MachineHead
NES Member
Sounds painful. This definitely sucks.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
the town of west boylston is unbelievable
- Thread starter jerryhipp
- Start date
Sounds painful. This definitely sucks.
If this is a "compromise" what is the other side giving up?
GM-GUY
NES Member
This is how compromises on the 2nd work; we have the 2nd and in this case significant history of the range and a state law, they have feelings. So we have to give up stuff and they agree to not be so butt hurt for a month or two until they are after the next thing.
I hope that list wasn't agreed to or enacted - that sucks. If it sticks, I can see other towns doing the same thing.
I plan on stopping by Waynes when he is back from Florida - someone post when that happens. I used to go there more often when I worked in Holden, no so much now that I'm so close to NH I can taste it.
I hope that list wasn't agreed to or enacted - that sucks. If it sticks, I can see other towns doing the same thing.
I plan on stopping by Waynes when he is back from Florida - someone post when that happens. I used to go there more often when I worked in Holden, no so much now that I'm so close to NH I can taste it.
The question is, was this a proposal, was this a mandate, or was this an agreement?
Here is the full update as I saw it at the meeting-
The complainants are arguing that the backyard range has become a quasi commercial venture as Wayne has built his shop business. The evidence cited includes instructors that have utilized it for classes that they charged students for, armored car company using it to train employees as well as Wayne's shop website listing that they have two ranges. The zoning of this property is residential so this commercial use would violate the intended use of the property. Although all agreed Wayne has never charged for use of the property the board seemed to think there could be a case made that is was commercial.
The good news was one member of the board was pretty adamant that even if the use had slid to the commercial side the boards job was to enforce that these specific commercial activities cease. It did not seem that he felt that the board would be within their rights to mandate that Wayne only allow family to shoot or the other restrictions that the petitioners requested.
The public comment section as you can imagine was filled with the usual sob stories of noise and not being able to even go outside during the day etc despite some of these folks being well over one mile away.
The outcome referenced in the previous posts was agreed to by the members of Wayne's family as he was not present. They have been directed to have a sit down meeting to discuss noise abatement upgrades to the range. These noise reduction measures have not been mandated but Wayne had offered to explore this past fall.
Having listened to the group that spoke against Wayne I do not expect that this sit down will lead to a solution no matter what Wayne offers to do. This group is looking to stop shooting at Wayne's....period. That being said if the groups do not come to a resolution during these meetings the ZBA will revisit the issue on 4/21. It seemed pretty clear that this board did not want to rule one way or another in this matter.
This "Concerned Citizens" group is small but well organized. This is dangerous in a small town. Although it is clear that this group represents the minority opinion in town not nearly enough of the other citizens are concerned enough to take time out to attend the meetings and help defend Wayne's property rights. The "concerned citizens" arrived early and took up all the seats in the actual hearing room relegating Wayne's supporters to a Video viewing room down in the first floor of the building.
I do not know Wayne or the Family so I am not sure what their next steps will be. Hopefully Kelly will keep us updated with any news.
The complainants are arguing that the backyard range has become a quasi commercial venture as Wayne has built his shop business. The evidence cited includes instructors that have utilized it for classes that they charged students for, armored car company using it to train employees as well as Wayne's shop website listing that they have two ranges. The zoning of this property is residential so this commercial use would violate the intended use of the property. Although all agreed Wayne has never charged for use of the property the board seemed to think there could be a case made that is was commercial.
The good news was one member of the board was pretty adamant that even if the use had slid to the commercial side the boards job was to enforce that these specific commercial activities cease. It did not seem that he felt that the board would be within their rights to mandate that Wayne only allow family to shoot or the other restrictions that the petitioners requested.
The public comment section as you can imagine was filled with the usual sob stories of noise and not being able to even go outside during the day etc despite some of these folks being well over one mile away.
The outcome referenced in the previous posts was agreed to by the members of Wayne's family as he was not present. They have been directed to have a sit down meeting to discuss noise abatement upgrades to the range. These noise reduction measures have not been mandated but Wayne had offered to explore this past fall.
Having listened to the group that spoke against Wayne I do not expect that this sit down will lead to a solution no matter what Wayne offers to do. This group is looking to stop shooting at Wayne's....period. That being said if the groups do not come to a resolution during these meetings the ZBA will revisit the issue on 4/21. It seemed pretty clear that this board did not want to rule one way or another in this matter.
This "Concerned Citizens" group is small but well organized. This is dangerous in a small town. Although it is clear that this group represents the minority opinion in town not nearly enough of the other citizens are concerned enough to take time out to attend the meetings and help defend Wayne's property rights. The "concerned citizens" arrived early and took up all the seats in the actual hearing room relegating Wayne's supporters to a Video viewing room down in the first floor of the building.
I do not know Wayne or the Family so I am not sure what their next steps will be. Hopefully Kelly will keep us updated with any news.
namedpipes
NES Member
They're giving up the requirement that the store be burned to the ground and the owner flogged in the public square.
Wayne has the law on his side. He can simply refuse and continue as he has and he will be in the right.
Sadly, justice comes at a price, which he'll pay dearly for in continual legal battles as the a-holes he has for neighbors wear him down.
I am disappointed that a small group has decided that "because guns" is a good enough reason to press the issue. Noise is very subjective, but the law clearly is on Wayne's side on the subject of noise.
I would like to see a verified and certified decibel meter placed at the homes of the complainants for an objective measurement and compare the noise against lawn equipment or motorcycles.
Their list of wishes clearly have less to do with noise than with "because guns are bad"
This sums it up. Plainly.
Clearly, it is not about noise. It is about "scary guns"
dcmdon
NES Member
I've read everything I could find on this.
And I know I'm going to take a ton of heat for this. The range has existed for years. But the intensity of its use has grown significantly.
The complainants have been poorly advised in that they asked for specific weapon restrictions. If they had not done this, the issue would be one that dealt strictly with zoning and general human civility.
This is and should remain a zoning and civility question that has nothing to do with firearms. Just noise. Noise that is perceived to be excessive for an area zoned residential. Forget Government for a minute and lets talk expectations. When you purchase property in a residential area you agree to certain restrictions on the use of the property. Uses that would detract from the residential nature of the area. If you want to engage in activities with lots of noise, fumes, dust, or efluent, you should seek to locate in somewhere that is commercial or industrial.
If the owner of the range is in a residential zoned area and is using the Customary Home Occupation carve out to run a gun shop out of his home, then he should understand that what he does should not detract from the residential nature of the neighborhood. If he is using the range to allow commercial entities to practice, with the intent of advancing his business, then he should move his business to somewhere zoned commercially.
Again, this should have nothing to do with firearms. Its all about zoning and what I like to call the golden rule. My rights end where others begin. If my activity reasonably annoys another person I am ethically bound to stop or modify that activity.
Even if we remove Government and the law from this discussion. Just looking at this from an ethical perspective, this guy should throttle things down to a "personal" level of intensity.
If people moved into that neighborhood at a time when he got together with friends for a couple of hours every weekend to shoot and don't like that, then they need to just deal with it. However, if a couple of years later he is holding IDPA matches at the range on a monthly basis, then this is not an activity consistent with basic human courtesy, forget the law.
Whether this activity is right or wrong, and whether Government power should be brought to bear on the range owner are two different things. One thing is clear and that is that in the interest of doing what is right, the range owner should curtail the use of the range back to a level of intensity that could be described as "personal use". If he wants to use it for commercial purposes then he should site it in a more appropriate location.
Sorry, I can't join in this echo chamber. Flame away.
And I know I'm going to take a ton of heat for this. The range has existed for years. But the intensity of its use has grown significantly.
The complainants have been poorly advised in that they asked for specific weapon restrictions. If they had not done this, the issue would be one that dealt strictly with zoning and general human civility.
This is and should remain a zoning and civility question that has nothing to do with firearms. Just noise. Noise that is perceived to be excessive for an area zoned residential. Forget Government for a minute and lets talk expectations. When you purchase property in a residential area you agree to certain restrictions on the use of the property. Uses that would detract from the residential nature of the area. If you want to engage in activities with lots of noise, fumes, dust, or efluent, you should seek to locate in somewhere that is commercial or industrial.
If the owner of the range is in a residential zoned area and is using the Customary Home Occupation carve out to run a gun shop out of his home, then he should understand that what he does should not detract from the residential nature of the neighborhood. If he is using the range to allow commercial entities to practice, with the intent of advancing his business, then he should move his business to somewhere zoned commercially.
Again, this should have nothing to do with firearms. Its all about zoning and what I like to call the golden rule. My rights end where others begin. If my activity reasonably annoys another person I am ethically bound to stop or modify that activity.
Even if we remove Government and the law from this discussion. Just looking at this from an ethical perspective, this guy should throttle things down to a "personal" level of intensity.
If people moved into that neighborhood at a time when he got together with friends for a couple of hours every weekend to shoot and don't like that, then they need to just deal with it. However, if a couple of years later he is holding IDPA matches at the range on a monthly basis, then this is not an activity consistent with basic human courtesy, forget the law.
Whether this activity is right or wrong, and whether Government power should be brought to bear on the range owner are two different things. One thing is clear and that is that in the interest of doing what is right, the range owner should curtail the use of the range back to a level of intensity that could be described as "personal use". If he wants to use it for commercial purposes then he should site it in a more appropriate location.
Sorry, I can't join in this echo chamber. Flame away.
Last edited:
dcmdon
NES Member
This is what happened with a lot of dragstrips. They buy property near them because prices are low then get them shut down because of noise![[frown]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/003.gif "Frown [frown]")
No this is nothing like what happens with dragstrips, or smelly farms or airports, or even most shooting ranges.
What happened here is like buying next to a drag strip that runs a 2 hour event every month, or a small private airport.
And then while you are there they start hosting NHRA events every saturday for 8 hours , or Delta decides to fly into that airport.
People have no right to complain about a pre-existing nuisance.
However, if the nuisance increases substantially after they live there, their complaint is both ethically and legally legitimate.
dcmdon
NES Member
Based on the groups web site, this is not the case. Can you cite anything other than you recollection supporting this? Are there meeting minutes posted anywhere??
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2016
- Messages
- 13
- Likes
- 8
Hello Everyone, thank you for concern. I am going to try to keep this simple. We as a family want everyone to know that we agree that this "agreement" isn't fair. We don't think that we should be limited to OUR time to shoot, when our neighbors can shoot any day and any time they want. We are trying to keep our calm but it's hard at this time. We will be putting a petition together. Also if anyone has ideas to help such as meet as a group let me know ASAP. We need to help my grandfather. Thank you!
dcmdon
NES Member
One other thing. Recent residents have civil recourse against any real estate agent who failed to disclose this nuisance prior to sale. I would take a guess that houses for sale in that area are primarily shown on weekday evenings not on weekends.
I had a friend whose family owned an egg farm. They had 30,000 hens in a multistory building on 2 or 3 acres. In the 80s developers bought the other farms around and built high end houses. The houses were shown and sold primarily between November and March.
Then summer rolled around and the chicken farm started to stink like it had for the previous 60 years. People complained. They formed a group. They petitioned the town of Branford, CT to do something.
My friend's dad, being the savvy businessman that he was, asked to meet with the homeowner group. They agreed.
When they met, he showed them photos of the farm from the 1920s, along with all the farm land around it. He explained that the farm had been in the family for 60 years and that its size and intensity had remained constant for that time. In fact the coop was the same building his great great grandfather had built in the 1930s. He also emphasized that the smell was less than it had ever been since they had installed electric poop conveyors to bring the poop out and dump it into a pickup truck, which made daily runs to a vegetable farm in North Branford where it was sold as fertilizer.
This is where my friend's dad was brilliant. He explained that the nuisance of the farm predated their homes. He explained that he had a lot of money (the egg farm was only part of the small empire of businesses he owned) and lawyers on retainer and that he would defend the farm on principal, even if it was not worth the financial cost.
He then asked them if their R/E agents had disclosed this known nuisance to them when they were looking for a home. None of them had been informed. With that, he said that their beef was really with the real estate professionals who sold them the homes, not him.
With that, he pulled out a $15,000 check from his pocket (decent money back in the early 80s) and offered that if they agree to cease hostilities against him, he would provide initial funding of a lawsuit against the developer and its listing agents. They took the check and his problems disappeared.
Brilliant huh?
Don
p.s. But again this is not the case here, as far as I can tell. The analogy here would be my friend's 30,000 chickens are suddenly expanded to 120,000 chickens and a galvanizing plant.
- - - Updated - - -
I don't think anyone things your time should be limited.
The issue should be WHO shoots and why. (Paid training by 3rd parties is clearly commercial for example)
I had a friend whose family owned an egg farm. They had 30,000 hens in a multistory building on 2 or 3 acres. In the 80s developers bought the other farms around and built high end houses. The houses were shown and sold primarily between November and March.
Then summer rolled around and the chicken farm started to stink like it had for the previous 60 years. People complained. They formed a group. They petitioned the town of Branford, CT to do something.
My friend's dad, being the savvy businessman that he was, asked to meet with the homeowner group. They agreed.
When they met, he showed them photos of the farm from the 1920s, along with all the farm land around it. He explained that the farm had been in the family for 60 years and that its size and intensity had remained constant for that time. In fact the coop was the same building his great great grandfather had built in the 1930s. He also emphasized that the smell was less than it had ever been since they had installed electric poop conveyors to bring the poop out and dump it into a pickup truck, which made daily runs to a vegetable farm in North Branford where it was sold as fertilizer.
This is where my friend's dad was brilliant. He explained that the nuisance of the farm predated their homes. He explained that he had a lot of money (the egg farm was only part of the small empire of businesses he owned) and lawyers on retainer and that he would defend the farm on principal, even if it was not worth the financial cost.
He then asked them if their R/E agents had disclosed this known nuisance to them when they were looking for a home. None of them had been informed. With that, he said that their beef was really with the real estate professionals who sold them the homes, not him.
With that, he pulled out a $15,000 check from his pocket (decent money back in the early 80s) and offered that if they agree to cease hostilities against him, he would provide initial funding of a lawsuit against the developer and its listing agents. They took the check and his problems disappeared.
Brilliant huh?
Don
p.s. But again this is not the case here, as far as I can tell. The analogy here would be my friend's 30,000 chickens are suddenly expanded to 120,000 chickens and a galvanizing plant.
- - - Updated - - -
I don't think anyone things your time should be limited.
The issue should be WHO shoots and why. (Paid training by 3rd parties is clearly commercial for example)
I am not aware of meeting minutes posted. The group amended their request for relief at the beginning of the hearing to limit shooting to only residents of the property. They further tried to define what was reasonable which is 1 hour per day. My opinion of their intent was further formed by listening to the off the record conversations from members of the group of concerned citizens. The argument that the range has increased its usage does not hold water.....the armored car company example was from 1997. I have lived within 3000 feet of the property for 20 years. In that time I have noticed zero increase in usage.
I do not personally shoot at Wayne's and as I mentioned do not have a personal relationship. My objections to this is not for fear that the place I shoot may no longer be available. The precedent that could be set here is dangerous. If I am ever fortunate enough to own a parcel of land in town such as his I would not want to be subjected to a one hour maximum or limit my ability to invite my friends to enjoy my property.
namedpipes
NES Member
Not sure how long Wayne has lived there, but likely for decades. Other than the newcomers, people that live in those towns have been there "forever". Very little in-between.
For all intents and purposes, he moved somewhere rural and pursued interests that are common and accepted in (most) rural areas. Nothing there would raise an eyebrow 50 - 100 miles north of him. He has no duty to conform with the lemmings that moved in around him. If everybody that currently lives in Cambridge suddenly decides to move into your town and buy up all the houses around you, you are NOT ethically bound to go buy a Prius.
The area changed. It may not be a city but it is hell and gone from what it was when I lived in the area back in the 70s/80s.
This issue regarding shooting at Wayne's is not that dissimilar from what happened at Marlborough Airport a few years ago.
The Airport hosts a flight school, someone decided to build condominiums near the airport. Condo owners complained about airport noise, and that helicopter lessons were now being offered.
The Condo owners got bent out of shape over something that, quite frankly, should have been damn obvious. When you live next to an airport, expect noise.
In the case of Wayne's, there is little doubt that the area in question has been used as a range for several decades, even preceeding the establishment of the town's zoning bylaws. Under Massachusetts State Law, no complaints may be brought on the basis of noise against a lawful range, provided the range was either in compliance with any zoning ordinances at the time of first use, or, the time of first use occurred prior to the establishment of zoning regulations.
Seeing that West Boylston established zoning in or about 1990, and the range has been in use since at least the 80's or even earlier, noise is legally a moot point.
Please read exactly what the Concerned Citizens of West Boylston are asking for, and honestly tell us this is just about noise.
Now we have some solid info to work with.
NOTE: I've never been there, never met Wayne, W. Boylston is very distant from any of my travels!
I totally disagree with Don.
- Fact relayed above: Range (with or without the gun shop) has been there since 1980s or earlier.
- Town had no zoning bylaws when the range opened up for use.
- Range is located at a different address than the business and preceded it, thus it wasn't part of any special permit and never had to be part of any special permit.
- The range noise bylaw protects the range usage from what is going on here.
- NOBODY in Wayne's Family should have agreed to anything without Wayne being present. It seems that it was not their place to do so and encumber Wayne to any set of restrictions.
- The petition listing what types of guns can't be used is pure bullshit. It indeed proves what the intent is and as others stated it isn't about noise.
- Wayne needs a good firearms attorney to do battle for him and stuffing the state law up their collective asses.
As for Don's position that increased usage shouldn't be allowed:
- Damn near every gun club in MA is in residential zoned property.
- Using Don's position, membership should be restricted to what it was when these gun clubs opened up.
- Case in point, I joined Braintree R&P in 1999 when we had 2700 members. A few years later Messina built condos and apartments surrounding the gun club, and eventually they sent us a letter asking us not to shoot after ~4PM on weekends and other times when they were showing their properties (we refused them). We now have 6000 members, have added steel plate racks, an action pistol match and indeed there is more range usage now than there was in 1999.
- If we accept Don't position, since Braintree R&P was first formed in 1891 (and there were no zoning bylaws back then either), we shouldn't be able to shoot any guns there that didn't exist back in 1891! What did the USSC recently say about such positions held by our SJC?
Wayne needs to stand his ground and not give an inch!
richc
NES Member
I was at the range one fine Sunday and a real estate agent showed up dressed in his Sunday finest. With his pearly whites twinkling in the morning sun and a smile that was sure to convince us of his wisdom, he asked that we shut down the range for a couple hours so that his open house would not be disturbed from out gun fire.
Well I'm not quite as polished as said real estate agent but asked him if he was trying to mislead potential buyers? I reminded him that there are certain disclosures required and certainly our club would not be complicit in his misguided efforts. I'll give him credit, though. He was persistent and figured his inimitable charm could sway me to the contrary. At that point I told him that unless he was a member he needed to leave the premises as he was trespassing.
Real estate agents, although not quite as scummy as car dealers, do share some of the same characteristics.
Well I'm not quite as polished as said real estate agent but asked him if he was trying to mislead potential buyers? I reminded him that there are certain disclosures required and certainly our club would not be complicit in his misguided efforts. I'll give him credit, though. He was persistent and figured his inimitable charm could sway me to the contrary. At that point I told him that unless he was a member he needed to leave the premises as he was trespassing.
Real estate agents, although not quite as scummy as car dealers, do share some of the same characteristics.
Rich, I might disagree with you about them not being as scummy as car dealers. My dealings with them in the past in CT and MA leads me to feel otherwise!
I would have asked him for his business card or his name/company and then (after getting the info) informed him that I was going to file a report with the Board of Realtors who does the licensing for fraud. He would beat feet out of there faster than the roadrunner . . . you wouldn't have to threaten to trespass him!
Silly question:
Are there woods in the area owned by the state? Is shooting allowed there?
Good question. Who called it a compromise?
I do not think he charges for use of the range.
It is also about families. I would like to take my kids there to shoot, when visiting relatives in the area.
Are there woods in the area owned by the state? Is shooting allowed there?
Good question. Who called it a compromise?
I do not think he charges for use of the range.
It is also about families. I would like to take my kids there to shoot, when visiting relatives in the area.
To me, this situation is markedly similar to the Northborough situation from just a couple of years ago.
The Browns built and maintained a lawful and safe backyard range for their enjoyment. Neighboring parcels of land were deemed "undevelopable" and at all times, the range complied with local and state laws.
Fast forward a few years and suddenly there are houses on the "undevelopable" lots. New neighbors complain, Chief of police issues an order preventing the Browns from the use of their property, Browns challenge in court and win.
Neighbors (with the backing of the chief of police) try a town meeting question to prevent shooting within the town all together, if within 500 feet of a dwelling, ignoring the state law which exempts ranges from the 500 foot rule.
With solid community support, the question was soundly defeated.
It is unacceptable to force a lawful range to change based on the insecurities of people who clearly don't like firearms.
The Browns built and maintained a lawful and safe backyard range for their enjoyment. Neighboring parcels of land were deemed "undevelopable" and at all times, the range complied with local and state laws.
Fast forward a few years and suddenly there are houses on the "undevelopable" lots. New neighbors complain, Chief of police issues an order preventing the Browns from the use of their property, Browns challenge in court and win.
Neighbors (with the backing of the chief of police) try a town meeting question to prevent shooting within the town all together, if within 500 feet of a dwelling, ignoring the state law which exempts ranges from the 500 foot rule.
With solid community support, the question was soundly defeated.
It is unacceptable to force a lawful range to change based on the insecurities of people who clearly don't like firearms.
I may be more of an Electrical Engineering type, but I can swing a hammer and dig the hell out of a hole if you need human power to make this "sound baffle install" happen.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2011
- Messages
- 3,864
- Likes
- 1,058
MachineHead
NES Member
Bleeding heart at 2:47:35--this is ridiculous. Hopefully Wayne can get this whole thing squared away with a lawyer who's sharp as a tack.
It'd be nice if they had established "regular" shooting hours like weekdays 8am-dusk and weekends 9am-dusk or something. The proposed hours until the April meeting are bullshit along with not allowing anyone you want to allow to use your range.
Enzo
NES Member
The Board Chair must think only her opinion matters. One of the members said they should view the property and she quickly says NO. I guess she has a super vote.
What was the most telling to me is one of the primary complainers who lives with his husband said that since he retired last year that this is his main "project".
IMO the discussion between a quorum of board members and one of the compainers during the recess near the end of the meeting violates the open meeting law. Whatever discussion that was taking place should have happened in the open, public meeting.
What was the most telling to me is one of the primary complainers who lives with his husband said that since he retired last year that this is his main "project".
IMO the discussion between a quorum of board members and one of the compainers during the recess near the end of the meeting violates the open meeting law. Whatever discussion that was taking place should have happened in the open, public meeting.
Last edited:
kevin9
NES Member
Actually, with the current law the complaint has to first be filed with the offending board/committee, and then to the state AG's office if their response is not sufficient. Here's the appropriate form: http://www.mass.gov/ago/government-...g-law/ago-open-meeting-law-complaint-form.pdf
Similar threads
