that time.

2:11:21>> Perfect.

2:11:22>> So I would move to authorize the town

2:11:24manager to

2:11:26work with town council to

2:11:28finalize the um

2:11:31bylaw that we just

2:11:32>> As discussed tonight.

2:11:33>> as discussed tonight and as amended.

2:11:36>> Second.

2:11:37>> Okay, any further discussion? No, all

2:11:39those in favor?

2:11:415 to 0. Thank you very much.

2:11:44Okay.

2:11:45>> Do we have something else?

2:11:46>> We had discussion of our letter.

2:11:49Consideration of communication and here

2:11:51it was to the congressional delegation

2:11:53and the FAA.

2:11:55Now, since Tuesday

2:11:58um Ed Markey's office in coordination

2:12:02with our other other members of our

2:12:04delegation has sent a letter to the FAA

2:12:07and Amazon

2:12:09requesting

2:12:10um

2:12:11a sort of expedited environmental review

2:12:14and I I mean Christie, if you want to

2:12:15play it out.

2:12:15>> Yeah, so um so we've been considering a

2:12:18different letter to the FAA um which or

2:12:22was initially sort of intended to just

2:12:24advise um our frustration with the lack

2:12:27of communication to the municipalities

2:12:29that are involved and how their

2:12:30framework is difficult um understanding

2:12:34that the common period for for that um

2:12:37specifically specific like regulation. I

2:12:40forget what they call it, but it was

2:12:42well past. It expired in October of

2:12:442025. Um but we had intended to give

2:12:47them some feedback about our frustration

2:12:49in our specific situation. Um but then

2:12:52when with this letter um that that the

2:12:56federal delegation has sent on to the

2:12:57FAA, um I think it gives us a clearer

2:13:01ask of the FAA and Amazon. So just in if

2:13:05you didn't have a chance to look at it,

2:13:07um our federal delegation uh issued two

2:13:10letters yesterday. One was to uh the FAA

2:13:13requesting that they require a

2:13:15site-specific um

2:13:18environmental assessment of of

2:13:19Westborough um and they identified the

2:13:22differences um in New England and the

2:13:24Northeast than the other areas that

2:13:26they've previously um

2:13:29done site-specific assessments in which

2:13:31they've based sort of a broader ability

2:13:33for drone delivery on.

2:13:35Um and then the request to Amazon was

2:13:37very similar where they asked Amazon to

2:13:41essentially voluntarily participate in

2:13:42that type of uh work with the FAA for

2:13:44that. Um and they've asked for a

2:13:47response from Amazon and the FAA by

2:13:49October 29th. Um so either that they're

2:13:52going to do it or or if they're not, why

2:13:54they're not going to do it. Um so the

2:13:56letter that we've drafted that I sent

2:13:58out to today is just in support of those

2:14:01two letters. Um it would go to Amazon

2:14:04and the FAA requesting similarly that

2:14:07site-specific um assessment. It creates

2:14:10a public um process where um residents,

2:14:15municipalities can engage in the process

2:14:17and provide comment.

2:14:19I sent out an email last week to all of

2:14:24the other impacted communities, the two

2:14:25mayors, and all the other managers

2:14:27just giving them a link to our website.

2:14:30Today, I sent them the

2:14:33a link to those letters and let them

2:14:35know that this board would be

2:14:36considering a letter in support of those

2:14:39two letters.

2:14:40And then just asking them to prepare for

2:14:42an expedited review of their town

2:14:44potentially signing on to that letter.

2:14:47So, you'll see that there's a signature

2:14:48line for each community and there's also

2:14:50a CC to our federal delegation, the

2:14:53governor and LG,

2:14:55and then all of the representatives and

2:14:58senators at the state level that

2:14:59represent the 16 communities.

2:15:01>> Great. Thanks, Jess.

2:15:03>> Thank you.

2:15:03>> So, I've already received feedback from

2:15:05or I've already received responses from

2:15:07a couple of the communities saying that

2:15:08they're very interested in that. I think

2:15:10a lot of I've heard even before this

2:15:13that there were other select boards that

2:15:14were considering letters to different

2:15:17entities.

2:15:17>> I believe Shrewsbury actually has an

2:15:19article

2:15:22something about drones on their town

2:15:23meeting.

2:15:24>> Yes.

2:15:24>> Yep.

2:15:25>> Yep.

2:15:25>> I I didn't read it, but I saw that. Yep.

2:15:28>> Timing-wise, right? We're talking about

2:15:31getting this all wrapped

2:15:33>> by Friday of next week.

2:15:34>> By Friday of next week.

2:15:35>> Okay. So, and I'm sorry. I didn't Was it

2:15:38updated Was our communication updated?

2:15:42>> an email today. Yeah.

2:15:44>> Just the one 11:20 this morning?

2:15:46>> I think this one similarly you could

2:15:48vote to authorize me to finalize and

2:15:51send out. So, I can get it to the

2:15:53different communities by the end of the

2:15:55day tomorrow.

2:15:56>> I didn't see anything.

2:15:57>> So, I

2:15:58I mean

2:15:59>> Oh, did that just go to

2:16:01>> I

2:16:01>> 11:20 was just Shawn and I cuz we were

2:16:03the team that

2:16:04>> Yeah.

2:16:04>> Yeah.

2:16:05>> Yeah, yeah.

2:16:06>> I didn't

2:16:06>> a lot of

2:16:07>> Sorry, yes, Mark.

2:16:08Uh

2:16:09I think we have to recognize that this

2:16:11might just be the beginning. Like I feel

2:16:13like we, you know, we we can't put all

2:16:15our hopes

2:16:17on this one bylaw.

2:16:18>> Right.

2:16:20>> Um

2:16:21we need to have

2:16:23more ammunition ready to go.

2:16:26And I one of those things may be

2:16:28a state

2:16:30law on drones a state law on drones

2:16:33because

2:16:35state sprites

2:16:37I mean, the Supreme Court has recognized

2:16:39state sprites

2:16:41on a lot of regulations.

2:16:44And this may be one where we have to

2:16:46have a state-wide ban and not just a

2:16:48municipal ban. So, uh you know, I think

2:16:51we need to stay in touch with our

2:16:53our legislators on that and um

2:16:56>> Mhm.

2:16:57>> but personally as a town, we need to

2:17:00start working on a

2:17:02you know, another option so that in

2:17:05March

2:17:06we're not caught

2:17:08last minute.

2:17:10Let's do something in 2 weeks like we

2:17:11did this time.

2:17:14I I don't know what that is if it's a

2:17:15noise bylaw

2:17:16or uh

2:17:18>> Mhm.

2:17:18>> uh air rights

2:17:21you know, I mean, I

2:17:23I know they say that the they regulate

2:17:26air rights except

2:17:28you know, if I

2:17:30if my neighbor's tree is hanging over my

2:17:32driveway, I can cut down those branches,

2:17:35right?

2:17:36I I own the mineral rights below my

2:17:39house, right? All the way to the, you

2:17:41know, where does the where do my air

2:17:43rights stop?

2:17:44>> So, I think it's a great question, but I

2:17:46feel like we're sort of getting like out

2:17:48of scope of I I appreciate the work

2:17:50>> I just want to remind everybody this is

2:17:52not the end. Like I I mean, as much as I

2:17:54want to go home right now, it's just the

2:17:55beginning. So, we need to

2:17:57>> So, the questions in the email that I

2:18:00sent it to but I I do want

2:18:02to attach it so you can read it. Right

2:18:04now it's three pages or

2:18:07I just would really like to get it out.

2:18:08I did look at it with Shawn and Patrick

2:18:11which was

2:18:11>> What do you guys think as chair and vice

2:18:13chair? I'd defer to you guys if

2:18:14>> I'm a vice chair, but

2:18:15>> Yeah.

2:18:16>> [laughter]

2:18:16>> No, I mean

2:18:17>> Delegate to Patrick.

2:18:18>> Well, I think it was a very well written

2:18:20letter. We did go through it. I think we

2:18:21had two meetings on it two or two or

2:18:23three meetings that Shawn and I we went

2:18:25through it and um

2:18:26it took Christie's point really

2:18:28reinforces the federal letters and

2:18:31>> If you can

2:18:32>> I trust your work.

2:18:33>> Just send it to you.

2:18:33>> If you can provide it to us, that's

2:18:34fine, but I would move that we um

2:18:37uh

2:18:38uh

2:18:39authorize the town manager to uh

2:18:42finalize the letter and send it.

2:18:45>> Great.

2:18:46>> Second it.

2:18:47>> Uh

2:18:48>> Thank you for your work.

2:18:49>> We get it. You seconded that?

2:18:51Okay. Thank you. Uh any other

2:18:53discussion? All those in favor?

2:18:56Okay.

2:18:57Christie, thank you very much.

2:18:58>> Thank you.

2:18:59>> Great.

2:18:59>> Sorry about that.

2:19:00>> Um so that's number three. Um so we've

2:19:04been really busy the last two days, so

2:19:06no new minutes.

2:19:08Uh

2:19:10two crazy days here.

2:19:12Uh we did not have

2:19:15uh

2:19:17correspondence or anything else on this.

2:19:19This was a very focused meeting.

2:19:21>> Perfect.

2:19:22>> Um I believe there's no executive

2:19:24session after this, so

2:19:26>> Motion to adjourn.

2:19:27>> Second.

2:19:29>> All those in favor?

2:19:30>> Oh, I said oh.

2:19:31>> Thank you Westboro TV and thank you to

2:19:33everybody who was here tonight. Thank

2:19:34you very much.

2:19:35>> Christie, I