HomeMy WebLinkAbout4974 1067 Route 28 Decision RecordedBk 35387 Pg203 #47760
TOWN OF YARMOUTH
BOARD OF APPEALS
DECISION
yE
FILED WITH TOWN CLERK: August 30,2022
PETITION NO: 4974
HEARING DATE: August 25,2022
PETITIONER: Ryan Family Amusements, Inc.
OWNER: Mary Angus Mullen
PROPERTY: 1067 Route 28, South Yarmouth
Map & Lot: 50.116; Zoning District: B-2
Title: Book 1353,Page 15
MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING: Chairman Steven DeYoung,Sean Igoe,Jay
Fraprie,Dick Martin, and John Mantoni.
Notice of the hearing has been given by sending notice thereof to the Petitioner and all those
owners of property as required by law,and to the public by posting notice of the hearing and
publishing in The Cape Cod Times,the hearing opened and held on the date as stated above.
Ryan Family Amusements Inc. is the Petitioner seeking relief to install an attached sign over a
second, front entrance door which serves a recently leased,central portion of the building already
occupied by the Petitioner's longstanding bowling alley and gaming entertainment business at
the Property. Specifically, the Petitioner requests either a Special Permit under Section 303.13 of
the Zoning By-Law,or, in the alternative, a Variance in accordance with Sections 102.2.2 and
303.12 of the Zoning By-Law and M.G.L. Chapter 40A, Section 10,from the provisions of
Sections 303.5.5.2 of the Zoning By-Law, to allow the requested entrance sign.
The Petitioner was represented by Andrew Singer, Esquire,of Law Office of Singer&Singer,
LLC, and Peter Campbell of Ryan Family Amusements, Inc.No members of the public appeared
either in favor or in opposition to the Petition.
The building historically had three tenants. At present,the Petitioner occupies the center and
right spaces in the building, and the left space is vacant. The right space is occupied by the
bowling and food portions of the business,and the center space is occupied by the axe throwing,
corn hole, and arcade portions of the business. While there is an interior access between the two
portions of the business,the main entrance from the parking area to each space, including
RUE ATTEST .
SEP" gl nivc i TovvN C L ,"'
Bk 35387 Pg204 #47760
ticketing exclusive to that area,are at the respective front doors to the building.
The proposed sign at the second entrance is effectively a"departmental sign"providing notice to
the public for safer and more efficient access to the axe throwing, corn hole and arcade activities
in that portion of the business. Its primary text identifies the entertainment offered within the
center area of the building at that existing entrance door. The proposed sign is 96"x 60"and
matches the existing main business sign in size and design. While the overall size of this sign(40
sq. ft.) is conforming and the sign will be significantly less than the allowed one-third running
face of the building, relief is required for its height. In addition, relief is required fora second
attached sign on a non-perpendicular wall (in this case, the same wall face).
The Board discussed the relief requested and determined that a Variance was required in this
instance,and not the Special Permit authorized by Section 303.13 of the Zoning By-Law. The
Board next looked at the criteria for granting a Variance. The large size and overall length of the
building, its historical usage,and its location on the Property set more than 180 feet back from
Route 28 are unique circumstances such that a literal enforcement of the provisions of the
Zoning By-Law will involve a substantial hardship to the Petitioner and the community if the
second entrance sign is not allowed. In such a situation, having appropriately sized signage at
each entrance is important,not only for aesthetic reasons, but also in order to safely and
adequately inform the traveling public not only where the business is located, but also how to
best access the different portions of the business in the building.
Further,the requested sign relief can be granted without causing any substantial detriment to the
public good and without a substantial derogation from the overall intent of the Zoning By-Law.
The second sign will provide a significant benefit and improvement over the existing conditions.
The size, location,design,texture, lighting and materials of the signs will be in harmony with the
significant architectural features of the existing building on the Property, including the main
business sign, will assist in breaking up the mass of the large building,and will be compatible
with surrounding signs and architecture. The proposed sign will not cause or contribute to any
undue nuisance, hazard or congestion in the neighborhood, zoning district or Town.
The Board discussed the remaining metal frame also on the front face of the building from the
former Daggett's Liquors business.The Board members felt that removing this sign frame would
further enhance the aesthetics of the building. The Petitioner had no objection to this removal
provided that it did not prejudice potential signage for a future tenant in the vacant space at the
left side of the building.
After discussion of the merits of the Petition, a Motion was made by Mr. Igoe,seconded by Mr.
Martin,and voted by roll-call vote five(5) in favor and zero (0)opposed, to grant a Variance in
accordance with Sections 102.2.2 and 303.12 of the Zoning By-Law and M.G.L. Chapter 40A,
Section 10, from the provisions of Sections 303.5.5.2 of the Zoning By-Law, to allow the
requested second, entrance sign as shown on the submitted plans with the following condition:
1. The metal frame from the former Daggett's Liquors business on the left front face
of the building shall be removed when the attached sign approved herein is
installed at the center entrance, with the understanding that this removal shall not
RUE C ATTEST: •
SEP 19 2 22 /cw,c i rOWN
Bk 35387 Pg205 #47760
prejudice the Petitioner or other proposed tenant of the vacant space in the
building from designing an attached sign for such business in the future and
applying for relief as may be required.
Upon a request by the Petitioner to withdraw without prejudice so much of the Petition as
requested as a Special Permit, a Motion was made by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Fraprie,and
voted by roll-call vote five (5) in favor and zero(0) opposed,to allow so much of the Petition as
requested a Special Permit to be withdrawn without prejudice.
No permit shall issue until 20 days from the filing of this decision with the Town Clerk. Appeals
from this decision shall be made pursuant to MGL c40A section 17 and must be filed within 20
days after filing of this notice/decision with the Town Clerk. Unless otherwise provided herein,
the Special Permit shall lapse if a substantial use thereof has not begun within 24 months. (See
bylaw §103.2.5, MGL c40A §9)
Steven DeYoung, Chairman
CERTIFICATION OF TOWN CLERK
I, Mary A. Maslowski,Town Clerk,Town of Yarmouth, do hereby certify that 20 days have
elapsed since the filing with me of the above Board of Appeals Decision#4974 that no notice of
appeal of said decision has been filed with me, or, if such appeal has been filed it has been
dismiss .denied. 11 appeals have been exhausted.
Maty A. Maslowski
1 9 2022
LMMC I CMC I TOWN CLERK
TRUE COPY ATTEST:
CMMC/C:MC I TOWN CLERK
BTER
BARIBLE UN7 EGISTRY OF DEEDS
RECEIVED & RECORDED ELECTRONICALLY