** UPDATED IN NEW POST **
I don't really have an opinion either way about beer and wine at the Westside. I've never eaten there and I don't know anything about the restaurant's relationship with the neighborhood.
But I wonder where Councilor Athas got his law degree?? He fails to account for the entire section 1.5 Nonconformance of the Peabody Zoning Ordinance.
The Salem News: Westside seeks alcohol license
The Salem News Our View: Councilor didn;t want to hear it
The Salem News Letters to the Editor: Alcohol has no place in residential neighborhoods
Note: This post is written by Peabody Roundtable member Needham's Corner and may differ from the views of the Peabody Insider
A little background: when the Mass. Legislature adopted the Zoning Enabling Act (the "modern" act mostly dates from 1975, but there was a provision for nonconformance in the 1920 Act as well), they wanted a way to make sure that then-existing uses and structures would not be made illegal by subsequent local zoning ordinances and thus be considered a "taking" under the state and federal constitutions.
Our Peabody ordinance has a similar provision. It reads in part as follows:
"Any existing nonconforming use of a structure…may be changed or extended…provided that the special permit granting authority [that's the City Council, folks] determines, after a public hearing, by the grant of a special permit that such change, extension or alteration:
has adequate provision for offstreet parking; [and]
is similar in character, intensity of use, effect on adjacent property [and] effect on public hearing, morals, or safety as to be not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood, than the existing nonconforming use…
Conditions may be placed on the special permit.
Westside is an existing nonconforming use, because it is in a residential district, and restaurants aren't allowed in that residential district.
But hold the phone: what this section of the ordinance means to this non-attorney observer is that the City Council COULD allow the restaurant use to be "changed or extended" to allow beer and wine IF (and only if) the Council found, after a public hearing, that there was enough parking, and that the restaurant with beer/wine was similar enough to a restaurant WITHOUT beer and wine so as not to be "substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood" (get out your dictionaries, folks).
Court opinions rely on dictionary definitions all the time. I'm no legal scholar but I've read a number that do. I guess Councilor Sinewitz hasn't read those. But maybe before he blasts City Solicitor Christopher (who IS an attorney) perhaps he and Councilor Athas would like to read the WHOLE zoning ordinance, not just randomly opine that because the restaurant is in a residential district they can't have beer and wine. Whine, indeed.
My bottom line: Westside is entitled to have a hearing. The Council should consider how detrimental beer and wine are to the neighborhood, and decide accordingly.
16 comments:
I somewhat disagree with Needham's Corner on this matter.
First, I DO think that every citizen has a right to be heard before the City Council to air their concerns. So I think that to ban them is wrong.
Second, I DO NOT feel that this request should be granted. This restaurant has already come before the City Council and asked to BREAK THE RULES to expand their NON CONFORMING restaurant (it is not supposed to be in a residential zone.)
One of the reasons that the City Council approved this request to BREAK THE RULES was because the restaurant PROMISED NOT to serve alcohol.
Now... a few short years later and the restaurant owners are claiming that they can't make enough money in this tight economy without beer and wine sales.
Sorry Westside. You made your bed and now you must live with your past commitments. To come back before the City Council and DEMAND that they CHANGE THE CONDITIONS YOU ORIGINALLY AGREED TOO...???? That is just wrong.
As I said at The Peabody Patriot discussion:
Times have changed? Well yes they have changed. Does that change the fact that this is NOT the appropriate place for this restaurant? No it doesn't.
Should we now allow people all over Peabody to start ignoring zoning and other regulations because times are tough? Let's ignore the rules against hazardous waste storage at all businesses because it can save them money instead of proper disposal. Let's change the rules regarding trash collection for condo's (which were allowed to be built only with the condition that they pay for their own garbage removal) because it will save them money.
(I) am angry at this City for consistently bending, or breaking, the rules whenever somebody whines about financial hardship.
Either rules exist for a reason or we do away with all rules so that it is not just the chosen few who get to ignore them.It is simply NOT a good enough reason to change the rules and degrade the quality of life for those folks in this residential neighborhood.
OG says...
hey listen up you Lynnfield wannabes...did you like it better when the decrepit old Surf and Turf occupied the space now inhabited by WestSide? wouldn't you agree that it's a better looking structure in your neighborhood? and beyond some initial issues with trash pickup noise affecting the the adjoining homes have there been any other quality of life issues? do you all think that this will become a sports bar with loud crowds??
I can't agree with you OG. This is a case where there is little public good if any being served. I have nothing against this business, I have never eaten here nor do I dislike these folks. I simply see this as a bad idea.
You might be right about this being a prettier building. And the neighbors might all be complainers and they would complain no matter what (I don't know... I'm just saying.)
But the fact remains that these folks took it upon themselves to come before the City in 2006 and ASK FOR SPECIAL PERMISSION to BREAK THE RULES so that they could expand this business.
They promised to NOT SERVE ALCOHOL (which was a HUGE ISSUE for the neighborhood) and thus got the support they needed to BE GRANTED SPECIAL STATUS and build their restaurant.
Now... they claim that the difficult times are forcing them to serve alcohol.
Yes indeed times are difficult. But agreements were worked out and promised were made. And now they desire a change.
Do you for one second assume that when times are better, say in 18-24 months, the restaurant will return to the City Council and say... "Well, now that times are better, PLEASE REMOVE OUR LIQUOR LICENSE because we don;t need it anymore!" That will never happen.
And you are saying that they will never turn into a rowdy sports bar...? Why? If they are granted a liquor license then the value of the business will skyrocket and it will be all but impossible to remove the right to serve at that location because it a YES VOTE TONIGHT now creates a new existing non-conforming use that has gained certain rights.
This is indeed a slippery slope and it is all in the favor of the petitioner.
I hope the vote is NO.
AND... I wouldn't live in Lynnfield even if YOU were paying the mortgage! :-)
OG,
You clearly have your head tucked so far up your ass that you have NO
background on this issue.
Several of the "special permit" agreements that were promised were obviously looked at as a joke.
Good school system that's supported by the community
Zoning laws that are upheld
Solid home resale values
Yes, count me in as a Lynnfield wannabee
OG says..
kiss em goodbye then if they choose to remain open for dinner...other than senior citizens they will never have any dinner business without a liquor business ...tear down the place and stick a house or two in there...
Ok OG... I will agree with your premise here...No dinner restaurant can survive without a liquor license...
Then why in the world did they agree to have these restrictions in the first place?
If they were unwilling to honor these commitments then they should not have built the restaurant in the first place.
Now I might be signing a different tune IF this restaurant had been here for 30 years and had been built in a different era when liquor at dinner was much less of a concern... so to guarantee its survival it would need to evolve with the patrons it served...
But these guys built this place three years ago! The only difference between then and now is the economic downturn... not a shift in how people think about dinner.
I have no idea what the thinking of the owners are in this case... but it sure looks like they are taking advantage of the current financial crisis to pull a fast one on the people of this City.
They are already looking to sell the place. This is the news that they were hoping would not leak. They have been looking to sell for several months.
A beer and wine license would make the place more valuable.
OG says...
when they originally opened did they plan to be open all day and into the evening? I am not sure...perhaps of late they have decided that only being open for a breakfast and lunch menu and hours will not pay the bills so they need to add dinner business as well....I am not sure. If you drive by there in the evening you will see very few cars there most of the time... If they close by 9:00 PM or so how much rowdy drinking time might there ever be ??? And if they were to sell at some point are there any liquor license provisions that can be attached to the next owner? I am not sure...didn't the folks up in Rockport finally realize that restaurants won't survive without a liquor license??
OG... this is the slippery slope I was referring to in some previous postings.
First, let us expand even though it is against the rules because there is already an existing restaurant here...Second, let us serve beer, wine and cordials because even though it is against the rules because we have a new big restaurant that is already here and we need to survive...Third, let us stay open later even though it is against the rules because,due to financial concerns, we need to serve our new customers better because we have a liquor license in a restaurant and our customers really want us to stay open later...Fourth, let us add more bar area and less restaurant area even though it is against the rules because our patrons want to watch a ball game and due to financial concerns we need to meet those needs or they will go somewhere else...Now, is all this true? Well no... not yet. But I do not trust the process because it is too easy for them to simply ask... and when the see not enough support, withdraw. This leaves all those people with no financial interest who have been good citizens in banding together and coming out to oppose such an action - tossed out into the street. And next time... maybe they will be less vocal and not be inclined to show up again.
We have seen this ploy used too many times to say that it won't happen again.
And while I usually do not like to promote rumor here... there was a comment made at all the local blogs that the owners have quietly put the business up for sale and the addition of a liquor license is needed to maximize profit on this business.
The Westside is not for sale look the comment was made to the owner he said for the right price every thing is for sale the owner is a 30 year citizen of peabody and long standing bussiness owner of this town- no donation to any sports team- school- church temple or other police charity has ever been refused now its time for there help
look the westside had a neighborhood meeting addressed the concerns the neighbors had spent a good 15 thousand to make them happy - the wanted more- when the westside refused the harrasment started - when the condition were written by mike zellen it was made clear that if the restaurant did not cause a complaints that they could be lifted - it was made clear - they were a probationary trial - so thats why it is the council vote to lift them - there are always two sides -
I agree that there are usually (at least) two sides to every story.
And let me start by stating again that I did say that the sale was only a rumor.
Now I don't know the owners and have never eaten at this establishment, nor do I know any of the neighbors affected here. I simply do not like the fact that businesses can come before the City and ask for special favors (like Westside did in 2006 to expand in a residential neighborhood which is against the rules) and AGREE to some specific limitations in order to get these special favors... ...and then 3 years later decide that they really want MORE SPECIAL FAVORS and that what they agreed to back in 2006 IS NOW NOT IN THEIR BEST INTEREST.
Some are saying I am being too harsh. I disagree. Rules are rules. They should only be modified under EXTREMELY RARE CIRCUMSTANCES... not at the whim of each and every person who wants to break the rules.
And you know what... BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR is NOT something you do to get rewards! Being a good neighbor is what we should all do for no other reason than because it is the right thing to do.
If you wish to reward this behavior, and I think that is a smart idea by the way, then YOU should patronize this establishment and let them know you appreciate them. But it DOES NOT MEAN that they get to break the rules because they contributed to some local charity.
I give to LOTS of local charities but I would never expect that doing so would get me out of a speeding ticket... would you?
Special favors - hugh- so you think that it was a special favor to borrow 800,000 from a bank - build a new bussiness - pray that it will not fail due to ecconomic downfall- easy for anyone who has not put there life on the line work from 5am to 11 pm 7 a week - keep there trap shut about the shakedown from the neighbors- sweat , bleed and worry for 3 years and then ask no almost have to beg the same shakedown artists and now have to deal with the new city counciler barry - who does not care about the bussiness even though they are residents , voters and longtime Peabody citezens with a history of good bussiness now you call it a favor i call it the American way - you do good you get good and lets not forget the Police opinion - when was the vote taken in the dept . that it was the police dept opinion that the restaurant should not have the right to even ask for this right. give me a break -
must be slow tonight at the Westside, huh Mike? I know people that have HAD alcoholic beverages there already at a function in which you had all of the blinds drawn.
I do not hope that the restaurant goes under. I hope that the owners are able to keep their promise to the City and continue the operation and make a success of it.
Should the City step in and change the rules for every business that is struggling? How many businesses and people in Peabody have suffered during this financial crisis? How many businesses have people poured their life, sweat and tears (and savings) into only to see them go bust? It is HORRIBLE to see and be a part of and EVEN WORSE when it happens to you. I too have watch family businesses crumble... it is horrible and tragic and devastating.
But where do we stop? What if Eastman Gelatine asks to start processing hazardous waste and bringing it in by the box car load? It would be a detriment to all the citizens of this City... but maybe they need it to make more money and save the business? Should we say... oh what the heck... do it...?
----
Back to reality...
It seems to me that it was a mistake to agree to the special permit conditions in the first place. I personally would not have opened a restaurant that was going to serve a slightly more upscale lunch and dinner without at least a beer and wine permit.
Post a Comment