Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1963-07-30BOARU OF APPEALS HEARINGS July 30, 1963 A regular meeting of the Lexington Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, July 30, 1963, in the SelectmenTs Room, Town Office Building. Present were Chairman Nickerson, regular members Abbott, Hoyt, Ripley and Wadsworth. The following petitions were heard: John E. Harvey for permission to erect a dwelling at the north- east corner of Constitution and Paul R vere Roads which would have insuf- ficient frontage, also insufficient set -back from abutting street. Pennell & Thompson for permission to erect a 3' x 41 hanging sign on the property of C. H. Maney Co., 173 Bedford Street. Louis H. Spencer to build a non -conforming addition on the rear of 52 Waltham Street, said addition to be constructed of third class material instead of second class. Shell Oil Co. for permission to erect and operate a retail automo- bile service station on a -parcel of land situated at the southerly corner of the intersection of Bedford Street and Worthen Road in a C 2 - General business district, said parcel having frontages of about 166 feet on Bed- ford Street, about 146 feet on Worthen Road, and about 33 feet on the curved line forming the intersection of the two streets. William L. Potter for permission to use land in an R 1 zone for a semi -private golf course. Mr. and Mrs. Charles 11. Castle for permission to add a new porch to a dwelling at 12 Hancock Avenue which will not have the propert setback from the side property line. John and Rosina Busa for permission to sell farm produce and nursery products raised on land owned by petitioners from packing room portion of farm buildings situated on premises number 52 Lowell Street. At the close of the hearings an Executive Session was held during which the following decisions were reached: John E. Harvey - denied Pennell & Thompson - denied Louis H. Spencer - granted Shell Oil Co. - granted William L. Potter - granted Mr. and Mrs. Charles D. Castle - granted John and Rosina Busa - granted All pertinent material with regard to the above petitions is on file under the name of each petitioner. Louise M. Macomber, Clerk JOHN AND ROSINA BUSA ' Hearing held on Tuesday, July 30, 1963 at 8:20 p.m. on petition of John and Rosina Busa to continue to operate roadside stand at 52 Lowell St. for purpose of selling produce raised upon approximately 7 acres of farm land and greenhouses. _ Notice of hearing as published in Lexington Minute -man on July 10 and 17 was read. Petitioners were asked if the permission requested was the same as requested the previous year and answered in the affirmative. Members of the Board of Appeals were asked by the Chairman if they had any questions to ask. No member had a question. The Chairman asked if anybody wished to speak in favor of the petition. No one wished to speak. The Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition. Lewis J. Rose of 25 Fairlawn Lane spoke in substance as follows: Anyone has a right to farm in Lexington. However, I feel that the Busa's operation at 52 Lowell St. has a long history of violations, with the selling of Christmas trees and continuing right through to now - violations of the permit that th,�z have had for the last year. First, through a number of signs that are illegally erected on Lowell ' St. (Showed pictures of a sigh.) This sign is not on the property of the applicant - probably on the property of another Busa nearer the Arlington line. There is illegal selling of -merchandise:- supposed to sell only merchandise grown on this property. tToday I visited the applicants' premises and saw on display boxes of charcoal, cans of lighter fluid, jams and jellies "packed expressly for Sun Valley Farm." —This is the time for the Board to enforce the rules. The permit has expired. It expired on July 17, 1963, and they are actually oper- ating in defiance of the law. The hearing was held on July 17, 1962. I feel the Board has been too lenient, that this is a bad situation. This afternoon when I was making these pictures I was approached by a man wearing dark clothes and a blue shirt who said if I walked by there on some dark night - he made it quite clear there was going to be trouble. Tonight -this gentleman in the dark clothes— Joe Busa - is the one who made this threat. I don't want to say too much about it but I think it should be brought out in the open. In the course of making this threat this gentleman wearing the dark clothes said I was trying to put him out of business. Now he is apparently not the owner of the land. This Board has its own reasons for going to such ex- tremes. I -believe there is a clause saying.a business like this is to ' have some benefit to, the town's welfare. This.is detrimental to the town's welfare in itself. It has a previous record of violations. A letter, dated March 16, 1962, written by Mr. D. E. Nickerson to Mr. completely overlooked by the Board of Appeals and the Building In- spector. It indicates that the stand will be operated until 9:00 p.m. It is operated beyond that time. It is not to be brilliantly lighted. There are times when it is. The Board states this stand shall be maintained in a neat and orderly condition. It is not. I recall having checked into the matter of a building permit which was applied for. Mr. Irwin stated they were going to make a place for storage for a tractor. It was not so used. It became a stand and at a later date a canopy went up. I don't think it is fair to the town of Lexington. I don't think it is fair to set up arbitrarily things which are violations of the law. These roadside stands are not roadside stands - they are getting to be businesses. At the last hearing you gave me personally a hard time and tried to make me look like a fool when I objected to this petition. It is your job to treat people with respect. Our property rights are impaired as a result of these farm operations. I think this right should be tempered and it should be used right. Richard J. McCarron Atty., 75 Federal St.,Boston. Represent- ing Alice Monahan, 51 Lowell St. I have here an affidavit of Miss Alice Monahan which reiterates the statements of the other objectors. I wish this affidavit to be made a part of the record. The permit requested by John and Rosina Busa under Sec. 14 F of the Zoning By- law the Board is specifically allowed to grant for sale only pro- ducts grown on the land. It is quite apparent they are selling other products and there is no indication of their changing. They are ask- ing for the same permit yet Mr. Rose states they are running a retail store. If they are going to ignore the evidence then that should be made a part of the record. We have evidence showing that goods are going into the Busa property. No doubt this is in direct violation. Do you want to ignore it? Mr. Nickerson: We don't want to ignore anything. Between you and me these violations of roadside stand permits given by the Board of Appeals are never going to be handled satisfactorily by the Build- ing Inspector. This situation has been discussed a number of times and we realize that there is a difference between what we.grant and what is done. The Building Inspector and our Board have spoken to the Selectmen and asked them if they are going to make spectacles of us by making laws which cannot be enforced. The only recourse that complainants have to correct this situation is to take the Board of Appeals to court to reverse a decision and make a trial case of it. I am not going to enjoy it. If they are selling products not pro- duced on their own land all we can do is to bring to the attention of the Building Inspector the infractions. We are not an enforcing body. McCarron: Is there any evidence to dispute the fact that there are violations? As a matter of fact they are buying and selling re- tail. They should not be granted this permit. (Mr. McCarron showed a package of invoices which he claimed had blown onto Miss Monahan's ' property. These showed transactions of sale of materials to the Busa's.)