Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecision 1587 Dismissal of Appeal BOH MemoTOWN OF YARMOUTH SOUTH YARMOUTH MASSACHUSE'1'i'S 02664 BOARD OF HEALTH TO: Donald Henderson, Chairman Board of Appeals FROM: Bruce Murphy, Health Officer Y ok DATE: August 11, 1981 SUBJECT: Hyannis Mariner Snack Bar, Petition Number: 1587 This department conducted its routine food service inspection on August 5, 1981. At this time, it was observed that besides the snack bar operations other items were being retailed, i.e. canned food items, soda, bread, eggs, razor blades, bleach, etc... My question to you is this, "Can retail operations at the snack bar continue"? c: r�,��q"gl,nl 81 A Filed with Town Clerk: TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS h-'% 3 1 . Petitioner: H .anni s Mar_a Service, Ltd. 1 Arlington St. est Yarmou , ass. DECISION Hearing Date: 8/9/79 Petition No.:1587 _ The petitioner requested permit to allow the use of snack bar to continue operation. Property located on corner of Willow St. and Arlington St., West Yarmouth, Mass., and shown on Assessors map 923 and 16—QIA. Members of Board of Appeals present: Robert Sherman, David Oman, Thomas George, Herbert Renkainen, Morris Johnson. It appearing that notice of said hearing has been given by sending notice thereof to the petitioner and all those owners of property deemed by the Board to be affected thereby and that public notice of such hearing having been given by publication in the Cape Cod Times on July 25 and August 1, 1979, the hearing was opened and held on the date first above written. The following appeared in favor of the petition: Mr. & Mrs. Alan Cohen, Michael O'Neill, Thomas Hully. The following appeared in opposition: Ralph Thaleen, Mr. Spetalunas, Mrs. Banike, Mr. Neilson, Mary Benson, Mrs. Charles Hanelow. Reasons for decision: It appears from the records that the use of a portion of the Marina premises as a snack bar can be traced prior to 1958 when this Board dealt with this property in Appeals #423 and #424; therefore, it appears that the snack bar exists as a non —conforming use. Since petitioner is merely re —locating the snack bar to a newer facility, further back from its present location and since by leveling the present snack bar building, he will be making internal travel a possibility. Also, since the new facility will be smaller in size, have fewer seats, new septic system, and continue to use paper service, the Board finds this change of a non--conform— Petition No. 1587 Page 2 ing use. Location meets the requirements of the by—law. Therefore, the request is granted with provision that paper service continue. Members of Board voting: Robert Sherman, David Oman, Thomas George, Herbert Renkainen, Morris Johnson. Therefore, the petition for variance, approval or special permit is granted. And we authorize a variance, approval or special permit to allow the use of snack bar to continue operation. Property located on corner of Willow St. and Arlington St., West Yarmouth, Mass. No permit issued until 20 days from date of filing decision with Town Clerk. ROBERT W. SHERMAN Clerk TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS Appeal No. 1587 August 9, 1979 Hyannis Marine Service Members present: David Oman, Robert Sherman, Herbert Renkainen, Thomas George, Morris Johnson. The Chairman called the meeting to order and read the petition. All abutters were notified and the necessary correspondence was made in the Cape Cod Times and the Dennis —Yarmouth Register. Michael O'Neil, Attorney for petitioners: I have to ask first for a waiver of paragraph 8 of the rules and regulations, calling for a certified plot plan. Under your rules and regulations, you have the power to do that. This particular plan was drawn by a survey company that is now out of business so we couldn't get a stamp. We have added in certain dimensions that would apply. It would not vary very much. To have this surveyed again would have been quite an additional expense. Mr. Oman: Let's handle that as we go. He is asking for a waiver of a require— ment of the rules and regulations of the Board of Appeals,that is, a certified plot plan. He is asking us to consider that waiver and consider that that is penciled in. Let's have a motion, one way or another. Mr. O'Neil: This particular plan was drawn by Barnstable Survey Consultants, so it is a survey plan. The dimensions were put on by an architect, so it is pretty much to scale. Mr. Oman: Relative to what you are talking about, how many buildings are involved with dimensional changes or lines? Mr. O'Neil: Really nothing, because the new shack bar is inside an existing building. What has happened here the old snack bar Was taken down and the new one put in an existing building. Mr. George: I move we waive the regulation — seconded by Mr. Renkainen. All invor. Mr. O'Neil: The particular property here is the Hyannis Marina, in operation for some 30 or 40 years. The simple reason we are here is under Section 1532, to change a non —conforming use from one part of the marina to another. The existing snack bar in operation for the last several years is shown in one section on the plan. He is asking for a change of location. The new one will be 2 to 2/3 of the size of the old one. Smaller, fewer seats and in better con— dition. More important, he has various machines, -that have to be run out onto Arlington St. and this structure has been lifted up off the foundation because wiring and piping had to be put in. Now he can avoid taking that machinery out onto Arlington St. by doing this, and it will lessen the congestion. He has remodeled this building inside and put small snack bar in, 8 seats, 2 to 3 tables, for the convenience of the public and people renting the moorings. Not Petition #1587 Page 2 too many people here at a time, just serving sandwiches, coffee, donuts. The new one will have new equipment and whatever. The traffic flow will be en— hanced. Section 1532 says a special permit should be granted if you find that the new proposed use will not be more substantially detrimental than the exist— ing use. I submit not only will it not be detrimental but we will be better off. Will be open 4 months a year during the tourist season. In Barnstable, this is a business district now. You are a residential district in Yarmouth. There is not too much to say about what he has proposed. He has the opinion from town officials that he can be relocated. It does not do anyone any good to relocate the old snack bar and thus make the vehicles go back out onto Arlington St. Mr. Oman: First of all, you might take that plan and show the people present where the building will be. Mr. Johnson: What is the distance between the buildings? 'Mr. O'Neil: 1001. It is on the plan we submitted to the Board, building corner to building corner. Mr. Sherman: How much work has been done already? Mr. O'Neil: He had some renovation going on in it. It is quite far along. All inspections have to be made. Mr. Oman: Is there a snack bar in there now and operating? Mr. O'Neil: No. This snack bar, the old one shown on the plan shows where it was for the last few years. It has been removed. There is no snack bar operating now. Mr. Oman: When it was in that spot, did it exist legally? Mr. O'Neil: Yes. Mr. Oman: Have you been here and has there been a hearing relative to snack bars in the past? Mr. O'Neil: In regard to that, I have no big history of that. On a license issued in 1973, there was some mention of paper service only. So, from that... I guess there was something years ago. Mr. Oman: There is one letter of correspondence from Mr. & Mrs. Benjamin Hulley, opposed. I will now hear from those in opposition as long as there is no one to be recorded in favor. Please don't repeat anything anyone else has said. Mr. Whooly: Opposed. This has not been in operation all summer. A snack bar is not necessary in this area. Mrs. Cohen: I have a letter from my husband, opposed. I am opposed. I question whether they originally had a permit or variance to operate a snack bar. If Petition ##1587 Page 3 there is no record of such, how can there be a "continuation of" a use? A snack bar has not been in operation all this summer. How can they request to continue an operation that has not been in operation? Were they issued a permit to build new showers, dressing rooms and cooking facilities which are there now? Mr. Oman: We have not visited the site. We are seeing this for the first time. You have made a charge there has been work done there. They either have a build- ing permit or they don't. A building inspector is here, if you are asking that question. Mr. Thaleen: Opposed. Mr. Spetalunus: The way he is speaking, is there a new snack bar in existance? Or is the old one in existance? Mr. Oman: None in operation. The snack bar has been removed to the upper part of the lot. Mr. Spetalunus: I am opposed to the snack bar. We have a restaurant in the area which does serve lunches. The traffic has been blocked because of boats being hauled into the area. Parking is a problem. The vehicles shouldn't be on the street, particularly if they are unregistered. It is a small street. Mrs. Bouche: 26 Arlington St., opposed. The traffic is terrible, they don't need any more. Mr. Neilson: We have been going around a little bit here as to snack bars, new and old. You said there is no new one. Is there a new snack bar on the property now? Mr. O'Neil: None in operation. We started remodeling. Mr. Wordell: Mrs. Bill called me before I came down tonight and said she was typing a letter. I didn't get her letter but I wanted to ask a question. In the case of non -conforming use - like this - isn't it customary that it can be reviewed periodically? Mr. Oman: You mean a time limit or review - Mr. Wordell: Yes. Is it appropriate for a non -conforming use of this type to come under review? Mr. Oman: We have found it to be helpful sometimes, yes. Mr. Wordell: Would you give it consideration? I was asked for opinions on the marina. I have to look at it out of my windows. A boat yard, which the original permit was granted for, is great. The harbor facility lends itseif.to that and it should be used for that. Now this is something else. I want to be in favor that this be continued, but it should be on a review basis. I would ask for that consideration. Mrs. Havelock: I have been a summer resident for 15 years. �We just made the Petition #1587 Page 4 move to live here year round. I am opposed to any additional facility here. The cosmetic effects alone - As he said, to have to look out on it.... how they can add any more to that, I cannot see. Mrs. Ventham: Looking at the area and situation, I can't see how anything can be advanced there. I am opposed. My husband is also opposed. Mr. Spetalunus: Again, is there an existing snack bar there? There seems to be a new, existing, non -operating snack bar. Mr. Oman: If it is not in operation then it doesn't exist. Mr. Spetalunus: Then he needs a permit for this snack bar. Mr. Newton: Is there a surveyors seal on that plan? _Mr. Oman: He asked to waive the certified plot plan, due to the fact that the outline of the building has no bearing on the hearing. It was done by a land surveyor, they have scaled it between the buildings. Mr. Newton: How do you know that is where the buildings are? The only person qualified to locate buildings is a land surveyor. Mr. Oman: If it had anything to do to where the building stood, it would be different. It is within the building though. These are existing buildings. Mr. Wensley: As the original permit asked for at the time, for toilets and showers. He came in for a snack bar, it was not allowed, he was told he couldn't have it. It has been piped in with no permit issued for the snack bar. The permit is for the showers and toilets. That was in January. Mr. Oman: The permit is for work to be done there, as he said, showers, toilets snack bar and laundry. iThey did not allow the snack bar to go in, only the other work. Mr. O'Neil: I would suggest that the by-laws, Section 1531, a two year consecu- tive abandonment of a use would be lost. That old one was not moved that long ago. We will not lose the old one. This is a non -conforming one, a better one, better for traffic, cleaner. If you don't have snack bar facilities, they will have to go somewhere to eat. If they go off the premises to get it, it means more traffic in and out. Someone said there is a restaurant up the street. That is not a sandwich restaurant, they might serve breakfast, I don't know. It is not the same type of place. In regard to sewage - the system was rebuilt this year. Again, this is a smaller snack bar, paper plates, you can make that a condition. There was no original variance for this old one, as it was before zoning. The one criteria existing in your by-law regarding this petition is certainly met. There will be no substantial detriment to the neighborhood. This will be better for the area. These machines are licensed to go out on the street. Mr. Whooly: Did this owner ever have a snack bar or was it the former owner? If he didn't have it, he wouldn't be able to operate the old one. Mr. Oman: That is not right. He would be able to. Hearing closed. Michael D. O'Neil, 491 Main Street Hyannis, MA 02601 JOHN C. CRENEY, P.C. ATTORNEY -AT -LAW HYANNIS PROFESSIONAL CENYER 17 EAST MAIN STREET HYANNIS. MASSACHUSETTS 02.601 Esquire (517) 771-0049 May 17, 1985 Re: Hyannis Marine Services, Ltd, vs. Board of Appeals of the Town of Yarmouth Our File No. Y-986 Dear Mike: On the basis of the affidavits submitted by Mr. Kurker, the Building Inspector has determined that locus was utilized for marina purposes prior to the original enact- ment of zoning in 1946. Accordingly I am amenable to dismissing the pending appeal against the Board of Appeals, and enclose herewith a stipulation of dismissal which I have executed. Would you kindly favor me with a copy of your covering lettex to the Superior Court filing this stipulation. Very truly yours, John C. Creney Town Counsel JCC/ni Enclosure cc: Ms. Jeanne Bullock, Secretary Board of Appeals Forrest E. White, Building Inspector Robert C. Lawton, Jr., Executive Secretary TOWN OF YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS OWNER: NAME: `j/9n�%�/ l i7 ✓� iL i it1[r �G li +!l ADDRESS: `� L G �� `� T / YWAIA) /I It )4 PETITIONER: NAME: ADDRESS: BOARD OF APPEALS, JUL 2 4 '79 N RECE,kk= TOWN .OF `r'O" YARMOUTH, MAiDWN CIE#sIG?9cr1$ �y } }R This petition when completed and signed must be filed with the Board of Select- men, Yarmouth, Massachusetts, along with the fee of $30.00. DATE: 7-3 PAID: 1. I, We, hereby appeal from decision of the Building Inspector and petition your board for a public hearing on the action checked below: -�/� 0 Review refusal of Building Inspector to grant permit. r)131Q1./v� '-V— 2. Decision of Selectmen. 2. I, We, hereby request the action checked below: 1. Variance from requirements of Yarmouth Zoning By -Law. 2. Approval of the Board of Appeals. I-,� A special permit from the Board of Appeals. To allow: 0 U Ar %/ AJ U G w c� rr_14 1-( jls 13c-C)L) Wt 4 N Y +/L- A 9-� m ►9 P Z 3 /o`T�/� L/cC_7o•cf (J5 ~snc,< '4A4- /I�l 6 L IL /-7,, oAv jocu re- 3. Reason for the Board of Appeals action as checked below: 1. Contrary to Zoning by-laws as follows: 1. 2. 3. 2. Approval of Board of Appeals, or Special Permit requested under the following section of Zoning By -Law: 1. / 2. Names and addresses of abutting property owners, and those persons deemed affected by this application. (At least three.) Signed Respectfully submitted C "} Application for a Permit to Build Fee TO THE BOARD OF SELECT -MEN No. ..... '................. plication Yarmouth .-_....fi.......... / .......... The undersigned hereby applies for a permit to build, according to the following specifications: 1. Name of Owner y;J/L'A;iS pj//A` A/it 'V ` r', Address/fi� 2. Name of Architect (if any) 3. Name of Builder C- Dw' s fi tJ 4. Precinct No. Lot No_ Plan: Name or No. 5. Naive of Stre��� �' /:L �A_) c 7 C s✓ % 6. Purpose of Building i L 17 ///6 V- 7. Material S. Estimated cost of building C%C 9. Dwelling 10, Cottage /l 11. Heat 12. Basement 13. Garage A, 14. Store 15. Shop 16. - No. of stories CU A.-41' 17. Is there to be a Store in the lower storey ,V n 18. Size of Lot. No. of feet front .............................. No. of feet rear .......................... No. of feet deep .................... 19. Size of building. No, of feet front .......... No, of feet side .. .............. ... No, of feet rear ....L.......:.......... . ft.; side ................. ft.; side. / 20. Distance from nearest building: Front .... ................ ........ /. ...........-..-.........ft.; .rear.................... 21. Distance back from line or street .................. from rear lot line / side line._............. /.............. ....... Show by diagram the location of propsed building with relation to distances from adjoining lots, on reverse side. Name.. s.--Zr"':........................................................ Address.... .................................................... ce z 1 t PLOT PLAN Rearof Lot .............................................. i 1�dS7�_�; z I/ m cu Frontage of Lot ........................................ StreetName- ........................................... Its