Loading...
Decision 633TOWN TH OF YAF&IOD BOARD OF APPEALS Filed with Town Clerk: AUG yI- 96$ Hearing Date: June 20, 1963 July lit 1963 Petitioner: Presalde Realty Trust petitionr`633 Albert A. Metz Trs: I DECISION The -petitioner requested permit to allow Up maintenance of presently existing signs at the Rooster Resturunt, Albert A. vletz Trs., located on the northerly side of Route 289 West Yarmouth. members of Board of Appeals present: Harold L. Hayes Jr. Albert E. Webb Alexander Catto Kenneth H. Studley H. Stuart Ryder It appearing that notice of said hearing'has.been given by sending notice there-' of to the petitioner and all those owners of property deemed by the Board to be affected thereby,.and that public notice of such hearing haling been given by i publication in the Cape Cod Standard Times on 5/30 & 6/6/639 the hearing was opened and held on the date first above written. The following appeared in favorlof the petition: Atty. John Hart representing Presalde Realty Trust The following appeared in opposition: None Reason for Decision: It appeared at the hearing that the petitioner is the owner of a restaurant on Route 280 West Yarmouth, which was formerly known as "Dannyts" The same premises were in prior years known as the "Silver Sea Horse." It appeared from the petitioner that there was a rooster an the building which the building inspector said was a sign. This did not in any way appear to detract from the building but there was no evidence offered at the hearing to indicate it was other than'a sign. There also appeared in evidence m photolpaph which was filed by the petitioner which showed the sign in question. It consisted of a standard which was of a rather large size with a large sign on top indicating a rooster and the marquee type of sign which stated, "Openito 1 Dine 5 10 Star Tony Snell Dance Tom Hall" and attached to the same standard was a further sign which had the lettering, "cocktails food." It appeared at the hearing that two 4 by'6 ft. signs had boen previously granted. It did not appear that these grants were made by the Board pf Appeals but rather it was indicated that these signs were approved by a former building inspector. It was argued to the Board that there was a third sign and that the previous-ownerlhad stated this further sign was 4 by 6 ft. It appeared from the building inspector that the total square footage of the signs involved was some 147 square feet. It was argued to the Board that the ex isting sign was approximately the square footage of the previously existing It did not appear at the hearing that the previous signs were in conformity with the zoning law of the Town of Yarmouth. The Board considered all the evidence presented in the most favorable light towards the petitioner's request. However, the Board could not find that a substantial hardship existed to the petitioner as it was clear to'.the Board that this business operation could function without the signs as presently exist on the premises. The Board also found that there was no evidencelto indicate that the previously existing signs i conformed to the zoning by latr of the town of Yarmouth. The Board also finds that in the event this request for a variance is granted that other business establishments in the vicinity could rightly feel that they should be treated in the same manner as was this petitioner and there- fore that they could reason to this Board that previously illegal signs should be given consideration in validating a request for a variance. The Board further finds that the intent ofz:the zoning by law would be sub- stantially derogated from were this request granted j Therefore the request for a variance is denied .and it is the opinion of this �oard that the petitioner must conform with the zoning by law of the town of armouth. Members of Board voting Harold L. Hayes Jr. H. Stuart Ryder Albert Webb Alexanddr Catto Kenneth H. Studley Therefore, the petition I in opposition l ifi opposition ih opposition in in opposition opposition for approval is denied. Kenneth H. Studley Clerk ' CE TOVYN OF YARMOUTH .BOARD OF APPEALS Appeal No. 633 Presalde Realty Trust Albert A. Metz Trs. (Rooster) - July 11, 1963 Board of Appeals Members�present:.. Alexander Catto Harold L. Hayes Jr.-jChairman Kenneth H. Studley - Clerk j H. Stuart Ryder Albert E. Webb. The petitioner, PresaldelRealty-Trust ,Albert A. Metz Trs., requested a variance from the Board oflAppeals to allow the maintenance of presently existing signs at the booster on property belonging to Presalde Realty Trust, Albert A. Metz Trs.3.1 located on the northerly side of Route'28, West. Yarmoubh. Shown on Assessors Map #31 Parcel Wl. Mr.-fla ems: The next hearing will be #633. Presalde Realty Trust, Albert A. Metz who has requested a variance to allow the maintenance for the presently existing signs. 'Calls on petitioner. Atty. John Hart: I represent the petitioner and I would like to submit pictures o e sign that i, s in question. �Mr. Hayes: What are the size of the signs? Eta art: Well, . there. is' -a 11ifference of opinion between. Mr. Fruean and myself as to the size of1th'e signs. ' Mr. Fruean has had the town engineer compute the size of the sign from the ground pp the supporting pillar around, and back down. Mncluding the whole sign. Mr. Gobin the previous owner was given permission to erect this which is still the same size. Points out signs -in -pictures. nhis!Board granted a variance previously to maintain two signs in addition to the present one. Each sign 41 x 61 for a.total of 3 signs in.all. Mr. Gobin!said the sign was no larger than 41x 61. If we accept Mr. Gibints word that would mean that Mr. Metz is entitled to 72 sq', of sign. When Mr. Gobin 'received that variance he proceeded with perfilg8ion of some other sign inspector and when Mr. Metz took it over it was literally swamped with signs. He removed all of these and constructed this one. The total size of the sign is' 72 sqe if you measure them end to end and not in- clude the pillar. Thisjsign is in keeping with the size of the building and the size of the parking ll t: The Rooster is not a flasing neon',sign and is in good taste. Mr. Hayes: Does this petition include the Rooster on top of.the roof rM Fruean: It is a sign! Atty. Hart: We admit that it is a sign and that it be included along with e others. Mr. Fruean:2 I had the town engineer measure it and he comes up with 147'sq. an a Rooster 46 sq. ft. Previous owners were granted.2 4' x61 sign and An additional sign. Mr. -ayes: Let's make sure we have this right now. They were granted 2 4' x7r s —M and a sign on the gable end of the building.. Atty. Hart: That's right andl it was said that5it wasn't over 4' x 6". TOWN OF. YARMOUTH BOARD OF APPEALS Appeal No. 633 Presalde Realty Trust Albert A. Metz Trs. (Rooster).. July 11, 1963 Mr. Fruean: The previous inspector made the best agreement he could. e was to take down two,'doubled faces signs.. and Att . Hart! There was a seahorse on the pillar. You cansee the outline! or it in these pictures;' this was before it came up for approval. The Rooster, was added after Mr. Metz tookover.— Mr. Fruean? Before this was just a plain building but by adding.the Rooster it makes if a sign becauselit states in the laws; any device pertainingAl business is a sign whether it is an ice cream cone or a bannana. Mr. HaHayee s : ' Where would j you .say. the violation . is ? Mr. F'ruean; The Rooster ,on top of the roof, signs . advoi7tising the food part of it, Also, the sign.is too close to the highway. He'could have 21 sq: ft. i but he"d have to be back 181. Atty. hart: His.predesessors had a permit to erect 2 41 x 61 sign for a total of_721 of sign space. Then Dan Zuchero took title.,and an agreement was made with a sign.inspector. Therefore, I feel that Mr. Metz should have the .right to maintain 72 sq. ft. Mr. Hayes: Whht if this had to be moved back? Att Hart: This what_p'ut up by.Mr. Gobin at the time the transaction was made w a previous sign Inspector and it was a rather,expensive thing and would be moreso at thisitime. Mr. Hayes: Can the Rooster on the top be taken off? Hart:- This would be expensive and he has the previous permit for the of sign space. Mr. Hayes:- We still have the problem of.the 1471 which Mr. Fruean'says. .Fruean: The \sign says Rooster now, next year it will say Rooster es araun It will tenfl to grow. Even it will appllr to the'pillar, once you start: ettering it, it becomes a sign. .Atty. Hart: Mr. Frueantslstatement isn't consistent He says it,wasn't a sign but yet there was a seshorse on it before. We could move this onto the roof, and maintain justjthree signs. The Rooster we,will admit we are in violation on that. ; T Mr. Fruean: Do:ydu inteld to light that Rooster? Atti� No. it isn't lit now. r. ha es: Anyone else!who would likb to be heard on this hearing. In that case we will take it under consideration and you'will be notified. Hearing closed.