Labs Annoy Locals

Charging that the University lied in its application to expand and renovate the Biological Laboratories, a Harvard lecturer last week asked the city's Board of Zoning Appeal to deny Harvard a permit to occupy the building.

"Harvard has an obligation to fulfill the requirements of the building permit, where they stated there would be no impact on the neighborhood," Lecturer on the History of Science Maila L. Walter said in an interview yesterday.

She and her husband Edward S. Walter, who live behind the biology labs on Francis Ave., will present their appeal next Thursday before the zoning board.

The Walters charged that the greater noise caused by fans on the building's roof has become unbearable. since last fall's expansion of the labs. Ms. Walter said she has even had trouble sleeping.

"Ever since the construction of a large greenhouse I have been subjected to a relentless stream of noise coming from the fans at the biology labs," Ms. Walter wrote in a letter to Vice President and General Counsel Margaret H. Marshall last November. "The level of nighttime noise, as measured by both the City of Cambridge and by Harvard's private acoustical contractor, exceeds legal limits."

But C. James Ciotti, director of administration for the biology labs, said Harvard has since brought the noise level below legal limits."

Ciotti said independent noise measurements made last January "proved to be below the city criterion."

And Harvard officials maintained that the Walters have acknowledged these improvements, according to a January 6 letter from Kathy A. Spiegelman, Harvard director of planning, to Robert R. Bersani, managing director of the Cambridge inspectional services department.

"In a conversation with Mr. Walter on the evening of January 3, 1994, Mr. Walter indicated that the situation had improved and that Mrs. Walter now has a complaint about only a very specific tone," the letter said. "Mr. Walter says he does not hear this tone in his house."

Officials with the zoning board and the inspectional services department werenot available for comment yesterday.

But in their statement of appeal to the board,the Walters also charged that the language inHarvard's permit application was incorrect. Forthat reason, Mrs. Walter said they still have acase against the University.

"It says they're removing the greenhouse on thefifth floor and replacing it with a lab andreinstalling the greenhouse on the sixth floor,"Mr. Walter said. "There is no sixth floor on thebuilding; that's a lie to me."

The Walter believe that by placing thegreenhouse on the top of the building, Harvard haseffectively added a sixth floor.

The greenhouse is also a nuisance, the Walterssaid in their statement, because, they say, it is"a large structure, plainly visible from theresidential side of the building, especially ifthe lights (which are extremely bright) are on atnight."

Mr. Walter added, "If the planning board saysthey didn't think about it, they're incompetent."

Mrs. Walter said the increased noise, althoughwithin legal limits, is still problematic becauseHarvard guaranteed the renovation "will havevirtually on visual or physical impact on adjacentuses."

"We suggest that the altered spatialconfiguration resulting from the new constructionchanged the sound characteristics of the buildingand thus the acoustic output of the entire systemof fans," the Walters' statement said.

But Spiegelman said the University actedcompletely legally.

"We believe we're in compliance with theregulations of the building permit," she said. "Weacknowledge that for the people of Cambridge thereare conflicts that arise."

Spiegelman said that if occupancy permits aredenied, scientific research will suffer.

"The faculty members' work needs to get on,"Spiegelman said. "We have a responsibility to meettheir requirements.

But in their statement of appeal to the board,the Walters also charged that the language inHarvard's permit application was incorrect. Forthat reason, Mrs. Walter said they still have acase against the University.

"It says they're removing the greenhouse on thefifth floor and replacing it with a lab andreinstalling the greenhouse on the sixth floor,"Mr. Walter said. "There is no sixth floor on thebuilding; that's a lie to me."

The Walter believe that by placing thegreenhouse on the top of the building, Harvard haseffectively added a sixth floor.

The greenhouse is also a nuisance, the Walterssaid in their statement, because, they say, it is"a large structure, plainly visible from theresidential side of the building, especially ifthe lights (which are extremely bright) are on atnight."

Mr. Walter added, "If the planning board saysthey didn't think about it, they're incompetent."

Mrs. Walter said the increased noise, althoughwithin legal limits, is still problematic becauseHarvard guaranteed the renovation "will havevirtually on visual or physical impact on adjacentuses."

"We suggest that the altered spatialconfiguration resulting from the new constructionchanged the sound characteristics of the buildingand thus the acoustic output of the entire systemof fans," the Walters' statement said.

But Spiegelman said the University actedcompletely legally.

"We believe we're in compliance with theregulations of the building permit," she said. "Weacknowledge that for the people of Cambridge thereare conflicts that arise."

Spiegelman said that if occupancy permits aredenied, scientific research will suffer.

"The faculty members' work needs to get on,"Spiegelman said. "We have a responsibility to meettheir requirements.