Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Quality topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ZBA grants permit for 60 Lyman Road house but tightens lighting and landscaping conditions after resident objections
Summary
The Zoning Board of Appeals unanimously approved a special permit for a new single‑family dwelling at 60 Lyman Road but adopted a strengthened exterior‑lighting condition and required counterbalancing landscaping after multiple abutters testified that exterior lighting at other nearby developments by the same builder is causing nuisance and environmental impacts.
The Brookline Zoning Board of Appeals approved a special permit for a new single‑family house at 60 Lyman Road but altered draft conditions to address sustained neighborhood concerns about exterior lighting tied to other projects by the same developer.
Jeffrey Allen (speaker 11), attorney for the applicant, and Michael McKay (speaker 9), the project architect, presented plans showing a large, setback house with a side‑loaded three‑car garage and a porch that projects five feet into the front yard; the project was supported by planning staff and the planning board subject to a landscape plan, tree‑protection compliance, a limit on future basement conversion area (1,887 sq ft), and a lighting condition.
During public comment, several residents and town‑meeting members testified about ongoing nuisance lighting at other homes associated with the same builder, C Stumbo Development. Richard Nangle (speaker 12) and Hugh Joseph (speaker 8) told the board the building department had issued violation letters on Woodland Road properties and that lights on other finished homes remain conspicuously bright. "The lights do shine into other properties, into other people's homes every night," one resident said, describing the need for blackout shades.
The building department memo read into the record confirmed it had received complaints and issued violation letters regarding exterior lamp posts and dwelling lighting at properties performed by the same developer. Planning staff recommended the condition that "All exterior lighting on the site shall be installed and maintained so that no direct light shines on nearby homes." The building department urged the board to keep a condition that would limit or eliminate adverse neighborhood impacts under section 9.05(b).
Board members debated enforceability and measurement of glare versus motion‑activated safety lighting; some noted public‑safety uses for motion lights and the practical difficulty of measuring glare. Several members nevertheless favored stronger language. The board agreed the applicant must work with the building department on a practicable standard and that any agreement reached for existing properties would be applied consistently. The final condition read into the record requires that all exterior lighting be installed and maintained so that no direct light or glare shines on nearby homes, with enforcement and technical determinations to be coordinated with the building department and conditioned on submission of a final landscape plan that includes counterbalancing amenities.
The board recorded a unanimous grant of the requested relief with the modified conditions and then adjourned the meeting.
