by Frank Schroth

The Planning Board last met on April 23 and among issues taken up was a continuation of the hearing on Thayer Nursery’s application for a special permit to restore their landscaping business to their Hillside location.

Phil Joehenning, an abutter who is opposed to the granting of the permit, continued to raise questions. Attorney Matt Dunn, who is representing Mr. Joehenning and John Rowe, was unavailable to attend the session. Mr. Joehenning read a correspondence on his behalf that argued the application being put forward by Thayer was a new application and as such needed to be re-noticed and observe all the requirements associated with that. Additional amendments haven’t satisfied the notification requirements he wrote.

Ned Corcoran, attorney for Thayer Nursery, said the most recent amendment had been filed in response to concerns raised by member Innes regarding which lines of business would be controlled by sections of the zoning law. (Part of the confusion here results from Thayer’s ability to operate certain lines of business under an agricultural exemption – which lines of business come under which permits and which legal entities control / operate those permits). Mr. Corcoran also said it was common for an application to be amended during the course of a permit hearing in order to accommodate changes that come up. Mr. Whiteside, Chair, seemed to concur saying, “Revising applications is our stock in trade here at the Planning Board.” Joehenning argued that “adding uses and applicants” were major changes, not minor ones. There was general consensus on the need to clearly identify what’s what. Innes reiterated that the only uses that could be allowed by this application were the ones identified in Paragraph 2 (of bylaw) Corcoran acknowledged things were in flux and Whiteside said “we need order.” Corcoran said he would submit a revised application with the board’s permission.

Another point of confusion was ownership. There have been three entities referenced: Thayer Nursery, Oldfield LLC, and Maggie and Josh Oldfield. Ms. Oldfield reviewed the history of permits granted and properties acquired and claimed that she and Josh were owners of record and applicants of this special permit. Josh Oldfield said, “Our goal is to co-exist with our neighbors as much as possible. [We are] not here to play chess.”

The board moved forward with the hearing; attempting to progress through provisions of bylaw that set out requirements for the landscaping business. One pertained to the layout of the property. Pam Lepore, an abutter, said the layout was unfair to her. An alternative layout was presented but Mr. Whiteside said, “I think your plan is unreasonable and too close to nearby residences.” He said they would “proceed with the yard as it is.”

The board will resume the hearing on April 23 at 7:30pm.

Editorial note: It might be helpful if going forward the board at the outset a) provided a summary of the status of the application and where they are in the process and b) outlined the procedure to be followed at the session (e.g. who speak and when etc).