Commentary by Frank Schroth

The warrant for town meeting is thick, so thick it had to be bound rather than stapled. That’s expensive to do. Why so thick? Primarily due to the presence of large zoning articles. Two of these are duplicate citizens petitions regarding landscaping use. The landscaper in question is Thayer Nursery. The procedural confusion these two articles might create is just one aspect of what is likely to be Town Meeting’s thorniest issue.

In short, the articles seek to allow Thayer Nursery to maintain lines of business that are not currently allowed by applying for a special permit. Those lines of business include snow plowing, selling kiln dried firewood, and managing a landscaping construction business. A permit granted in the late 60s allows for the nursery business to operate. There have been several rulings on the matter by the Zoning Board of Appeals and the courts that have not gone Thayer’s way. The articles, filed by Citizens petition, if passed, would provide a path for Thayer to possibly keep their operations intact. At the moment they have moved the landscaping business off premises.

Why two articles? There are 2 articles both brought by Citizen Petition because the Planning Board in reviewing the initial article determined it did not have the proper level of specificity. The changes they wanted were extensive enough to require a new article be written. Alex Whiteside, Chair of the Planning Board, was an author of the article with input from Ned Corcoran, an attorney representing Thayer Nursery. The article was submitted and entered into the Special Town Meeting Warrant which will (possibly) precede the discussion of articles in the Annual Warrant. The specific sequence of articles as debated and decided by Town Meeting will be determined by the Town Moderator.

At the heart of the matter is whether it is in the interests of the town to enable a business which has expanded its operations beyond what is permitted by zoning to continue to operate that expanded business assuming that the quality of life of the abutting neighbors is protected.

Mr. Corcoran has acknowledged that Thayer has not been sensitive to the needs and concerns of the neighbors and has not listened or taken action to address those concerns. However, Thayer seeks to take significant steps to address those concerns and has proposed a series of measures to rectify issues including noise, odor, and hours of operation.

Based on statements made in public sessions the abutting neighbors are not convinced the protections will be sufficient and are skeptical at best that their problems will be corrected to their satisfaction.

The emotional turbulence surrounding the issue has become a thick fog that is likely to cloud judgement. Tangential issues are raised and, as the heat is turned up, the purpose and the merit of what should or shouldn’t be done is lost. Issues that have been raised include Thayer getting a break because their property taxes are receiving an agricultural exemption. Others state that neighbors should have moved into the neighborhood with their eyes open and understood that they would be living next to a thriving operation that would have an understandable impact on the surrounding properties. There have been mailings to town meeting members and advertorials (lacking attribution) in local papers. It is all irrelevant to the core issue and unfortunate. It only serves to stir up an undertow of personal acrimony that is anything but helpful.

Here are some facts. The Planning Board voted to approve recommending the article with one abstention (Mr. Duffy). The warrant committee also voted to approve the article (6-4). Matt Dunn, attorney for the petitioners, asked Mr. Whiteside to recuse himself as he was sitting on a board that would be approving an article he wrote that was for the business. He saw this as a conflict of interest. Mr. Whiteside declined saying that planning board members often revised and amended articles with the intent of strengthening them and producing a better outcome.

The issue in our opinion is this: the town has a non-conforming business, one that has been in operation for some time. The town can offer this business a path to stay in place if that business takes measures to protect the neighbor’s quality of life and what should be expected in a residential zone.

If the town denies the article then the nursery will continue to operate as only a nursery. However, mulch, manure, and bobcats, three issues identified as problematic, are likely to remain as part of operating a nursery business. There are any number of unintended consequences that can occur should the article be denied. Whether Thayer can remain on ongoing operation if forced to segregate its lines of business is something that we cannot know.

Passing this article does not guarantee Thayer anything. What the article provides is the possibility of a second chance. It is a second chance for all – the business, the neighbors, and the town. Tonight we will see how Town Meeting sees it.