Zoning Board Rejects Local Complaint

In a four-to-one decision, the Cambridge Board of Zoning Appeals last night rejected a Harvard lecturer's petition to deny an occupancy permit for the Biological Laboratories.

An appeal filed by Lecturer on the History of Science Maila L. Walter, who resides nearby at 21 Francis Ave., charged that Harvard misrepresented the true nature of its renovation plans for the labs when it filed for a building permit in 1992.

"We can go through every single document Harvard presented, and not one accurately characterizes what was going to happen," Edward S. Walter, the lecturer's husband, said at the hearing.

Mr. Walter said the Harvard proposal requested permission to renovate an existing laboratory on the fifth floor and construct a greenhouse on the sixth floor. Walter said Harvard's proposal misrepresented the planned renovation because the biolabs had no sixth floor until the construction of the greenhouse.

But Kathy A. Spiegelman, director of the University's physical planning group and Harvard's representative at the hearing, said Harvard never misconstrued its intentions for the remodeling.

Spiegelman presented drawings which she said were down to the board at the December 10, 1992, hearing and which she said match the eventual result of the project.

John Miller, who chairs the appeals panel and voted in 1992 to grant the building permit, sided with the University.

"Harvard made a true representation of what they were going to do, and we made a vote accordingly," Miller said. "I don't think anything was being hidden."

Board member Lauren Curry, the lone dissenter last night, said that if the renovations had a "significant visual and physical impact" as Walter claimed, the new greenhouse would violate a restriction of the permit.

Mrs. Walters also expressed another concern last night, saying noise coming from fans at the bio labs has increased since the expansion.

Miller, however, said Occupancy Certificate--such as the one the Walters were appealing--is simply granted when work is carried out according tothe original building permit. Any furtherconsiderations, or a reconsideration of theoriginal permit, were beyond the board'sjurisdiction, he said.

"It's my belief that we really have noauthorization to rehear the case," Miller said."We really have to narrowly look at the grantingof the occupancy permit vis-a-vis the decision werendered a few years ago."

In fact, Mrs. Walter and board members agreedthat because the fan noise still falls within thelimits of Cambridge noise ordinances, the Waltershave no legal recourse to lessen the noise output.

But C. James Ciotti, director of administrationof the Biological Laboratories, said he wascommitted to working with the Walters.

"I will continue to do what I can to solve this[noise] problem," Ciotti said.

Still, neither of the Walters said they weresatisfied with the hearing's outcome.

"We're going to appeal it to Superior Court,"Mr. Walter said.

Ciotti said last night's decision will allowresearch to move forward which had been on holdsince September pending the appeal

"It's my belief that we really have noauthorization to rehear the case," Miller said."We really have to narrowly look at the grantingof the occupancy permit vis-a-vis the decision werendered a few years ago."

In fact, Mrs. Walter and board members agreedthat because the fan noise still falls within thelimits of Cambridge noise ordinances, the Waltershave no legal recourse to lessen the noise output.

But C. James Ciotti, director of administrationof the Biological Laboratories, said he wascommitted to working with the Walters.

"I will continue to do what I can to solve this[noise] problem," Ciotti said.

Still, neither of the Walters said they weresatisfied with the hearing's outcome.

"We're going to appeal it to Superior Court,"Mr. Walter said.

Ciotti said last night's decision will allowresearch to move forward which had been on holdsince September pending the appeal