2007-07-12-ZBA-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

July 12, 2007 Minutes 3 Sareen Sultan, 7 Rindge Avenue wanted to express her frustration on how things have progressed. Someone came one hour before the meeting to talk with her about Mals. They were looking for her support and she felt that this person was intimidating her. She bought the house in 1989 and at that time there was no towing business being done. She complained that they have been encroaching into the conservation area and that the flat beds bang on the concrete. Yesterday there was an engine that idled for 15 minutes. She feels nothing has changed and cannot understand why town doesn't stop an illegal business. She also asked how many of the 150 people on the petition live in the neighborhood. Ivan Basch, 3 South Rindge Avenue —Gives them credit, Mals has reduced the number of cars, but will it stick. Why is he doing this now and not before, not for the neighbors but for the sake of the Board. Menon Krishnagopal, 1 South Rindge Avenue asked if Lexington can hold 37 cars and Lincoln 45 cars and there are currently over 100 on the lot, where will the balance go? Attorney Dailey said they are committed to keeping no more than 3 5 in the lot over night. The following spoke in favor of the petition: John Sellars, Concord Street; Michael Rizzo, 2317 Massachusetts Avenue; Joe Medlin, 29 Ivan Street and Mary Doherty of Crosby Road. Ellen Basch, 3 South Rindge Avenue and Khalil Khatri, 7 South Rindge Avenue spoke in opposition. A Board member discussed filing the decision and asked if they intended to file if item 9 of the conditions were changed. She reminded Attorney Dailey that the special permit expires at the end of the year and they need to do something to address the issue. When it is filed the expiration date will remain December 31, 2007. If they do not file they will be subject to enforcement action. The hearing was closed at 8:37 PM. Discussion: Some of the Board Members were pleased with the progress Mals had made in taking care of issues presented. The Board discussed how this hearing came about and that the intention was to address item nine of the conditions, which was to reduce the fleet. The Board wanted to make sure it is understood that they are not condoning a use that is not allowed. In no way are they saying the towing operation is accepted. This hearing was to address item nine of the conditions only. They discussed making a provision to cover themselves that this decision is not meant to approve the towing business in any way