HomeMy WebLinkAbout1963-08-12 JOINT MEETING WITH BOARD OF SELECTMEN, PLANNING BOARD,
AND BOARD OF APPEALS
August 12, 1963
Lincoln Cole, Chairman Selectmen. (To Board of Appeals) - This
meeting has been called as a result of a letter from you to us (Dis-
pensed with the reading of the letter )
Donald E. Nickerson, Chairman Board of Appeals We feel that our
Board and other town boards are in an awkward position in respect to
Sec 14 F, and it has been going on for some time My reference is to
the fact that the building inspector is not able to enforce this. Back
several years the Board of Selectmen conferred at some length with the
Planning Board, Board of Appeals, and Building Inspector with refer-
ence to enforcing this section "products grown on the premises may be
sold, etc " At that time Mr Irwin went to every roadside stand in
Lexington and made an examination of the materials sold and reported
to the Board of Selectmen, who were at that time considering employing
another person to execute this supervision of roadside stands. A
person comes in for permission to operate a stand for another year
This is one of our easier hearings and always put on as number one or
two on the agenda - the question is asked of the petitioner if there
is any change - no. Any questions from the Board - no Anyone in
favor - no. Anyone opposed - no Hearing closed - boom, boom, boom -
' with the exception of this one petition on Lowell St for John and
Rosina Busa This started several years ago when Joseph Busa peti-
tioned to conduct a roadside stand on the premises at 52 Lowell St
At the hearing objectors came in and correctly stated that we were not
holding a legal hearing because the owner of the property was not Joe
Busa Joe stated that as a lessee of the property from his father and
mother he thought he should have petitioned Subsequently John and
Angelina came in and the permit was granted The objectors threatened
suit which did not materialize When it came in last month the ob-
jectors came in again making a determined effort to have us deny this
petition We have not done so We have let it sit thinking we should
present it to this board It would be an impossibility to enforce be-
cause every stand sells other products and because customers want it
that way We can do one of two things (1) Enforce the Section as
written; or (2) consider sone liberalizing or redesigning so that the
roadside stands can sell other materials and not disobey the law
Are you speaking for both boards oe the Board of Appeals?
;kerson. The Planning Board was asked to come because they un-
- v will be the ones who will have to draw, this thing up, hold
and have the article in the town warrant to change the zon-
a.
111 We would like to hear from the chairman of the Planning
.P of PlanningBoard We discussed this just
.e, Chairman J
can certainly find the right word We have done much thinking on this
from the point of believing that a roadside stand should not be part
of our retail business - this should be done in retail stores Now
that the Planning Board has this thinking, and as far as I am concerned
this is their department, and if they believe this way certainly I
would agree with their thinking, and in writing or rewriting the zon-
ing by-law believe they would have the right terminology and come up
with a zoning change that would legally cover this
Reed, Selectman. I am a neighbor of this stand of Busa's and the
thingthatbothers me is that this is a personal grudge This stand
really does very little business - not more than three cars at one time.
The thing is going to take care of itself in time - this is the last
year for Busa on Grant Street.
OTeele (Planning Board) From the point of view of the Board of
Appeals they can only grant a permit if they are really satisfied they
are selling only products produced on the farm.
Reed: Time is going to take care of roadside stands. They are
limited now
Nickerson: Millicans - there is an emporium of no mean size.
Davenport is apparently over in a corner and is conducting a good busi-
ness
Mabee: I think this thing should be liberalized as the Board will
have to do the mechanics on it. Just give us somethIng to go on. If
your senior board agrees with the second recommendation, to liberalize,
it will have to decide and tell us that we should get on our horse and
the Planning Board have a hearing and present this new article.
? Maybe Town Counsel has something to say on this.
Donald Legro, Town Counsel: This is. a question I really don't
want to answer, but I think it is an illusion to think that liberaliz-
ing by way of defining the products or the volume of products or the
percentage of products is going to. be any answer. I think Mr Irwin's
survey is an indication of this. Some would not state, some stated
50%, some 85% or 90%. I think your problem of enforcement is going to
be greater than it is now. If it is in the public interest to do so
it is perfectly permissible on a renewal request to state that the per-
mit was violated and deny it. I don't think you are going to be in a
position to say whether there is a preponderance or 50%. It is going
to be a matter of determining how much is involved
Nickerson. Under 14 F we can grant yearly permits only to road-
side stands "for the sale only of products of land of the owner of the
stand that is within the Town." They can't be wrong unless they have
violated the permit. If they sell one item that is not grown in Lex-
ington they are in violation and the Board could go in and say "You
are wrong." When you come in for a renewal and ten conditions have
been set down and objectors clearly show that eight conditions have
not been lived up to, and we issue a permission, we are double talking
If we deny this one what are we going to do with the next one that
Planning Board to rewrite Section 14 F of the Zoning By-laws to
liberalize the contents and by wording that provides for practical
enforcement
Unanimously voted. We will go on from here.
Meeting adjourned at 10.10 p.m.
) v 4cai /f///( ten 4t,A
Louise M. Macomber,
Clerk
1