Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1947-02-07257 BOARD 5 d - BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING February 7, 1947 A meeting of the Board of Appeals was held in the Selectmen's Room, Town Office Building on Friday evening, February 7, 1947. Chairman Locke, Mr, Nicker- son, Mr. Redman, Mr. Rich and Associate Member Ripley were present at the hearing. The Clerk was also present. At 6=06 P.M., hearing was declared open upon the petition of John Ahearn for permission to maintain a business for the purpose of selling': repairing and storing bushel boxes and crates at 24 Maple Street, Lexington. Notice of the hearing was read by Mr. Redman. There were seven persons present. Notices of this hearing have been mailed to the owners of all property deemed by the Board to be affected thereby, as they appear on the most recent tax list. Mr. Ahearn stated that he wished to store and repair second hand bushel boxes and crates for the farmers through- out this district - Lexington, Concord, Wbburn. 'We Locke asked Mr. Ahearn if he owned this property, and the petitioner stated that he merely rented it. Mr. Locke asked about the manufacture of new boxes. Mr. Ahearn stated there would be no manufacture of new boxes - all second-hand. He merely takes them in, repalts them, and sends them out again. Mr. Locke asked how many men were employed. Mr. Ahearn said there was only one other person besides himself. Mr. Locke asked the maximum to be employed, and the petitioner said not more than one other man. Mr. Locke said no more than three, and the petitioner -said that was correct. Mr. Locke asked about machinery. Mr. Ahearn said no machinery - he only intends to repair boxes. Mr. Locke asked what hours Mr. Ahearn would work. The petitioner said the usual eight to five. Mr. Locke asked about evening work, and Mr. Ahearn said there would be one. Mr. Locke asked how many days a week, and the answer from the petitioner was six days a week. Mr. Locke asked which building Mr, Ahearn intended to use. The petitioner the said rear building on the lot - a large barn next to the railroad tracks - all by itself. 258 rz Mr. Locke asked if the materials would be ' brought in and out by trucks. Mr. Ahearn said that was correct. They pick the boxes up from the stores, repair them, and send them out, once in a while a farmer runs short of boxes and might get one hundred or so from Mr. Ahearn. Mr. Locke asked about the changes in the building. Mr. Ahearn said there would be no changes. Mr. Locke asked the petitioner about signs. Mr. Ahearn stated that he would like one. Chairman Locke asked how large, and the petitioner said about eight feet long and two feet wide. He would like onetthat would show his location - visible from the street. Mr..Ripley asked if this was a year-round business. Mr, Ahearn said that it was not - as soon as the frost hits, he is through. It is a seasonable business and usually ends in December. Mr. Redman asked if there would be any work done outside, and the petitioner answered in the negative. Mr. Redman also adked if there would be any storage outside the building. Mr. Ahearn stated there was ' enough room inside. Mr. Nickerson asked the petitioner if he would have any nailing machines. Mr. Ahearn said no. Mr. Rich asked where the petitioner lived, and Mr. Ahearn said in Swampscott. Mr. Rich asked if Mr. Ahearn had any other occupation, and the petitioner stated that this was his only occupation. Mr. Solberg, 30 Maple Street asked Mr. Ahearn if he intended to store a lot of boxes in the barn during the off season. Mr. Ahearn said that during the winter they go out and get new stock to make ready for the spring of the year. They would like to store this in the barn. He is in and out of,there a great deal of the time and would be very careful about storing. Everything is piled in uniform order - not thrown around. Mr. Locke asked if Mr. Solberg was registering an objection and Mr. Solberg stated that he was merely , bringing out this fact because it,had occured to a lot of people. ' Mr. Solberg asked the petitioner how long he intended to occupy the premises, and Mrr. Ahearn said that he would like to stay there as long as he could. Mr. Solberg asked the petitioner if he is privately engaged in this business, and if so where. Mr. Ahearn stated that his business at the present time is in Camb- ridge. The property has been sold and he has to get out. Mr. Solberg asked the petitioner if he had entered into any kind of an arrangement with Mr. Higgins. Mr. Ahearn said he was paying monthly rent to Mr. Higgins% Mr. Duffy, 25 Maple Street statedhe was immediately opposite this property. It is his understanding that Mr. Higgins is contemplating a very find development on this property. This area, 'and he feels that Mr. Ahearn can appreciate his point of view in wanting the improve- ment along the lines contemplated by Mr. Higgins. Mr. Duffy stated that his understanding is that the only exception that can be made in a single family area by the Board of Appeals is r when in its judgment the public convenlenoe and will not tend to impair the status of the neighborhood - or harmonious or compatible with or accessory to the uses or any of them herein mentioned, or necessary for public convenience or benefit, but which has not been specifically mentioned, or which may have developed since the framing of this by-law. Mr. Duffy further stated that the use of the property as discussed by Mr. Ahearn is a little milder than he anticipated. He does not wish to take time to discuss the violations on Maple Street through the years. He is not speaking for his neighbors, but for Mrs. Duffy and himself. It must be agreed that the proposed use is not within the frame work of what was intended in a single family area. He appreciates that the Board could obviously grant an exception if not in due violence of the laws, but it seems to him that even though it might be a hardship for Mr. Ahearn, the Board must recognize the fundamentals of these things and keep within the frame work of the intention of the law. He feels that the Board ought not to make any variation. Mr. Solberg stated that he wished to support Mr. Duffy. He said that it was a bit embarrassing to try to veto the work of a man who is trying to earn a living. He is rather surprised that not more of the neighbors came down._ He feels that if a semblance of industry gets in that neighborhood, it will be merely a wedge for future budiness, and easier to break down restrictions. Under 260 these circumstances, it would be an unwise thing ' to start the breaking down of the restrictions set up for a single family neighborhood. Though he says this with reluctance, he does not feel that the neighborhood should be submitted to a gradual encroachment of industrial uses. Alice S. Willoughby, 27 Maple Street stated that she was a property owner. When she bought the house mere she now lives, she came down to the Town Hall and inquired about the Zoning Laws. She was told that it was a one family section, and was given to understand that there would be no stores or industry of any .sort. There has been some buying and selling in the neighborhood already, and if this comes in in addition to what has been going on, it seems to her that it is an opening wedge. She has great sympathy for Mr. Ahearn, but she does not think that that section is the section for business. - It is a very inoffensive sort of business, but if Mr. Ahearn prospered which he undoubtedly would, it would be a business and necessitate more prople and trucks. She must veto the proposition. Mr. Locke asked if Mr. Ahearn had any other statements to , make. The petitioner said that the barn was far enough away from eveyyything not to be troublesome; that it would be just as it stands now, and closed up at night. Mr. Locke asked how many trips a day the trucks would be making. Mr. Ahearn stated just once a day with a load, and the truck would go out again. He has been doing business arouhd here for twenty-five years. He would not mar the property - in fact he would try to improve it if he could. Miss Willoughby asked the petitioner why it would be necessary for him to have a sign if he goes out collecting the boxes.. Mr. Ahearn said that the farmers coming in would not know where to go: The sign would not be necessary.. At the present time there is no number on the street, and though he would like to have one, it would not be of great importance. The hearing was declared closed at 8;30 P.M. The Board considered the application of John Ahearn. Upon motion of Mr. Nick$rson, seconded by Mr. -Redman., it was unanimously voted that the application of John Ahearn be denied in the following f=m; 261' ' BOARD OF APPEALS DENIAL The Board of Appeals, acting under the Lexington Zoning By-law and General Laws, Chapter 40, Sections 25 to 30A as amended, having received a written petition addressed to it by John A. Ahearn, a copy of which is hereto annexed, held a public hearing thereon of which notice was mailed to the petitioner and to the owners of all property deemed by the Board to be affected thereby as they appear on the most recent local tax list, and also advertised in the Lexington Minute -Plan, a newspaper pubs=- lished in Lexington, which hearing was held in the Select- men's Room, in the Town Office Building on Frebruary 7, 1947. Four regular and one associate member of the Board of Appeals were present at the hearing. A certificate of notice is hereto annexed. At•this hearing evidence was offered on behalf of the petitioner tending to show; That he wished to maintain a business at 24 Maple Street, Lex- ington, owned by EdwardW. Higgins, of Arlington, for the purpose of selling, repairing and storing bushel boxes and crates. He stated that no new boxes or crates would be made or assembled on the premises; that he would handle only second - hand material; that he would employ not more ' than three men; that no machinery of any kind would be installed; that the building would be operated Mondays through Saturdaysbetween the hours of 8;00 A.M. and 5;00 P.M.; there would be no structual changes in the building, and no material would be stored outside the building. Evidence was offered on behalf of citizens opposing the granting of the said petition tending to show; Three persons ppoke in opposition to the granting of the petition. At the close of the hearing the Board in private session on February 7, 1947 gave consideration to the subject of the petition and voted unanimously in favor of the following findings; 1. That in its judgment the public convenience and welfare will not be substantially served by the making of the exception requested. 2. That the exception requested will tend to impair the status of the neighborhood. 3. That the exception requested will not be in harmony. with the general purposes and intent of the regulations in ' the Lexington Zoning By-law. 262 a 4. That the enforcement of the Lexington Zoning ' By-law as to the locus in question would not involve substantial hardship to the petitioner, and the relief requested could not be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of such Lexington Zoning By-law. Pursuant to the said findings, the Board hereby denies the said petition of John H. Ahearn for permission to maintain a business for the purpose of selling, repairing, and storing bushel boxes and crates at 24 Maple Street, Lexington. The Board hereby makes a detailed record of all its proceedings relative to such petition and hereby sets forth that the reasons for its decision are its find- ings hereinbefore set forth 9nd the testimony presented at the said hearing, including that herein summarized, and directs that this record immediately following this decision shall be filed in the office of the Town Clerk of Lexington and shall be a public record and that notice of this ddelsion shall be mailed forthwith to each party in interest. BOARD OF APPEALS OF LEXINGTON ' ( Acting under the Lexington Zoning By-law and General Laws) /s/ Errol H. Locke D. E. Nickersbn Lester T. Redman Aiden L. Ripley John F. Rich I, Virginia Be Tarbell, Clerk of the Board of Appeals of Lexington, appointed under General Laws, Chapter 40, Section 27, hereby certify that I sent by postage certificate of mailing on the twenty-third day of January 1947 to Lexington M rseries, Inc., Emily L.F. Nelles, Curtis S. & Geraldine C. Elliott, Minnie M. Ryder, Mary W. Duffy, Alice S. Willoughby, Edith G. Tyler,.John C. & Bessie R. Solberg, Richard S Christine Inf anti, Virginia M. Hannon Mary E. Gaffey, Edward W. Higgins, John H. Ahearn and also advertised ' in the Lexington Minute Man on January 23, 1947, a notice of which the following is a true copy. NOTICE /s/Virginia Be Tarbell Clerk, Board of Appeals January 23, 1947 The Board of Appeals will hold a hearing on the matter of varying the application of the Zoning Law on petition of John H. Ahearn for permission to main- tain a business for the purpose of selling, repairing and storing bushel boxes and crates at 24 Maple Street, Lex- ington, owned by Edward W. Higgins, of Arlington, under the Lexington Zoning By-law and in accordance with General Laws, Chapter 40, Sections 25 to 30A as amended. The hearing will be held on February 7, 1947 at 8;00 p.m, in the Selectmen's Room, Town Office Building, Lex- ington, Blass, ERROL H. LOCKE Chairman, Board of Appeals January 20, 1947 ' Lexington Board of Zoning Appeals Town Office Building Lexington, Massachusetts Gentlement The undersigned hereby petitions the Lexington Board of Appeals, .appointed under General Laws, Chapter 40, Sections 25 to 30A as amended, to vary the application of section 6d of the Lexington Zoning By-law with respect to the premises at No. 24 Maple Street, owned by Edward W. Higgins of Arlington, by permitting the following: For permission to maintain a business for the purp9se of selling, repairing and storing bushel boxes and crates. John H. Ahearn 111 Stetson Avenue Swampscott, Massachusetts The Minutes of the Meetings of December 63, 1946 and January 3, 1947 were declared approved. The meeting adjourned at 9;10 P.M, IA true record, Attest Clerk, Board of Appeals. 263