by Frank Schroth
Supporters of Thayer Nursery clogged the Blute Conference Room at last Thursday night’s Planning Board session. The board held a hearing on the 7 zoning articles that will appear on the upcoming Annual Town Meeting. One of those articles is a citizens petition to change the zoning to allow Thayer to keep their landscaping business at their Hillside site. The Zoning Board of Appeals has ruled that the operation of the business is not permitted. It was the only article of the 7 to attract public comment and it attracted quite a bit.
Neighbors who have property that abuts the nursery are opposing the article. Last Thursday’s session was a continuation of the hearing held 2/13 (See related story here.). Ned Corcoran, attorney for the Oldfields, Thayer’s owners, presented a red lined version of the article initially presented. The article seeks to authorize the Planning Board the ability to grant a special permit for a landscaping business to operate on the site assuming certain conditions are met. Those changes would mitigate adverse impacts that the business has had on the abutters such as foul odors from manure and mulch, noise, and traffic. The amended article included but was not limited to:
- Further limiting the hours of operation. The landscaping operation would be open Mon to Sat from 7:00 to 6:00 and not operate on Sundays. The agricultural and nursery business would open from 8:00 to 6:00 Mon through Saturday and on Sunday from 9:00-5:00.
- Setbacks from Thayer structures such as barns and greenhouses, would be increased from 20 to 35 feet and from 30 to 40 feet for landcasping operations.
- Deliveries would be limited “as much as possible” to weekdays between 10 – 3
At issue is the expansion over the years of the nursery, an agricultural business permitted under zoning, into lines of business that are not. These include landscape construction and firewood storage and distribution. Mr. Corcoran said, “We listened very carefully [to concern] raised by the neighbors directly affected. Their concerns are legitimate. What is being proposed should go a long way to mitigating their concerns.” Ms. Oldfield maintained that the landscaping has been present from the beginning at one point stating, “Landscaping has been a business since 1963.”
Chair Whiteside said that the more specificity in the language regarding the special permit the better. He had compiled a list of issues such as specific hours of operation for each activity (i.e. nursery, retial, wood, landscaping construction), design standards for structures, what type of expansion should be permitted going forward, if any, and whether certain operations such as firewood should be moved off the premises.
Member Kelly questioned whether past decisions had been complied with and if not, what confidence there was that they would be going forward.
When the floor was opened for public comment a number of residents took advantage of the opportunity to voice support for the article. Points made included concern that moving the landscaping business off site would severely damage the business overall as it would dramatically increase operating costs. Two locations would require increases in insurance costs, lose economies of scale, etc. One resident cautioned about unintended consequences. A recent development on Hillside was opposed (i.e. an open space permit to construct 2-3 houses) and now they are facing a possible 40B. Other statements of support cited the Oldfield’s history in town and contributions to it. The abutters argued that Thayer had avoided commercial taxes through agricultural exemptions, the proposed shift in operations from one part of the property to another would shift impact from one abutter to another, and the history of enforcement had been lax at best. Philip Joehenning recalled that he could not get the Fire Chief to inspect a structure used to store fire wood that he (Mr. Joehenning) believed to be a potential hazard. Matthew Dunn, an attorney representing Mr. Joehenning and his partner Mr. Rowe, argued that there had been a history of non-compliance.
Attorney Corcoran early in the session acknowledged that Thayer had not been responsive to neighbor concerns and was seeking to rectify that. At one point he also said that should the article pass and a special permit be granted that Thayer would pay commercial taxes on that portion of the business that is not agricultural.
As Whiteside noted at the beginning of the session, the parties have “views that are widely different from each other . . . but between these two poles there is a lot of middle.” There may still be.Those in support of the article want to see a longstanding business with a family history in the town stay in the area and are concerned that splitting the business will compromise its economic viability. Corcoran acknowledges past mistakes and believes the steps proposed in the article will address those and pave a way for good relations going forward. The opponents have no confidence that the measures will work and cite past history as an example. Member Kelly said. “It is the enforcement that is the problem.”
Corcoran had said that the special permit should be revisited every 5 years to ensure that Thayer was abiding by the agreements and as a result of discussion was amendable to that time being condensed to every two years. Whiteside acknowledged “You definitely have an enforcement issue. We rely on him (Building Inspector Joseph Prondak) to do his job. If he doesn’t do his job, he shouldn’t have his job.”
It is likely that Mr. Corcoran will amend the petition further in response to Whiteside’s statement that “the Citizens Petition is very broadly written. [It needs] to be rigidly written so what’s allowed is unmistakably clear.” Whiteside asked that the hearing be closed but received push back from Member Lynch. The hearing will be continued on March 13.