Bucatino's Looking To Construct Outdoor Bar
A seat number discrepancy has created some roadblocks for Bucatino’s Restaurant in its pursuit to construct an outdoor bar and kitchen addition on the property.
Buca Corp, Inc. went before the Falmouth Zoning Board of Appeals last week, April 7, to modify the comprehensive permit for Bucatino’s, a restaurant located at 7 and 22 Nathan Ellis Highway in North Falmouth. The owner, Robert Jarvis, is proposing to construct an outdoor bar along with existing patio seating as well as a kitchen addition on the south side of the building.
Attorney for the applicant, Christopher Lebherz, clarified that the 16 outdoor bar seats are included in the total number of seats for the establishment, which he said has been 256 for quite some time, and that no new seats are being added.
A problem arose, however, when board clerk Robert Dugan pointed out that a 1988 special permit from the ZBA actually limits the occupancy to a maximum of 165, which is 91 fewer seats than what was assumed to be the occupancy.
Mr. Lebherz said he cannot explain the discrepancy, nor does he know why it exists, but he reiterated that the town and the building department recognize the occupancy number to the 256.
“So as far as the permit,” Mr. Dugan said, “we’d be looking at this as a modification just to change the 165 number?”
“To that end, yes,” Mr. Lebherz said. “We don’t believe we are seeking additional seating. The number has been 256 probably since before Mr. Jarvis even acquired the property, but I do understand your point, Mr. Dugan.”
A referral letter from Scott Schluter, town engineer, also raised the issue of bringing the property’s parking up to code as it does not appear to comply with zoning. Mr. Schluter is of the opinion that if the site is being added onto, the owner should be required to either bring the site up to full compliance with regulations or seek relief from it.
Mr. Lebherz argued that the parking lot is a pre-existing, nonconforming situation that has existed since even well before the 1988 permit was written.
“It’s clearly been recognized by the board—the very same parking in [1988] that exists today,” he said. “It is what it is, and it seems to work. So, yes, I would argue that it’s a pre-existing nonconforming… it didn’t seem to be a problem last time. I’m hoping it’s not a problem tonight because we’re looking to do better business, not necessarily more.”
Board member James T. Morse asked Mr. Jarvis if there had been any complaints from abutters during the outdoor dining period that COVID initiated. Mr. Jarvis said that they have never had any complaints, and that they are usually “buttoned up” by around 11 PM. Mr. Lebherz added that they will be going back before the select board for a change of premise on the liquor license, meaning there will be additional oversight for these kinds of things.
A few abutters were present and spoke at the meeting. Robert Manning of 30 Nathan Ellis Highway said that while Mr. Jarvis is correct in saying there have been no complaints, that does not mean that there have not been any incidents of noisiness. His concerns, he said, are in regard to the discrepancy in seats and the potential for an increase in noisiness. Mary Kirwin of Beaman Lane echoed his sentiments and expressed serious concern with the proposed outdoor bar.
“Mr. Jarvis said this place isn’t a bar,” she said. “Well, if we open up a bar outside and allow it to stay open ‘til one in the morning, I will suggest to you that those attract a great deal of people who like to stand outside and drink, and it becomes loud, it becomes noisy, it becomes a real intrusion.”
Patricia Cusack, another abutter, wrote a letter saying that she believes an outdoor bar would negatively impact property values and change the look and feel of the otherwise quiet residential neighborhood on Beaman Lane.
Jeffrey Fitzgerald of 24 Beaman Lane told the board that while he has never directly complained to Mr. Jarvis, he has gone over to the restaurant late one night to inquire about excessive noise.
“The manager there will testify, I walked in there in my bathrobe and I said, ‘You’ve got to turn your speakers down,’ ” Mr. Fitzgerald said.
The problem originates from a set out outdoor speakers that Mr. Jarvis said were set up last summer and can easily come down or be relocated.
While Mr. Fitzgerald said that living next to the restaurant has its perks, it also comes with downsides that they have learned to live with, including noise and increased traffic.
“I would ask you the question,” he said to the board, “do you want a bar in the house next door to you that’s open during the day serving booze, having music, all of that?”
Mr. Lebherz said that it is the nature of the town to have business zones abutting residential zones, and that occasionally, conflicts will arise because “You can’t control every single person every single night” in a public establishment.
“I have no doubt Mr. Jarvis doesn’t want any trouble here at all,” Mr. Lebherz said. “He’s going to be horrified if he’s got neighbors around him who are unhappy with him, and I think he’d probably shut the whole thing down. That’s the kind of operator he is.”
Board chairman Terrence J. Hurrie asked about mitigation efforts. Ms. Cusack’s letter did mention trees that were put up along the property line for the sake of both privacy and mitigation, and Mr. Jarvis said that he is willing to move the outdoor speakers and extend his wooden fence to further mitigate noise.
Overall, the board recommended that the applicant undertake an extension for two reasons: to work with abutters directly on noise mitigation, and to allow time for the board to figure out what is going on with the 1988 permit that limits occupancy to 165 seats.
“I know the occupancy was changed,” Mr. Dugan said. “We have to raise this now about 91 [seats], and that’s going to affect parking regulations. Now I know we can waive a certain amount of parking, but I don’t know what the percentage is that we’re allowed to waiver down, and right now you have 75 parking spaces, and it appears they would need 128.”
Mr. Dugan added that there will need to be some kind of analysis to clear up the prior permit discrepancy before the hearing moves forward because in approving it, they would be increasing the number of seats to 256.
“If I just had to guess I would say that nobody probably looked at the prior permit,” Mr. Dugan said. “I think it’s doable, and according to engineering it might even be doable but we’re going to need a lot more information on how we can allow the parking to make sure they can do the 256.”
Mr. Lebherz reiterated that the parking across the street goes way back—as far as the 1920s and ’30s, he said—and that as it is a pre-existing nonconforming situation, they will not be conforming.
The board continued the matter until April 21.