Representatives of the General Store and the Harvard Press were looking for a green light at the March 24 Board of Health meeting to have the Press’s office remain in the General Store building; what they got instead was approval for the newspaper office to stay there for 30 more days, until May 9.
Last month the health board granted the Press permission to move to the third floor of the General Store, but for only 30 days, during which time board members would study regulations and documentation that Nashoba Associated Boards of Health sanitarian Ira Grossman said prohibited the move. In February Grossman had advised General Store owner Adam Horowitz, who is a co-owner of the Harvard Press with Worth Robbins and Lisa Aciukewicz, that the move could not take place at all because of concerns about potential impact on the store’s septic system.
At the March 24 meeting Grossman, consultant to the health board for 20 years, maintained that conditions of a 1971 permit to the Clothes Corner, which occupied the General Store’s space at the time, should be enforced, allowing for only “about five employees” in the building. Septic flows, he said, could not exceed those of a single-family house. Grossman further asserted that a change in use from retail space to office space represents an increase in flows, by definition of the state’s Title 5 septic regulations, and added that a second, distinct business cannot operate within the General Store. Board members expressed concern about setting a precedent that could open the door to businesses taking in other, unrelated businesses.
“My businesses can operate in the General Store,” said Horowitz. “What I use the space for in my business is my business.” This is a zoning issue, he said, not a septic capacity issue. Horowitz expressed a commitment to comply with every regulation.
Previous General Store owner Joyce Garrick told the board at the March 10 meeting that during the approximately 30 years her family owned the General Store, the building had 27 occupants. Her family’s business included a pharmacy, a camera store, and framing operations, she said. The Harvard Post newspaper also had offices on the premises, she added. Grossman asserted that those operations were probably illegal, in light of the 1971 permit.
Ruth Silman, a Harvard resident and attorney for the General Store, asked for “administrative leniency” at the March 24 meeting, referring to what she said was the clear intent of the town in 1971 to help the Clothes Corner survive by granting it single-family septic capacity in a residential area.
Horowitz said that the General Store has always been in compliance with the letter of the law, and stated his intentions that the presence of the Press in the building would, in fact, be far less aggressive than Garrick’s use and would not endanger the septic system’s approved flows. He spoke about “the dire economic conditions” and the logic of combining office space and reducing expenses for the Press, such as rent. “As partners with the Harvard Press, we’re trying to help out a business in town,” he said. Horowitz did the math by asking the board to compare 27 people for 30 years, to the General Store’s two employees plus the Press’s two to three.
As discussion turned to the fact that houses in town have flows well over the 400 gallons per day that the General Store’s system will accommodate, Grossman said, “From a bureaucratic standpoint the code is very specific.” He admitted that using current calculations for office space, the size of the system is within the tolerances for today’s offices, “but that’s leaving out the permit.”
Grossman agreed that the unusual 1971 permit wording was uncommon in not having the septic capacity stated, and that the permit “was done to fix the problem” of a septic system only a couple of inches above groundwater. But the document’s handwritten and unclear nature has created problems. To some, the document appears to limit the number of employees to five, but to others the number looks like an eight.
Health board member Jack Spero said that the situation “puts Ira and the board in a rough position. If you don’t go by the rules, you get in trouble.”
Chairman Tom Philippou said, “We’re out on a limb here and left to our own devices. If we go ahead and try to clarify what the permit is really saying, and what we commonly see today, can we require annual testing until town center [sewer] comes about to tell if it’s in default?” It’s the number of people that are the limiting factor, he added, not the number of gallons.
Grossman cautioned the board that however it decides, and given a specifically worded permit, “if you allow for historic use, you have to establish that if the General Store moves out tomorrow, you have to fix 30 years of wrongs from this day forward.”
Forty minutes after discussion began, Philippou concluded, “We’re closer to a decision, but we’re not there yet.”
The board decided to revisit the occupancy’s legality at its next meeting on April 14.
Reactions from the owners
Horowitz expressed bafflement at the obstacles he sees to the logical synergies of two related businesses in a difficult economy, but also a commitment to the ongoing process of decision making. “When we built it out, when we bought it, when we conduct business, everything is grandfathered in—there is 30 years of precedent,” he said. “That should be enough as long as we don’t reach excess capacity.” He continued, “It is important that our message of understanding and respect for this institution [the Board of Health] is loud and clear.” He expressed confidence that the board will recognize that the General Store and the Press can easily meet septic capacity requirements, and that 38 years of precedent, plus continuing stewardship of the building, will lead to “the logical conclusion.”
Given the economy, he said, “this is not the time to try to break the precedent of 38 years, and to correct the wrongs, if in fact there were wrongs.”
Asked if he intended to pursue legal remedies if occupancy is not granted, he said, “As businesspeople and custodians of two community-oriented services, we have to keep our options open. I don’t believe that it will be necessary to go down a legal path. I trust 38 years of precedent.”
Press co-owner Robbins said that the newspaper is so mindful of the concerns about the septic system that it didn’t hold its last reporter-training session in its third-floor offices: “Rather than do that, we paid the $50 ‘expanded use fee’ to use the Hapgood Room at the old library instead.
“Indeed, an important ingredient is the location of what we’ve started,” Robbins said. The Press is getting a lot more drop-ins. “They know we’re here, and just drop by.”
Asked what lies ahead for the paper if the General Store is not involved, Robbins admitted, “We don’t have a ‘plan B.’ We’ve not identified another alternative in Harvard that would work.” He concluded, “It’s ironic that the emphasis [in town] is on bringing business to the commercial district, and we’re having such trouble.”
