Loading...
ARTICLE-MAINE RESTAURANTS ON SMOKING REGS action�s;jtkely to be_vety spotty for. the°`fiist?several.:months. He said enforcemeaf.;agencies appear to be initially:content to follow up on complaints rather than execute an all-.out enforcement effort. The MRA has long held the position to support a level playing field, equal for all classes of food service.Mr..Grotton said the MRA fought- the ban because group members believe the ban will hurt Maine businesses and create an uneven playing field. The MRA has asked Maine restaurant-owners to complete a ,f t survey that asks one of four r: choices: }} • Support smoking in the lounge portion of the restau- 1 rants/lounge licensed proper- } .ties with a separate room and separate ventilation. • Support smoking in the lounge portion of a restaurant/ lounge licensed property with a separate room and ventila- tion if a level playing field is not. proposed or cannot be achieved. I Support the current ban even though adults only lounge i may allow smoking. • Support.a total ban, a level playing field for all food and .beverage businesses. -To.date, the majority of those respondents:have supported ban- everywhere. "The ning smoking consensus so far is that there should be no competitive advan- tage,"said Mr.Grotton. 5 DEC 6 - 1999 CITY OF SALEM HEALTH DEPT. VOICETHE OF THE HO SP ITALITY INDUSTRY Volume-21 No.10 McRA Says Maine Smoking Restaurant Ban Hurting The Honest Restaurant Owner New England restaurant own- vice president of the Maine Res- feated in Rhode Island and Lon- ers are watching Maine in the next taurant Assn.,said the ban deprives necticut. few months and it's not only for the restaurateurs of patrons for whom a According to the New Hamp- foliage. meal is less enjoyable without a shire Lodging and Restaurant On Sept..18, Maine joined a cigarette. Assn., a study sponsored by the small group of states that no longer Mr. Grotton called the ban Int'l Society of Restaurant Assn. tolerates smoking in restaurants. "one of the most restrictive laws to (ISRAE) executives examined the Vermont and Utah have similar go into effect since smoking was economic impact of the Boston laws and California prohibits outlawed in California." smoking restrictions and found that smoking in bars and in restaurants. Restaurant lounges, where more than $40 million in expendi- The Maine law authorizes smoking is also prohibited, will tures on restaurant and bars' serv- $100 fines for restaurateurs or pa- lose customers to bars.Stand-alone ices annually are at risk; restaurant trans who .violate-=the ban but bar establishments do not come and bar liquor sales have fallen by makes exceptions for stand-alone under the smoking ban. 14 percent; and tips are down an- bars where minors may not enter The law exempts taverns,hotel other 15 percent. without a parent in attendance. lounges; and bars that are not part Since the Sept. 18 ban, Mr. The ban:intends to protect the of a restaurant. Smoking is accept- Grotton noted the following obser- health of the restaurant workers as able at premises where patrons vations: well as patrons from the danger of must be 21 years old or older but There is very little or no en- inhaling smoke that.the,state health smoking is' prohibited wherever forcement among state health offi- bureau calls a carcinogen.The ban minors congregate. cials.The honest restaurant owners came after approval last spring by The Maine ban follows the ban who have complied with the law the Maine Legislature and the gov- that went into effect in Boston res- are getting hurt, he said. The res- emor. taurants this year. Statewide smok- taurant worker's tips are signifi, t Richard Grotton, executive ing bans were proposed and de- (Continued on page 97)/ 12/03/99 20:11 FAX Y r_,:, j 1111 0 DEC 3 - 1999 CITY OF SALEM Wr1rer'.YDfrWDfa1. 781-380-3203 HEALTH DEFT. LawDepamnanrFaz 781-380.3233 December 3, 1999 VIA FACSMLE 978-740-9705 AND US MAIL Ms_ Joanne Scot!;NVH,RS, CHO City of Salem Board of Health 9 Noah Street Salem, MA 01970-3928 RE: Salem,MA Proposed Smoking Regulations Dear Ms_ Scott: I am writing pursuant to your request for written comments at the November 9, 1999 Salem Board of Health Hearing regarding Smoldng Regulations. AHCI runs a Ground Round restaurant at 2 Trader's Way in Salem. Of course, AHCI is in favor of policies that protect public health and welfare, and will comply with all laws and regulations. However, many issues have come to our attention as cities and towns have begun to propose similar laws. The following is a brief listing of some of the issues that have arisen in the past. In many towns, where full compliance would create an undue burden on a restaurant's operations, the relevant municipal authority allowed the owner to employ other methods to accomplish the goals of the ordinance. Among others,these methods have involved using a certain area of open space as a barrier between the smoking and non-smoking areas,using separate entrances, having patio decks as additional smoking areas, and allowing for adjustments in the smoking-non-smoking ratio. I would like to know if similar measures would be acceptable under the proposed Salem regulations. It has been our experience that,when smoking regulations are enacted on a municipal level, the regulations can have a significant detrimental impact on the business community. Rather than reduce the number of smokers; many times municipal regulations simply have the effect of relocating smoking customers to restaurants in neighboring communities. This significantly affects our customer relations ujid client base. AMERICAN HOSPRALITY CONCEPTS, INC. �12%03/99 20.12 FAX Ms. Joanne Scott City of Salem Board of Health December 3, 1999 Page 2 Also, due to the layout of many establishments, it can take several months to reconfigure the bar and dining areas to accommodate smoking and non-smoking guests. The costs, of downtime, loss of business, materials, and actual construction, can be substantial. I believe these, and other issues, may be addressed somewhat in the Variance section of the proposed regulation. I realize that variances will surely be issued on a case by case basis, but I would ask for some guidance regarding the definition. of"manifest injustice", and what would be considered suitable "alternative means of protection"_ In addition, it would be helpful if there were guidance regarding possible waiver periods or extensions, especially in light of the substantial work that would be required in order to comply. Thank you very much for allowing me,to share these comments with you_ Please contact me if you require any additional information. Sincerely, Richard Armstrong Law Department 0 DEC - 1999 CITY OF SALEM HEALTH DEPT. November 26, 1999 City of Salem Board of Health, Dear members, Smoking in Restaurants, it is the big question today what a subject. Who's choice is it, the smoker, the non smoker, the Restaurants or the board of Health? We all know smoking is not good for you but it seems to me this is a free Country and that means making choices for ourselves. A smoking ban creates a threat to the small Restaurant community and, in a free Country, they are entitled to choices, not demands of exuberant cost etc. to change their way of doing business. These excessive costs will wipe out our small restaurants which we all enjoy and prefer. The smokers as well as the non smoker,in this country have choices. There should be rules in place about smoking, there is no question, but lets find the middle road on this subject so so many people will no be so harshly effected. The Board of Health is obligated to listen to these small Restaurant business people and their ideas about how they can operate without inhibiting their customers and also without incurring tremendous expense. They all have ideas too, so lets listen with an open mind, please!! Sincerely, Mary O'Leary Chase_ House_ R e s t a u r a n t oA To: The Salem Board of Health Fm: The Chase House Restaurant 0V SP&EM Re: Possible Changes in Smoking Regulations HE LTN KEPT` Dear JoAnne Scott, We at The Chase House restaurant are concerned about the new smoking regulations being considered regarding eating and drinking establishments. Our fear is that the city of Salem is going to.travel the-same road other cities have in the past. The regulations adopted 6y c>t> s:such as New, o and Brookline have hurt certain establishment in,those cities `` "iiscdte those cities hurt both sales and the ability to be hos tabtw t �itst3y"..As a result, some of these establishmentsr =nit�ne � ort, the.wrong regulations will impose an additional bral�dr—to- establishments that could mean going out of busm ss. Ter�gua © icc�� certainly effect a seasonal restaurant such as The Chase-House- Any entity, including the city of_Salem, would find if hard to see it's income dropped quickly by 20 or even 25 pexcent Thatcouldwell be the amount of lost income in v. restaurants such as The Chase-House if the regulations are not properly looked at from all angles. It is impossible to explain to a smokin pa on that they can not have a full meal if they dine in a smoking section. We as f t ' t S' aietn-13oard of Health not restrict 1 �r food in smoking areas to appetizers only. Inithis way we can hedge some of the income loss to our establislunent and remau hospitable to our non-smoking clientele as well as our patrons that choose to sirioke. Sincerely, Frank Bertini Pickering Wharf, Salem MA 01970 • Tel: 979-744_000n .. . r r NOV 3 0 1999 BAR & GRILL CITY OF SALEM HEALTH DEPT. November 22, 1999 Chairman City.of Salem Board of Health Salem, MA 01970 To the Chairman and Members ofthe Salem'Board of Health: First,.my wife-and I wish to thank you fo =.holdim a public heariiig on November 9, 1999 on the subject of the proposed regulations goveriung smoking m'dining areas of restaurants. We would,like to take the opportunity of writing to you m more detail about some of our concerns. We would also like to;make clear t .9 ye�r ery sympathetic and sensitive to the concerns and needs of nonsmokers-and we are nonsmokers as:well We:are not opposed to the concept of public;places.being smoke free In fact vrre would welcome:stato or federal regulations prohibit- ing smoking in ALL public places We believe that this is Elie only way in which nonsmoking regulations can applied without harming small businesses. It would be useful.if all of those local public officials and private citizens concerned about this issue would bring pressure to bear on our elected officials afthe stateandfederal level instead of implementing local regulations whose impact will be`only local afilib- a greater burden in the:local business community. On the other h and;I'm sure that'local=regulat-ions are being put in.place in frustration with the lack of regulation coming from the Aite'or federal level It;is c ur hope that a means can be found to implement locatregulations,(in the absence of any action at.a higher.level)" in a way that takes -into account the.economic consequences:of'these types-of,regulations- -As we understand the proposed regulations, smoking would be permitted in the bar area of a res- taurant under certain conditions, one of which i:that food be'Incidental to.the bar." The Ly- ceumBar& Grill has a bar area(which is the smoking,sectioin of the restaurant)that is architec-- turally and lustoncally_nmportant;jand aesthehcally�an.adult oasis of civility and good taste. We 5 Y F. s. According to your --se knk ad mgdining area x proposed regulation,smoking in our bar area would not be allowed.(even if other'.provisions are complied with);because food is NOmdatothbr. reInfact; we emphaszehe serv-_Tien ing of food--We`do: '1161 wan h tio ave a bar for smoking and dnnking.only-, and we don't think we should;be penalized.for that We dunk that food should be encouraged in restaurants, not regu- lated against -'A O P I IUD!`4J •C T .0 d i CAA- A A h C C A Y�LJ I hC C T'T C`�n 1 0 7 0 -T C 1 0 70"-7 A C._"7 0 C C C A v n 7 0 7 n A 7 C 0 0 In order to comply with the proposed regulations and maintain a bar that allows smoking, we would have to stop serving, at the bar and the bar area, for example, grilled portabella mush- rooms, crab cakes, crispy shrimp, caesar salad, fresh local fish, etc. and, instead, serve something considered incidental such as potato chips, pretzels, potato skins or the ubiquitous mozzarella sticks. So, in effect, you are supporting the serving of unhealthy, non-nutritious food and are not allowing the serving of a full meal in a bar. This is the rather bizarre result of the proposed regulations, that the Board of Health would be'encouraging unhealthy behavior. Furthermore, all bars in the Commonwealth are required to serve food in order to obtain a liquor license. All alcoholic licenses are"Common Victualer"licenses. A victualer license is by defini- tion for the serving of FOOD. The Victualer license ALLOWS alcoholic beverages to be sold and drunk on the premises. Given these facts, it would seem that you cannot make a distinction between a bar that serves incidental food and a restaurantthat has a bar in which food is served, because a bar serving incidental food should not exist according to State Liquor Laws. The pur- pose of this state law is to discourage people from drinking without eating. The mission of the Salem Board of Health obviously is to be concerned with public health, and secondary smoke is a legitimate issue. However, any regulatory body-also must be concerned with the effect its regulations have on the public welfare, that is, will these regulations, on bal- ance, benefit the community? In this regard, we are very concerned about some of the sTaller restaurants in Salem such.as the Pig' Eye, the Witches' Brew;the Lobster Shanty,Major Magleashe's, etc., where the physical layout, small size, and prohibitive.cost of installing state of the art ventilation systems would make it difficult or impossible for'the Board to grant a variance. _If these establishments cannot qualify for a variance, they will suffer severe economic consequences and/or go out of business. Nothing will.be accomplished except destruction of capital,extreme personal upset, and loss of jobs. The serious smoking customers at these restaurants will find some other bar/restaurant to smoke in and will make that place_smokier than before. If this happens, public health will not benefit, and the public welfare would be hurt. Perhaps some of these places could be grandfathered. They are good places and add to the social fabric and quality of life in Salem. It has taken many years and a lot of heavy lifting for Salem to become a destination restaurant town with an attractive mix of upscale restaurants and neighbor- hood bistros. Please consider carefully the impact-your regulations could have on this flourish- ing restaurant scene. Thank you for your consideration in this matter Si erely, Georg arrington Owner, Lyceum Bar&Grill WEE � � D EC 1 - 1999 SALEM CITY OF SAL.EM. CHANIBERof HEALTH DEPT. CONINIERCF. 32 Derby Square, Salem, MA 01970-3777 • Telephone: 978.744.0004 • Fax: 978.745.3855 December 1, 1999 Mr. Leonard J. Milaszewski Chairman Salem Board of Health 9 North Street Salem, MA 01970 Re: Board of Health Proposed#24 Smoking Regulation Dear Chairman Milaszewski: Thank you for the opportunity to speak at the Salem Board of Health Public Hearing on Tuesday, November 9, 1999. As I stated, I was not advocating a position, as the Salem Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors had not had the opportunity to discuss the • Draft Proposed Regulations. On November 23, 1999 at the Salem Chamber of Commerce Board Meeting, the Board of Directors addressed the Draft Proposed Regulations. I am enclosing the Official Position of the Board of Directors taken at that meeting. Thank you and the Salem Board of Health for you thoughtful consideration of request form the Salem Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors. ely, Alen M. DiGeronimo Exec tive Director EV SIN D CE 1440 saw 4.� DEC 2 - 1999 CITY OF SALEM HEALTH DEPT. Chairman—Board of Health 9 North Street Salem,Massachusetts 01970 Dear Sir: We would like to request a variance to the proposed smoking ban in Restaurant bars. Approximately 35%of our overall business is food service in the bar and the majority of the bar patrons are smokers. To eliminate either the food or smoking would present a real and significant financial hardship. We have also spoken to our heat and ventilation technician and he has advised us that the type of ventilation system that you are proposing would cost approximately$50,000. Again,this would present a financial hardship. As a small business owner,we do not have the corporate offices, staff or funding backing us to help us implement the changes you are suggesting. We would appreciate meeting with you to discuss the possibility of a variance. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, J John A Bertini Bertini's Inc. Michael D. Allen Q 15 Pope Street DEC 1 - 1999 Salem, Ma 01970 CITY OF SALEM November 30, 1999 HEALTH DEPT RF• PROPOSED BANNING OF SMOKING IN RESTAURANT This proposed regulation is flawed on several fronts. There is serious question whether secondhand smoke is HARMFUL. The scientific studies cited by the FDA have been challenged by the scientists involved as being INCONCLUSIVE as to the health effects of secondhand smoke. That challenge is currently working its way up through the court system and the FDA has LOST its case at each court level. It would be premature to use that politically motivated EDICT of the FDA to CREATE a regulation that would be damaging to an important segment of Salem businesses. ( I believe that Swampscott has granted a variance to Bickford's in Vinnin Square to ALLOW a smoking section because their business was so drastically affected. ) It is INCONSISTENT to ban smoking from EATING areas but not from BAR areas. The business owners who have invested THEIR time, effort and money should have the RIGHT to determine the nature of their business. If such a drastic change is to be instituted it should be done by LEGISLATION not by REGULATION. ( Does the Board of Health believe that eaters are dumber than drinkers or that drinking counters the alleged impact of secondhand smoke. If it is the latter maybe the Board should pass a regulation requiring eaters to drink more. ) Tobacco is a LEGAL product and smoking tobacco is a LEGAL activity, I believe the current regulations are sufficient. There are many restaurants that DO NOT allow.smoking. If someone does not eat meat, they can choose to go to a vegetarian restaurant; if someone is allergic to MSG,they can choose to go a restaurant that discloses its use; if someone is bothered by secondhand smoke, they can choose to go one of the many restaurants that are smoke free. The Board does not pass regulations regarding the former two situations and the Board SHOULD not do so for the latter situation. All the facts are not in on the health effects of secondhand smoke and to take this serious step that will negatively impact a large segment of the business community at a time when Salem is trying to shed its anti-business reputation would be a serious error. Sincerely, Michael Allen NOTE: I am also the owner of Red Lion Smoke Shop in Salem. ENCLOSED: Article indicating researcher in England claiming his studies indicate NO adverse health affects to secondhand smoke. Article indicating Massachusetts Public Health Council member referring to banning smoking in restaurants as being"draconian" and urging caution on such regulations. By TRACY McVEIGH SCRIPPS HOWARD MONDAY. NOVEMBER 22, 1999 BOSTON HERALD 21 LONDON _:It is the,message i that legions of.guilty smokers are desperate to Bear; but few doctors would dare to,air in'public: Smok- ing isn't so bad for you if you tuck into a salad firsL- 1 n i:rri I !;r.-h n n I Only one month after the world's biggest, tobacco ,:company, Philip Morris, admitted for the first;tune that smoking care kill You, one of - Britain's top,experts on the effects of the habit.has provoked .outrage in the anti-cancer establishment by in- sisting it's fine.to.smoke 10 cigarettes a day; passive smoking:.is-no-prob- _ lem,"and the government-isrwasting. , Researcher money telling peoplerw quit Dr.-.Ken Denson;;F;o�the Thame - Thrombosis and-Hemostasis Re- says ' search'Foundatio .4n::.Oxford, has O o d spent:. tl e.-Aagf`.dgcade. studying'-T.. _ smgkin -related;alnesses.and con=_.diet _ _ �luded the xealLproblem4�sn't the makes cigarettes;�but;the..poor diet of ■ . smokers.. smoking n less The ps Cs attributed to the ass e g smoking and,,.;especially_ passive Y.F smokmg:�have'been :greatly.,exag harmful gerated 'Denson satd:-�`"Nobbooddy wants to rock the boat on smoking but this,has been swept under the carpet for too long." The heretical`claims`were imme- diately condemned as dangerous by mainstream cancer experts."To say smoking under 10 a day is not dan- t' gerous is patently:ridiculous,! said professor Richard Peto of the Im- p erial Cancer Research Fund. Any competent scientist is aware of the evidence-that:there is proof beyond ? reasonable.__:doubt -that' smoking causes lung cancer.."- Amanda-Sandford:of the.UK''ad �. vocacy`group.--Action,on Smoking .; and Health agreed,`°The evidence is absolutely'.O ' helming,"there ' have beewrnillions of:studies show- ing how dangerous'smoking is.It'is dangerous' to'play:dowti'•those ef- However, Denson claims most-of these studies..are: flawed:because they haven taken-diet into.account.' ; Smokers--have--been-shown to eat s less-fruits;an&vegetabies and more saturated'=fats'=than"nonsmokers, a ? t Combination linked to: cancer and heart disease. They._;tend;to come- .r, from lower social classes already prone to-bad diet ; "Smokers should be=told'to im- prove their 'diet:to'protect:them- selves: but.the., medical"establish- ., ment`has a-mental .block-:about smoking,'` said..Denson.="Smokers with-the right diet can have-an 80 r percent lower,risk of:cancer°than the smoker on a bad.diet",.- r O (a.Id N .. CA MO= to cn cp CD V3 CO2 CAI ol �t'. r^ 3 w I 7 cl tCn •A-t rD .-..N ^ O C' RD1 •• Z'r'; • ' ,� (p ^' W RC��t1C�i�6�J1C�71 co ti O > p. o () r ,�1:r,„''� m• .z y w Q.O w N p_ rl `' rD C'O'i7 a �'C, 'A '::f:•:° D` rD 0 (D a QCCD n�.+c9. wi!r.�C.""D-0 O A» w � Er D B ?! Str� n w.•< (b iD (D : GY 7 i ! tt mCD1O Ln rD . O rD �•.. Lp A! tD O m.3. CO ��•�i'._.rD UU� r0 y 1 C9 00 rD v y rD tD. r -. r o: 1Rl �7 is O N w�. rD O � :Q.a7opw., o Al 1 A, ' �.: — films w n.�-A EA , •' 1;+ r.~• *'�.: >' �'.' N a O er, C C m 1�w� o CD C:Q' C ' C') Cp M,�' a h Oa 5 5 w A A O 0 0. -.. i r-': Vl n : ti ~ � O •-� n O y t� r'r 171 2 e e O n rD m7 (D.� i s e N C n n• f c. (fl m : i m=���.. » i aa000aeo o < w N'o CD" :w,•• I m\ o m'0 �,n rDb 00 O d t 0 `Yip y.,ti } , N % 'U O•n "--11 A; (D O (D (A O C O a�r C n n M y C•c N rD `J s \'b rb p b,G< a(D 5 p y A Q w A 'JA.� 7Q �('�cr �•s 1 N'O_O O N < CL O r. p C7 (�� O w C --,� =•- o ID o ��•cAi r]„ �O �'p.�� n.-� °A'ID O ti I-n �• :7'"'3�•C w -„��n"�',_,a.+' r A w 7 C p 0 O rD N! 7 O a C,uq - _.O fl. a � rD a », ApN ° R T ^•d °' C w trD eD O O rD aC n 7'b m AO w A O .�('' �,v.✓� .a N p ,ry O a'n O'C y a Fr (D i1:w A rD 7 A �.(D.•Ct CL`�O Q ^` w (D n -t a d:p C .,. pYCi O a(D rD �m C U v0i A vOi,b C.:! •--• `., C A a _n ' '�'-t' u+ O'O --• A N N ^t .• a••w `< 'C:.C'•:a5':',;,.. d�w� �� " � N o 0 0 w < C)[� o w cr._A �ti Q.r�j�',�'•N-• xi°.{ R.0•< A•s ,- �_ n• i. r�� Q "��•,�wj.�,00 N d (o �.:0 (D`(D Y (D rD _. ^5, _n (D � O C.C C1 C 3 (,. O.O" �' Cli-.0. O rL..K N O ��vrr, -n O a N arc C•„Y (D 7 N " vwi w n •p..�•-:::..,oa; :_,a-.C ' '�' A �'C C U0.O C -.,cn N A._...n i0 :+ n .,, A ^•=e m ,•. ��''(((AODDD',O�`Q:Otc'•r.�NO—.p...(n�D"�;�„.CpJ'.`pwG':S1y�Q(Cy b��•=,..r�o'°"'.'an° 0,'�-I-. WeCO = aw7N'�J�n.0.5-A,ryAO`p-f �a_:.OJw^ v< woaw O..NoC^ N..�Own"CNw"':`nC•.Cp•--,•.(xCD Waw,-'o 5 5 n . " o O; aoo '"o Q NC° Q Q. (�OD•,.T`�<7 CC7ocy•Ocf t.xAnww (D !D •17 oM(o (D.,o O. _ n a c 0 Ow S Q .nr rD (D •-„ _< .:. ,r 0.N O O (1 7 w n_.y -1 ° CS O n,n . oo. D1 nN ��� o oQ oc' n c i _ c r. O n. ° N O `o c_O a A _ �. } c .--,, ^. �•< to`� O r� C rr�,i N O cni O w °' oG 0, •-G O ..'q,O.c r, O.w _.Q^-R<�NA[ar4-vcj,.,''f�_V_ppNfZD,?"'.N-�Vyy.,OCRC•.-.•.�•�bH r•O�D C^Q(CwrD•cC'��n..C5Nm vC~n, •p--ti.p•ttr',CmA,nrO �CDs+ NCQ.n w Gi wC nr, .v ?'Cw ' w n Q 0 ^ 7r OSQ. O 00 (D (-nrwDc, 0.aNO (~=^,t`(cr<r7,'. <ACm�N^r'•'•�NO-CA,'•I Q NC J'_ O Q.M -6vA',' '.'b rmfr D ] A.Q O.w <'x.. • +O rD 'A Dw < " OQQ(D ND o ( ? � Db < A v O vi .0 .N �- . (D� O 0.7 - O AA N ' nn `< 'G p O '- A Q QNn. �.= . D �C ::,- 0 Oa" N ^ nA D ° (D nDr<CAnNOO�r . • - ®�0 .r'cm , 7' a O (D C O O SO C UA � ._l ¢C7' n' XIepo _ --am ;! w w v QO �p aA n A (D n• no rD rD W 0L, Cp9 0.O 5 Cn ' � C ~ 0CCIL- -^ O CCO n Oo •y 0 Dw Cl.0. yb a cm -W O .]1Q . rO O Cc' C CD r O 7< n A rDCl r C D U � n n � ��''".'1� !"i � �� .^��w "-.~-'•O N � �w ti �� (� p S� � ('� v N Sent By: J. Slesar; 6 242 8619; Dec-11-99 11 .13AM; Page 2/5 Salem Beer Works, Boston Beer Works 278 Derby St,, 61 Brookline Ave., B [ IR WORKS Salem, Ma 01970 Boston, Ma 02215 978.745.2337 617.536.2337 TO: The City of Salem Board of Health Nine North St., Salem, Ma 01970-3928 978-741.1800 fax-740-9705 Dear Members of the Board of Health, Please accept the following letter as a statement of our concerns related to the proposed smoking regulations, and as a request for a variance or exemption from the regulations to the extent as stated. Concerns r®lated to the Proposed Smoking Regulations it is our understanding that the proposed regulations would prohibit smoking in dining areas of restaurants send require physical barriers and separate ventilation for bar areas which allow smoking. Bars (defined as establishments that serve food only incidentally) would not be prohibited from allowing smoking and would not be required to provide separate ventilation for any areas. While we are not opposed to reasonable regulations that will benefit the public health, it is our position that the proposed regulations, as written, are unnecessary to° protect the public health and are impractical or impossible to achieve for existing restaurants such as ours. (See below for our speck concerns and variance request). We are aware of the concerns regarding second-hand smoke At the:same time, less burdensome regulations would protect the general public's health. Our best customers are at a restaurant for only a few hours each week. Non smoking areas segregated form smoking areas can dramatically reduce their exposure to second-hand smoke. The provision of separate dining room areas for non-smoking customers is both valid and effective with respect to providing reasonable and healthy areas for non-smoking customers. The proposed requirement of physically separating the bar area and providing separate ventilation, however, is unnecessary, impractical or impossible, and unfair to existing businesses. Other communities have dealt with the issue by providing that smoking areas be at least 5 feet from non-smoking areas and that restrooms are non- smoking. With regard to the provisions and definitions of the proposed regulations which exempt bars, the regulations do not adequately address or portray the actual day-to-day business of a typical restaurant with a bar. Specifically, a typical restaurant with a bar will have a lunch period, a dinner period, and will have after-work and evening periods when there is significantly less food service and greater"bar" activity. The regulations improperly simplify the categories into restaurant and bar. As written, the regulations allow"bars" to be exempt, but require restaurants to comply at all times, whether or not they are in "restaurant dining mode" or"bar mode". "Bar mode" is critical for the financial success of many restaurants. -617 242 MID*- -__ Dec-1 -99 11 :14AM; Page 3/5Sent By: J . Slesar; Re nest for a Chan a in the Re ulations requirements of physical to the regulation to remove the req a that requires a please consider modifying separation and separate ventilation and r nd non-sm king aace them with aeasag reasonable separation of 6' for smoking a Ina pl rasa consider adding language that recognizP�tt��: �,rtual day-tQ-day u nt" and limits restaurant hours to lunch and dinner meal Periods, operation of a -restaurant' and allows for operation as a bar during other time Periods. ti hments from the Finally please consider langLOU �,that exempts existin4 estab use review Of the regulations as a whole, or allows for exemptions based on a case-by-Case regula effect on health. operation and actual smoking •,._. ._r4d+�as.�e�aopl MAW-4 fir_;alam Rpe�r Worlc;s on the following reasons: Slesar Bros: Brewing Company, 1. Salem Beer Works has been owned and operated by Grille, was Inc. since mid-1996. The restaurant, formerly Olde Salem Brewery ulations. Olde constructed by aide Salem prior to any consideration of smoking a grofttable restaurant co or maintaining p Salem Brewery was not successful in establishing ears of financial and persona establish Af a profitable restaurant and bar that we hope will and bar at the location. S1e��a cos. After more than y commitment has been able continue to be a North-share asset and attraction. and social ' n of Salem tseer Works customers srnuke• drinks rn7c+rc n significant 2. A significant portion out to bars for portion of customers who dine out and who go ke 'infrequentl interaction sinnts and b .oke. People who do not smoke at home, or ado Ad ption and y� afters smoke when they are out with friends at r scums@n currently proposed would negativeuraly impact enforcement of the smoking regulationsurea to the sales and viability of Salem Beer Works the premises as currently configured. 3. It is impossible and/or impractical to sepmodaration able to be separated by a physical aria HVAG separation as required �neder the proposed accomplish the.p Ywould not such a regulations. The bar area of Salem ateo s. It would be impossible to provideoher are, s physical structure and meet fire resses, not only from the bar area t barrier and allow for the necessary eg street, Such 8 Physical barrier, if possible, would also but from the restaurant of thathe estaurant and bar impractical some g,0Q0 square make the operation large restaurant and bar comprising . 4. Salem Beer Works is a very g area encompasses the bar and a smoking feet. As currently configured the smoking a than 6' from the s you enter) and the non-smoking area More consists of a large high section (both to the left a y ceiling area (to the right as you enter). There is a separation of . g area to the non-smoking area. There are tables in the note-smoking bar and smoking area which are 15 yards away from-the smoking area. r Works has never received complaints from customers detailed a above, is not 5. Salem Bee, room areas. The non-smo g smokiness in the dining smoky, even during peak times when the bar is full. Sent By: J . Slesar; 617 242 B619; Dec-•1 -99 11 :15AM; Page 415 6. Salem Beer Works has both a dining customer business and a bar customer business. Lunch and dinner are served every day, and food is served from the time we open until late at night. There are distinct lunch and dinner time, however, specifically from noon until 2 pm and from 6:30 pm until 8:30 pm. Food service at other times is incidental to bar activity. Based on the forgoing, Salem Beer Works requests a variance or exemption as follows: 1. Salem Beer Works shall be deemedcompliance 6' betweenhthe smoking and regulations provided that there be a separation of atea smoking areas. Or, in the alternative 2. Salem Beer Works shall be classified as a "restaurant" during the hours of lunch and dinner, and that at all other times Salem Beer Works shall be classified as a "bar", and at those time shall be exempt from the regulations prohibiting smoking. Salem Beer Works shall install signage at the front door and throughout the smoking area clearly indicating the hours during which smoking is not permissible, and shall install signage at the front door that shall warn potential customers that smoking is permitted on the premises and at what times smoking is permitted. We look forward to our continued contribution and success in Salem. Please do not hesitate to contact me at any time regarding this or any other Board of Health matter related to Salem Beer Works. I can be reached at my office at 617-242-8616 (fax 617-242- 8619). Sincerely, Joseph D. Slesar, President Slesar Bros, Brewing Company, Inc. d/bla Salem Beer Works Dec 1 99 11 : 16Ah:1; Page 5-5 Sent By: J . Slean s , 617 242 B619; Nov 19" r � Fi/.aaz y � 4 aW(ftbmw saris two , ctts yxr' Mst, vkt� ,�'� low Alt" .,, {p1....- � ` ^ •. •:.•�: ` µi7llGRr«-tJ1jV ` -` '. :^'�• j ~r4 Llffsf' � ;;�',� a. ■ � 'mot - '.� --� y. �' ,.� •i +!+�t}trF°11u;lnA-A .'b.�l.. •,���, tiYr: 'Q'!.'!",�"4�1W1 Y' .�.. 'efi'"e' • �`' i, �''^?nwl�v Y � �til i., 'l.. �4 •�sv�:.' iw�..L C / 541AWE"I, l mot `: 31. 1 !: j It t[rCb��lrtAw October 1999 Yankee Food Service Page,57 MRA Restaurant.Owners Prefer Total Smoking Ban: To Help Improve'Competitive Playing Field (C-1-ed from page l) of the ranking members. of the MRA is interested in watching cantly impacted.Mr.Grotton esti- House and Senate. Most of these same store sales. It may take a sig- mated that waiters/waitresses are members . supported the ban. nificant statistic such as a drop of losing significant amount of tips, "What happens from here will de- 20 percent statewide in same store as much as $1,000 a month in pend on how much folks rattle sales to get the Legislature's atten- some cases. their cages,"said Mr.Grotton. tion. In a competitive situation, Prior to the ban,60 percent of In a survey conducted by the those restaurant owners who have the Maine restaurant owners insti- MRA, the number one response not complied are drawing custom- tuted their own ban or established from operators to date is that res- ers from restaurant owners who separate smoking rooms. "We taurant owners support a total ban have enforced the new state health would liked to have seen a gradual and a level playing field for all rules.Those customers who remain step to this," said Mr. Grotton. food and beverage businesses. with a complied restaurant are "The government stepped into this, Mr.Grotton said there is still a tending to go less frequently and and created an unequal playing lot of confusion over exactly where are spending less money on food field." smoking will be taboo. d alcohol. The MRA will keep a close The real test will occur after The earliest the state Legisla- watch on sales revenue. Prior to restaurant owners and their smok- re could amend .the law is in the ban, Mr. Grotton said the in- ing customers realize that the res- January or February. Any amend- dustry sales in Maine for the prior taurant bar is off limits to smoking. ments must pass the approval of year increased nine percent. Par- Mr. Grotton predicted that the )he Legislative Council,made up ticularly, Mr. Grotton said the law may change because frustrated customers may want smoking in restaurant lounges separated from dining rooms. He said-the change would be a good idea because it would put restaurants on a.level play ingfield-withbars. Dr. Dora Anne Mills, director of Maine's health bureau,told The Port1wid.P.ress.changing the law to give the restaurant operator that has the funds of space to build a 1 separate lounge is unfair. She said the best way;for restaurants to avoid losing business to bars VV�aI�� (jp would be:-to.extend the smoking 1C, 6 1977 ban to bars. Some restaurant owners have OF SALEM ,;witched:their liquor license from CITY aEpT restaurant lounge to a Class A HEp�TH lounge. However, no under 21 years old can enter the pub or res- taurant without a parent or guard- ian even if they only want to order food. The ban.has also caused prob- lems for restaurants that are near the state.line. They will lose cus- tomers to restaurants across the border,where there-is no':smoking Mr=Qrdffoii said;the full fall- out fron}the smolung ban.will-not I be apparent for.manymonths. Tlie weather w-ill still be com- fortabldAh.rough October and into early 'Novein— rand people can o still .cmfortably step outside to smoke. action ts;ikelytotie very spotty fora the"fiist? everal:months. He said enforcement.agencies appear to be initially content to follow up on complaints rather than execute an all-.out enforcement effort. The MRA has long held the position to support a level playing field, equal for all classes of food service.Mr..Grotton said the MRA fought .the ban because group members believe the ban will hurt Maine businesses and create an uneven playing field. The MRA, has asked Maine restaurant-owners to complete a survey that asks one of four choices: • Support smoking in the lounge portion of the restau- rants/lounge licensed proper- ties with a separate room and separate ventilation. Support smoking in the lounge portion of a restaurant/ lounge licensed property with a.separate room and ventila- tion if a level playing field is j not- proposed or cannot be achieved. • Support the current ban even though adults only lounge may allow smoking. • Support a total ban, a level playing-field for all food and beverage businesses. To-date, the majority of those respondents have supported ban- ning smoking everywhere. "Ile consensus so far is that there should be no competitive advan- tage'"said Mr.Grotton. DEC G -- 1999 CITY Of SALEM HEALTH DEPT. HOSPITALITYTHE VOICE OF THE 1 Volume.21 No.10 McRA Says Maine Smoking Restaurant Ban Hurting The Honest Restaurant Owner New England restaurant.own- vice president of the Maine Res- feated in Rhode Island and Con- ers are watching Maine in the next taurant Assn.,said the ban deprives necticut. few months and it's not only for the restaurateurs of patrons for whom a According to the New Hamp- i foliage. meal is less enjoyable without a shire Lodging and Restaurant On Sept. 18, Maine joined a cigarette. Assn., a study sponsored by the small group of states that no longer Mr. Grotton called the ban Int'I Society of Restaurant Assn. tolerates smoking in restaurants. "one of the most restrictive laws to (ISRAE) executives examined the Vermont and Utah have similar go into effect since smoking was economic impact of the Boston laws and California prohibits outlawed in California." smoking restrictions and found that smoking in bars and in restaurants. Restaurant lounges, where more than $40 million in expendi- The Maine law authorizes smoking is also prohibited, will tures on restaurant and bars' serv- $100 fines for restaurateurs or pa- lose customers to bars.Stand-alone ices annually are at risk; restaurant trons who violate-=the ban but bar establishments do not come and bar liquor sales have fallen by makes exceptions for stand-atone under the smoking ban. 14 percent;and tips are down an- bars where minors may not'enter The law exempts taverns,hotel other 15 percent. without a-parent in attendance. lounges, and bars that are not part Since the Sept. 18 ban, Mr. The ban,intends to protect the of a restaurant. Smoking is accept- Grotton noted the following obser- health.of the restaurant workers as able at premises where patrons vations: 1 well as patrons from'the danger of must be 21 years old or older but There is very little or no en- inhaling smoke.that the,state health smoking is" prohibited wherever forcement among state health offi- bureau calls'a carcinogen.'Ilse ban minors congregate. cials.The honest restaurant owners came after approval last spring by The Maine ban follows the ban who have complied with the law the Maine Legislature and the gov- that went into effect in Boston res- are getting hurt, he said. The res- error: taurants this year.Statewide smok- taurant worker's tips are signify",t Richard Grotton, executive ing bans were proposed and de- (Condinaedon page_W)/ `12/03/99 D 'k DEC 3 — 1999 CITY OF SALEM Writer's Dir cr Dial. 781-380-3203 HEALTH DEPT. LawDepamnenrFmc 781-380.3233 December 3, 1999 VIA.FACSMLE 9 M-740--9705 AND U,5 MAII Ms. Joanne Scott,N1PH,RS, CHO City of Salem Board of Health 9 North Street Salem,MA 01970-3929 RE: Salem MA Proposed Smoking Regulations Dear Ms. Scott, I am writing pursuant to your request for written comments at the November 9, 1999 Salem Board of Health Hearing regarding Smoking Regulations. AHCI runs a Ground Round restaurant at 2 Trader's Way in Salem. Of course, AHCI is in favor of policies that protect public health and welfare, and will comply with all laws and regulations. However, many issues have come to our attention as cities and towns have begun to propose similar laws. The following is a brief listing of some of the issues that have arisen in the past. In many towns, where fu11 compliance would create an undue burden on a restaurant's operations, the relevant municipal authority allowed the owner to employ other methods to accomplish the goals of the ordinance. Among others,these methods have involved using a certain area of open space as a barrier between the smoking and non-smoking areas,using separate entrances, having patio decks as additional smoking areas, and allowing for adjustments in the smoking-non-smoking ratio. I would like to know if similar measures would be acceptable under the proposed Salem regulations. It has been our experience that,when smoking regulations are enacted on a municipal level,the regulations can have a significant detrimental impact on the business community. Rather than reduce the number of smokers, many times municipal regulations simply have the effect of relocating smoking customers to restaurants in neighboring communities. This significantly affects our customer relations acid client base. AMERICAN HOSPITAUry CONCEPTS, INC. _ 12/OS/99 20.12 FAX ..0`03 Ms. Joanne Scott City of Salem Board of Health December 3, 1999 Page 2 Also, due to the layout of many establishments, it can take several months to reconfigure the bar and dining areas to accommodate smoking and non-smoking guests. The costs, of downtime, loss of business, materials, and actual construction, can be substantial. I believe these, and other issues, may be addressed somewhat in the Variance section of the proposed regulation. I realize that variances will surely be issued on a case by case basis,but I would ask for some guidance regarding the definition of"manifest injustice", and what would be considered suitable"alternative means of protection"- In addition, it would be helpful if there were guidance regarding possible waiver periods or extensions, especially in light of the substantial work that would be required in order to comply. Thank you very much for allowing me to share these comments with you. Please contact me if you require any additional information. Sincerely, 44�AOZP— 'Richard Armstrong Law Department