by Frank Schroth

At last Thursday’s meeting of the Planning Board there were hearings scheduled for 7 articles that will appear in the Annual Town Meeting Warrant. Two were discussed, both citizens petitions. One would permit Thayer Nursery to operate their landscaping, nursery, and snow removal operations from their Hillside Street location. The second would add a zoning bylaw for attached condominium residences at a location off of Pleasant Street. This will be covered in a separate post.

Chair Whiteside noted at the beginning of the session that the hearings will be continued on February 27th due to the inclement weather last Thursday. This will allow any residents that might have an interest in commenting on the matters to do so.

Ned Corcoran, an attorney representing Thayer, provided a presentation. He began by noting that the Oldfields, the owners of Thayer Nursery, acknowledged that they “had not paid attention to neighbor relations” .  .  .and were “committed to an expenditure of dollars to change [and make their operations] neighbor friendly.”

There is a long history here of neighbor complaints. The key issue of contention is Thayer operating a landscaping business from their Hillside location. The business began as a nursery and the zoning permitted that but over time the landscaping line of their operation has grown substantially and is not permitted by current zoning. The neighbors state that odors, noise from heavy equipment, and traffic concerns have all contributed to having an adverse impact on their quality of life. The Zoning Board of Appeals ruled that Thayer’s operation of the landscape business was a violation and they needed to move that off the premises. Ms. Oldfield, who was present at the meeting, said the landscaping operation had been moved to Stoughton in January.

Thayer wants keep the landscaping business on the site, hence, the citizens petition. Mr. Corcoran presented several steps that Thayer would take to mitigate the impacts. These include but are not limited to:

• Resurfacing the yard. The hard packed surface of the yard amplifies the noise of bobcats and trucks. He said softer surface would reduce that.
• Moving the operations further away from the abutters property and increasing the size and amount of vegetation (e.g. including white pine trees) to both screen dust and noise.
• Organize the yard in a manner that reduces need of equipment to back up (vehicles backing up typically make a loud sound as an alert)
• Redesign the storage of mulch and other materials to reduce odor and dust

Corcoran said that checks would be built into the process to changes in operations had desired effect and “kept Thayer’s feet to the fire.”

Phillip Johenning and John Rowe whose property abuts Thayer Nursery  were also represented by counsel. Attorney Matt Dunn argued against what was being requested in the petition. He characterized it as a “spot zoning amendment” that “provided an economic benefit unavailable to any other resident.”

Mr. Dunn reviewed the history of the property stating that  a special permit that was issued in 19667 allowing the nursery business. In 2002 there were complaints from neighbors regarding the operation of the landscaping business that was inconsistent with the permit. Dunn cited the traffic of 18 wheelers dropping off firewood as among the issues contributing to a deterioration of property values. He also said that taxes paid by the business were far less than those paid by residents.

Whiteside said it might be considered “legal spot zoning” and Mr. Corcoran added that what was being proposed was an overlay and that there were statutory exemptions to spot zoning for properties of a certain size.

Member Kelly asked Corcoran why Thayer had not been paying a commercial tax rate. Mr. Corcoran said he did not know and that it was a question for the assessors.

Several residents spoke at the hearing. All except one spoke in opposition. Mr. Joehenning was especially critical stating that “The town does not enforce anything .  .  . we see complete indifference from the Building Inspector .  .  . this is pathetic.”

Member Duffy told one resident who stated that he did not hear the noise from bobcats on his property to have his hearing checked.

Mr. Whiteside encouraged residents to be specific with their issues. He said he did not expect that the article could pass as written and Member Innes agreed. Mr. Corcoran said that Thayer was open and willing to sit down with neighbors to discuss concerns. Whiteside noted that the Oldfields had been in town for quite some time and that town meeting might be inclined to reward them.

Following is a synopsis courtesy of William Clark, Town Planner, of the 7 articles that will be before Town Meeting. The hearing on these will continue 2/27.

ATM 2014, Zoning articles synopsis: 

1. Zoning Bylaws, reformatting – The submitted article is attempt by the Planning Board to make the Zoning Bylaws more user friendly. The rewrite will feature a more simplified process to understanding the Town of Milton zoning requirements.
2. Cluster Development – The submitted article is a rewrite/updating of the current Cluster Bylaw, submitted by the Planning Board. As currently constituted the bylaw is not very useful
3. Medical Marijuana – Last May, Town Meeting voted a 1 year moratorium on the placement of Medical Marijuana facilities in the Town of Milton. This article is the final product, of the Medical Marijuana subcommittee and the Planning Board, developing verbiage on placement and local requirements for a Medical Marijuana Facility.
4. Medical Marijuana moratorium – This article legally provides for a temporary moratorium, until December 31, 2014, should the previous article fail to be passed by Town Meeting.
5. Agricultural/Nursery/Landscaping Development  – Citizen petition submitted article that would allow Thayer Nursery to continue operating as a full service nursery, landscape, and snow removal company. The article is meant to allow the Planning Board to grant a Special Permit allowing the business and its associated housing to jointly exist in a Residence AA zone.
6. Article to amend the financial penalty for zoning violations under Section XI of Zoning Bylaws – This is a Planning Board article to amend the financial penalties for violations under Section XI of the Zoning Bylaws. At the October Town Meeting this article was sent back to the Planning Board for further study. The submitted version has been refined and is here by submitted by the Planning Board.
7. Attached Condominium Residence Development (ACRD) – The article is a citizen petition that if approved would allow Attached Condominiums of a specific number, on a specific 35,000sf parcel. The article is an effort to create a Planned Unit Development (PUD) on land off Pleasant Street. The land specifically is at the end of a, yet to be officially, proposed subdivision at 41 Pleasant Street, land belonging to the estate of Margaret O’Neil. This article would allow for attached condominiums in an area that is currently zoned Residence B (single family homes on a lot of at least 20,00SF and 100’ of frontage on a town way). The article is assuming a subdivision will be approved (nothing on file at this time) and though access from development by way of Town land is mentioned no access has been requested or granted on Town land.