[00:00:01]
GOOD MORNING LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AND WELCOME TO[Permit and License Appeal Board on November 7, 2024.]
THE HEARING OF THE PERMANENT LICENSE APPEAL BOARD FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS.IT IS 8:35 AM ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7TH, 2024.
WE HAVE ONE HEARING ON TODAY'S AGENDA FOR ENCORE, APPEALING DENIAL OF A DANCE HALL LATE HOURS PERMIT.
THIS ITEM WAS HELD OVER BY THE PERMIT AND LICENSE APPEAL BOARD ON OCTOBER 17TH, 2024, AND IS NOW SCHEDULED FOR CONSIDERATION TODAY ON NOVEMBER 7TH, 2024.
UH, AT THIS TIME I WILL DO A ROLL CALL PRESENT.
WE HAVE, UH, ABSENT FROM THE MEETING ARE MS. TORRES, MS. AALA, MR. FUILLA, MR. HAYES, MS. VERA, UH, WE HAVE SEVEN MEMBERS, WHICH CONSTITUTES A QUORUM, AND THE MEETING IS NOW CALLED TO ORDER.
UH, SINCE WE DO HAVE A MINIMUM QUORUM, UH, IF ANY BOARD MEMBERS TURN OFF THEIR CAMERAS OR HAVE TO, UH, LEAVE THE MEETING, WE WILL LOSE OUR QUORUM.
UH, SO PLEASE KEEP THAT IN MIND.
UH, WILL THE OTHERS PRESENT AT TODAY'S HEARING? PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF BEGINNING WITH THE BOARD GENERAL COUNSEL, TERESA CARLISLE, AND FROM THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE, ALVA MARTINEZ.
AND FOR THE APPELLANT, CRAIG SHIELDS, COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT.
I'M HERE WITH ROGER ALBRIGHT, A WITNESS, AND CURTIS WISE THE PRINCIPAL.
AND FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY DAVID WILKINS FOR THE CITY.
I'M HERE WITH MY CO-COUNSEL, KELLY BISHOP AND, UH, MY RETURNING WITNESS, UH, GERARD, MONTREAL.
AND AN ADDITIONAL WITNESS IF WE NEED TO GET TO THEM.
UH, IVAN SOSA, I'M SORRY, LAST NAME.
UM, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS, SO WE WILL PASS ITEM ONE, PUBLIC SPEAKERS.
UH, ITEM NUMBER TWO IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE OCTOBER 17TH, 2024 MEETING.
IS THERE A MOTION REGARDING THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 17TH, 2024 MEETING? I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER, 2024 MEETING, UH, MOTION BY MR. QUINT TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES.
UH, MR. JEFFERSON SECONDS, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? UH, ALRIGHT, IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, THEN ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF MR. QUINT'S MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE OCTOBER 17TH, 2024 MEETING, PLEASE SAY, AYE.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED, PLEASE SAY NAY.
ALL RIGHT, THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER THREE, THE APPEAL HEARING FOR ENCORE, APPEALING THE DENIAL OF THE DANCEHALL LATE HOURS PERMIT UNDER SECTION 14 DASH 3.1 OF THE DALLAS CITY CODE.
THE BURDEN OF THE PROOF IS ON THE APPELLANT.
UH, WE WILL NOW SWEAR IN ANY WITNESSES WHO WILL WISH TO TESTIFY IN THE HEARING.
UH, I BELIEVE ALL ARE PRESENT IN THE ROOM, SO PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND SO THAT YOU MAY BE SWORN IN BY THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE.
[00:05:04]
DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, THE TESTIMONY YOU'LL GIVE BEFORE THIS BOARD TODAY WILL BE THE TRUTH? THANK YOU.UM, AND, UH, MR. SHIELDS, HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU THINK YOU NEED? WELL, I THINK I NEED ABOUT FIVE MINUTES, BUT I'M GONNA ASK FOR A HALF HOUR JUST IN CASE WE HAVE EXTENDED DISCUSSION.
SO LET'S SAY 15 MINUTES ASIDE, AND, UH, IF WE NEED MORE, WE CAN ASK FOR MORE.
UH, THE BOARD HAS ACCEPTED INTO EVIDENCE YOUR EXHIBITS, UH, UM, MR. SHIELDS, I HAVE, UH, TWO EXHIBITS FROM YOU.
AND MR. WILKINS, DO YOU HAVE ONE? I AM SORRY, MR. CHAIR.
I, I THINK MY FIRST SET OF EXHIBITS IS ONE, AND THEN MY SECOND SET OF EXHIBITS IS TWO.
I HAVE, I HAVE TABS ON THEM JUST TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE BOTH JUDGE CHAIR POINT OF ORDER.
JACK CAN'T GET INTO THE, UH, WEBEX FOR SOME REASON.
CAN MARY REACH OUT TO HIM TO HELP HIM? WE'LL TAKE CARE OF THAT.
I'VE GOT ONE EXHIBIT THAT HAS 11 TABS AND
AND THOSE EXHIBITS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED INTO EVIDENCE.
WOULD THE CITY ATTORNEY PLEASE READ THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE OF THE RELEVANT ORDINANCE? YES.
TODAY YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU AN APPEAL THE DAN DENIAL OF THE DANCE HALL LATE HOURS PERMIT.
UM, GIVEN THE DISCUSSION LAST MEETING, THIS BOARD MAY DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE DANCE HALL IS LOCATED WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE OF A LOT DEVOTED TO RESIDENTIAL USE AS DEFINED IN CHAPTER 41 OF THIS CODE.
WHETHER SUCH USE IS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OR NOT IN CHAPTER 41, A OF THE CODE DEFINES RESIDENTIAL USE TO MEAN A SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX, MULTIFAMILY OR MOBILE HOME PARK, MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION AND CAMPGROUND USE, USE AS DEFINED IN THE DALLAS DE DEVELOPMENT CODE AS AMENDED.
SO IF THIS BOARD FINDS THAT IT IS, THAT IT ISN'T LOCATED WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF THE LOT DEVOTED TO RESIDENTIAL USE, THEN IT CAN REVERSE A DECISION OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE.
AND IF IT DOES FIND THAT THE DANCE HALL IS LOCATED WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF A RES OF A LOT DEVOTED TO RESIDENTIAL USE, THEN THE BOARD MAY REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE TWO POLICE AND GRANT A ONE YEAR EXEMPTION FROM THE LOCATIONAL RESTRICTIONS FOR A LATE HOURS PERMIT.
AND IF THIS BOARD FINDS A FOLLOWING, THAT ONE, THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED DANCE HALL WILL NOT HAVE A DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON NEARBY PROPERTY OR BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY OR WELFARE.
TWO, THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED DANCE HALL WILL NOT DOWNGRADE THE PROPERTY VALUE OR QUALITY OF LIFE IN ANY ADJACENT AREA OR ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OR, OR URBAN BLIGHT.
THREE, THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED DANCE HALL OPERATING UNDER A LATE HOURS PERMIT.
AND THE AREA WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO ANY PROGRAM OF NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION OR INTERFERE WITH ANY EFFORTS OF URBAN RENEWAL OR RESTORATION.
AND FOUR, ALL OTHER APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER WILL BE OBSERVED.
IF THIS BOARD FINDS IN THE CONTRARY TO ANY ONE OF THE PREVIOUS STATEMENTS, THEN THIS BOARD MAY AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE.
UM, ALL RIGHT, MR. SHIELDS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO BEGIN WITH A BRIEF OPENING, OPENING STATEMENT?
[00:10:03]
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PERMIT AND LICENSE APPEAL BOARD.I'M THE ATTORNEY FOR THE APPELLANT ENCORE.
UM, LAST TIME WE WERE HERE, UH, OUR REQUEST WAS TO HAVE THE BOARD DETERMINE THAT THE CHIEF OF POLICE ERRONEOUSLY DENIED ENCORE'S REQUEST FOR A LATE HOURS PERMIT BECAUSE THE, UH, PREMISES ALLEGEDLY WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE DEVOTED TO A RESIDENTIAL USE, THE, THAT PROPERTY LINE DID NOT HAVE A VALID CO UH, BASED THERE ON.
AND BASED ON THE MEMO FROM FORMER, UH, CITY ATTORNEY SAM LINDSEY, NOW FEDERAL JUDGE SAM LINDSEY, UH, WE SHOWED AND CONFIRMED THAT, UH, THE LOCATIONAL RESTRICTIONS DO NOT APPLY IF A PROTECTED USE DOES NOT HAVE A CO.
AND IT HAD BEEN STIPULATED THAT THE TRAILER PARK DID NOT HAVE A CO AND THEREFORE WE HAD REQUESTED THAT THE, UH, PERMIT AND LICENSE APPEAL BOARD REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE.
SO WE FURTHER WENT THROUGH THE ELEMENTS, UH, FOR AN EXEMPTION, WHICH I BELIEVE WERE LARGELY, UH, UM, NOT REFUTED OR, UH, OPPOSED.
HOWEVER, UH, JUST PRIOR TO THE PRIOR HEARING, UH, BUT NOT IN ENOUGH TIME FOR US TO SUBMIT TIMELY SUBMIT EVIDENCE, UH, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE ACTUAL DANCE HALL PREMISES FOR WHICH A DANCE HALL LICENSE HAS BEEN ISSUED AND FOR WHICH A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN ISSUED IS NOT WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF THAT PROPERTY LINE.
UH, WE DON'T AGREE THAT THE PROPERTY LINE IS AT ISSUE.
WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IT'S A LOT DEVOTED TO A RESIDENTIAL USE 'CAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE A CO BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER.
SO WHAT WE WANT TO DO TODAY IS PRELIMINARILY AND PROCEDURALLY SHOW OUR EVIDENCE, WHICH IS JUST REALLY ONE, TWO TABS IN OUR EVIDENTIARY FILE SHOWING THAT THE MEASUREMENT MADE BY THE SURVEYOR WENT TO THE BUILDING TO THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, WHICH WAS WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET.
HOWEVER, WHEN YOU READ THE DANCEHALL ORDINANCE, AND WHEN YOU MEASURE TO WHERE THE ACTUAL PREMISES ARE, IT'S AN ADDITIONAL 116 FEET, OR NO, IT'S AN ADDITIONAL 161 FEET.
SO IT IS MORE THAN A THOUSAND FEET.
SO SINCE IT'S MORE THAN A THOUSAND FEET, WE DON'T NEED TO BE HERE ON THIS ISSUE AT ALL.
AND WE'RE GOING TO REQUEST TODAY THAT THE BOARD PRELIMINARILY TAKE A LOOK AT THAT, HEAR OUR TESTIMONY, AND WE'RE GONNA REQUEST THAT YOU APPROVE THAT THE, THAT THE MEASUREMENT WAS ERRONEOUSLY MADE THAT WE'RE MORE THAN A THOUSAND FEET AWAY, AND THAT WE DON'T NEED TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS ANY FURTHER.
UH, MR. WILKINS, DO YOU HAVE A BRIEF
I MEAN, I'M ESSENTIALLY GONNA SAY THE SAME THING, BUT YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SORT OF TWO DISCRETE ISSUES HERE.
ONE IS WHETHER THE TRAILER PARK IS A LEGAL, UH, LOT DEVOTED TO RESIDENTIAL USE.
AND THE SECOND ONE, WHICH WE AGREED WE'D LIKE THE BOARD TO PICK UP FIRST, IS, UH, IN DETERMINING SECTION 14 POINT OR DASH 3.1 B.
UH, WHETHER THE CORRECT WAY TO MEASURE A DANCE HALL IS WHETHER IT'S A THOUSAND FEET FROM THE WALL OF THE BUILDING OR THE WALL OF THE SUITE.
UH, WE DEALT WITH THIS IN ANOTHER CASE TWO WEEKS AGO.
UM, SINCE THEN, I HAVE, UH, HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK WITH THE CITY SURVEYOR.
UH, APPARENTLY THIS QUESTION HAS COME UP BEFORE THE, THE HISTORY IS THAT, UH, WE'VE DETERMINED THAT IT'S FROM THE WALL OF THE BUILDING.
UH, THAT'S THE WAY THE CITY SURVEYOR HAS, HAS BEEN INSTRUCTED IN THE PAST.
ALSO, IT'S, IT WOULD APPARENTLY BE DIFFICULT FOR THE SURVEYOR TO DO IT FROM THE WALL OF THE SUITE WITHOUT CHANGING THE APPLICATION PROCESS TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION.
UM, HAVING SAID THAT, UH, I, I DON'T THINK WE'RE IN, IN DISAGREEMENT AS OF THE FACTS.
THE WALL OF THE BUILDING IS WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF THE, OF THE TRAILER PARK.
THE WALL OF THE SUITE IS OUTSIDE OF THE, OF THE THOUSAND FEET.
AND SO WE ASK THAT THE BOARD DECIDE THIS ISSUE FIRST.
'CAUSE WE DON'T NEED TO GET TO THE SECOND ISSUE IF THIS ISSUE IS ASIDE, IF IN ONE
UM, IN THAT CASE, WE ARE READY TO BEGIN THE PRESENTATIONS AND, UH, WE'LL BEGIN WITH THE APPELLANT.
MR. SHIELDS, DO YOU HAVE YES, THANK MR. CHAIR.
I'D LIKE TO CALL AS A WITNESS, ROGER ALBRIGHT.
MR. ALBRIGHT, CAN YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF? I, YES.
UH, ROGER FOR ALBRIGHT, UH, WITNESS FOR THE APPELLATE.
MR. ALBRIGHT, YOU'RE, YOU'RE AWARE THAT THE TIME OF OUR LAST HEARING, IT WAS YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CITY WAS CLAIMING THAT THE LOCATION OF ENCORE'S DANCE HALL WAS WITHIN
[00:15:01]
A THOUSAND FEET OF A PROPERTY LINE ALLEGEDLY DEVOTED TO A RESIDENTIAL UNION.UM, AND AT THAT LAST HEARING, WE WENT THROUGH THE REASONS WHY YOU WENT THROUGH THE REASONS WHY.
COULD YOU JUST SUMMARILY EXPLAIN WHAT YOUR, UM, TESTIFIED REGARDING THE THOUSAND FEET AND WHY THE LACK OF A CO DID, UH, RULED THAT OUT AS A SURE.
WITH THE, UH, AS, AS WE, UH, TALKED DURING THE, THE LAST HEARING, UH, IN ORDER TO BE A LEGAL USE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
THERE'S A COUPLE OF BOOKS THAT SEGAL FAMILY, BUT FOR EXAMPLE, A MOBILE HOME PARK MUST HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY TO BE A LEGAL USE.
AND SAM LINDSEY, WHEN HE WAS CITY ATTORNEY, UH, AS YOU POINT OUT NOW, FEDERAL DRUG TABLE, LINDSEY, UH, DID A, A MEMO, UH, THAT LAID OUT THAT IN ORDER FOR A PROTECTED USE TO BE A PROTECTED USE, IT MUST HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
IF IT DOES HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, IT'S AN ILLEGAL USE.
ILLEGAL USES DO NOT COUNT AS A PROTECTED USE.
SO OUR, OUR POSITION WAS, UH, DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S A THOUSAND FEET OR NOT, THE ISSUE IS IT'S NOT ILLEGAL USE, IT'S NOT A PROTECTED USE.
AND, AND IT WAS STIPULATED THAT THERE, THAT THAT TRAILER PARK DID NOT HAVE A CO CORRECT? YES, SIR.
SINCE, SINCE THAT TIME, I, I'M GONNA ASK YOU TO TURN TO IT'S TAB 12, UH, IN OUR EVIDENTIARY PACKAGE.
AND CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT TAB 12 IS? TAB 12 IS A, UH, SITE PLAN OF THE BUILDING, UH, THAT, UH, INCLUDES, UH, MORE THAN ONE USE.
ONE OF THE USES IT INCLUDES IS THE ENCORE LOUNGE, WHICH IS AN ISSUE IN THIS CASE THAT THE ENCORE, THE PREMISES WHERE ENCORE IS LOCATED IS, UH, OUTLINED IN RED.
AND ALSO THE DISTANCE FROM THE BUILDING TO THE WALL OF THE PREMISES OF ENCORE IS SHOWN IN RED.
AND IT SHOWS THAT IS AN ADDITIONAL DISTANCE OF 161 AND A HALF, UH, UH, AND BECAUSE, UH, 161 AND A HALF FEET, UH, AND, AND IF YOU TAKE THAT AND THEN ADD THAT AMOUNT, IF YOU FLIP OVER TO WHAT THE CITY HAD AS FAR AS THE, UH, UH, THE, THE MAP THAT THEY, UH, SUBMITTED, WHICH IS UNDER CITIES TAB TWO ON THE SECOND PAGE, YOU CAN SEE THEY MEASURED IT WITH 883 FEET FROM THE, UH, BOUNDARY OF THE TRAILER PARK TO THE BOUNDARY OF THE BUILDING.
BUT IF YOU TAKE THAT, UH, 883 AND ADD IN, IN 161, IT IS NOW MORE THAN A THOUSAND FEET.
SO EVEN IF IT WAS A LEGAL USE, IT DOESN'T COUNT BECAUSE IT'S MORE THAN A THOUSAND FEET AWAY.
AND THAT IS THE CLEAR LANGUAGE, OR I CONSIDER IT TO BE THE CLEAR LANGUAGE OF, UH, THE DANCE HALL ORDINANCE, WHICH IS TAB DONE NINE IN WHAT WE ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED THAT TALKS ABOUT YOU MEASURE FROM THE NEAREST PART OF THE BUILDING USED AS PART OF THE PREMISES WHERE THE DANCE HALL IS CONDUCTED.
SO YOU DON'T GO ALL THE WAY TO THE EXTERIOR WALL OF A LARGER BUILDING.
YOU GO TO THE WALL OF THE PREMISES WHERE THE DANCE HALL IS CONDUCTED.
AND AGAIN, IF YOU FLIP BACK TO, UH, WHAT WE SUBMITTED AS EXHIBIT 12, YOU CAN SEE THAT THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE USES.
THERE'S AN EXISTING USE FOR THE LEFT AND ENCORE.
AND SO IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECOND 14 DASH 3.1 B, WE ARE NOT WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET, AND THEREFORE THERE'S NOT A PROTECTED USE WHETHER OR NOT WE REACH THE ARGUMENT ABOUT IT BEING AN ILLEGAL USE.
CAN THAT EXHIBIT NINE YOU WERE REFERRING TO? YES, SIR.
IT'S, IT'S SECTION 14 DASH 3.1 LATE HOURS PERMIT AND TALKS ABOUT HOW IT'S MEASURED.
CAN, CAN, CAN YOU READ THAT SUBSECTION B? BECAUSE I, I DON'T, I, I WANT, WANT EVERYONE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE ORDINANCE SAYS.
I, I KNOW I HAVE A TENDENCY TO GO FAST.
UH, THE, THIS IS THE DANCE HALL ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 14, CHAPTER 14, UH, SECOND 14, 3.1 IS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO LATE HOUR PERMIT BITS.
AND IT OUTLINES THE IDEA THAT THERE
[00:20:01]
ARE CERTAIN PROTECTED USES THAT IF YOU'RE WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET, YOU CANNOT GET A LATE HOUR PERMIT.INSTEAD, YOU HAVE TO COME TO THE BOARD AND SEE IF AN EXHIBIT, UH, SUBSET CAN BE OF THAT SPECIFICALLY SAYS FOR PURPOSES OF THE MEASUREMENT THAT THE CITY IS GOING TO MAKE, THEY DO IT IN A STRAIGHT LINE FROM THE, THE, WHAT THE, THE CITY WOULD CALL A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OR PROPERTY DEVOTED TO A RESIDENTIAL USE.
YOU GO FROM THAT LINE TO NOT THE EGG OF THE PROPERTY LINE, NOT THE EGG OF THE ENTIRE BUILDING, BUT YOU GO TO THE NEAREST PART OF THE BUILDING USED AS A, I'M QUOTING USED AS A PART OF THE PREMISES WHERE THE DANCE HALL IS CONDUCTED.
SO, SO IT, IT'S, IT IS THE BOUNDARY IS WHAT WE'RE SHOWING IN EXHIBIT 12, THAT, THAT WE'VE, WE'VE ADDED THIS ROUND, UH, THAT IS AN ADDITIONAL 161 FEET AWAY.
AND, AND BRIEFLY, UH, EXHIBIT 12 WAS A, A DOCUMENT THAT, THAT, THAT IS IN RED AND IT SHOWS THE MEASUREMENT, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
EXHIBITS 13 AND 14, JUST SO THAT WE'RE CLEAR, THESE ARE, UH, UH, A REPLICA OF EXHIBIT 12.
EXHIBIT 13 IS A REPLICA OF EXHIBIT 12.
THAT'S THE PARKING ANALYSIS, CORRECT? YES.
AND THAT IS, IS INCLUDED IN EXHIBIT 14.
AND WE POINT THAT OUT 'CAUSE EXHIBIT 14 IS THE ENTIRE SET OF PLANS THAT IS ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF DALLAS, CORRECT? YES, SIR.
AND, AND AGAIN, AS YOU JUST SAID, THAT GOES THAT THERE IS A SEPARATE USE, UH, BETWEEN ENCORE AND THE, THE PROPERTY LINE FOR THE, UH, THE TRAILER PARK.
UM, SO AT THIS TIME, WHAT, WHAT ENCORE IS REQUESTING THE BOARD TO PRELIMINARILY GO AHEAD AND MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT THE ME, THAT THE ENCORE DANCE HALL PREMISES ARE MORE THAN A THOUSAND FEET AWAY, AND THEREFORE THERE'S NO NEED TO PROCEED WITH AN EXEMPTION OR ARE OTHER ARGUMENTS IN THIS MATTER.
UH, PRELIMINARILY WE WOULD, UH, PASS ON THIS ISSUE AND REQUEST THAT A DECISION BE MADE ON THIS ISSUE, UH, RESERVING WHATEVER TIME WE HAVE LEFT TO, IF, IF IT'S NOT FOR WHATEVER REASON, DETERMINED THAT IT'S MORE, NOT MORE THAN A THOUSAND FEET AWAY, THEN WE WILL GO THROUGH THE, OUR OTHER EL ELEMENTS VERY IN OUR TIME REMAINING.
UH, MR. WILKINS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE, UH, APPELLANT OR APPELLANT WITNESSES? NO, NOT AT THIS TIME.
UH, WE WILL NOW PROCEED WITH BOARD QUESTIONING FIRST WITH A THREE MINUTE ROUND.
UH, AND I WANT TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT, UH, DURING THE PARTY'S OPENING PRESENTATIONS, UH, VICE CHAIR TORRES, UH, ENTERED THE MEETING.
UH, I BELIEVE I CAUGHT ENOUGH OF WHAT WAS SAID TO, UH, BE ABLE TO MAKE AN INTELLIGENT JUDGE AS WELL.
AND MR. HAYES IS ALSO WITH US AS WELL, SO I DON'T EXCLUDE ANYBODY.
UH, MS. COBB, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPELLANT? I JUST HAVE A QUESTION IN GENERAL.
SO WE HAD THE BREAK BECAUSE WE WEREN'T SURE IF WE WERE ALLOWED TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION THAT WENT AGAINST WHAT THE, HOW THE SURVEYOR STANDARDLY DOES THIS.
AND NOW IT'S BEEN DETERMINED THAT WE CAN MAKE THAT CALL OF WHERE THE, OF WHERE THE MEASUREMENT TAKES PLACE.
IS THAT, AM I CLEAR? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
SO NO QUESTIONS FOR THE APPELLANT? NO QUESTIONS.
UM, MS. WILLIS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPELLANT? NO, I DON'T.
UH, VICE CHAIR TORRES, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPELLANT? UM, NOT THIS ROUND.
MR. JEFFS QUESTIONS? MR. HAYES? NO QUESTIONS.
[00:25:02]
MS. SHIN, NO QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.UH, I DO HAVE A QUESTION, UH, EITHER FOR, FOR MR. SHIELDS OR MR. ALBRIGHT, UM, ARE THERE ANY OTHER BUSINESSES WITHIN THAT SAME BUILDING THAT HAVE A DANCE HALL PERMIT? NO, SIR.
I WILL GO THROUGH REALLY QUICKLY TO SEE IF ANYBODY HAS ANY FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS.
UH, MS. KYLE, MS. WILLIS? OKAY.
I WAS JUST HAVE ONE WHO, GO AHEAD.
I ASK WHO WAS THERE FIRST? WAS THE, THE, UM, WAS THE DANCE HALL THERE FIRST OR WAS THE, UM, UH, I THINK YOU'RE BREAKING UP.
WHAT RESIDENT, WHO THERE FIRST? WAS THE DANCE HALL THERE FIRST OR WAS THE PARK WAS THE DANCE HALL OR THE MOBILE HOME PARK THERE FIRST? THE MOBILE HOME PARK WAS THERE FIRST BECAUSE IT NO LONGER HAS A CO SO AS FAR AS WE'RE CONCERNED, IT DOESN'T EXIST.
SO I JUST KIND OF WANNA SUMMARIZE, YOU'RE COMING, UM, TODAY BECAUSE YOU WANT US TO AGREE WITH YOU THAT THE CITY DID INCORRECTLY, I GUESS, CONSIDERS THIS TRAILER HOME IN PARTICULAR WITH USE FOR RESIDENTIAL USE, AND THAT THEY ALSO AIRED IN SAYING THAT, THAT YOUR LOCATION IS A THOUSAND FEET FROM THAT, SO THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE HERE AT ALL BECAUSE THE CITY IS WRONG ON BOTH.
PRELIMINARILY, WE ARE JUST ARGUING FOR THE MOMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, ASSUMING IT WAS A VALID PROPERTY LINE DEVOTED TO A RESIDENTIAL USE, IT IS STILL MORE THAN A THOUSAND FEET.
WE WILL GET INTO THE OTHER ISSUE IF WE NEED TO, BUT THIS IS OUR, OUR SOLE ISSUE WE'RE, WE'RE DISCUSSING RIGHT AT THE MOMENT IS, IS THE PREMISES OF THE DANCE HALL WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF THAT PROPERTY LINE.
WHAT, WHAT ARE YOUR OTHER ARGUMENTS? 'CAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY.
CAN YOU SUMMARIZE WHAT ELSE YOU WOULD? SURE, SURE.
UH, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT, WHAT OUR, IF IF IT'S DETERMINED FOR WHATEVER REASON THAT WE'RE NOT, THAT WE ARE WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET, THEN WE ARE SAYING IT'S STILL INVALID BECAUSE THE TRAILER PARK DOES NOT HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
IF IT DOES NOT HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, IT IS NOT A VALID USE.
IF IT'S NOT A VALID USE, IT CANNOT BE USED TO DENY, UH, TO, TO QUALIFY AS A RESTRICTION WITH DENY OUR REQUEST FOR A, UM, FOR A LATE HOURS PERMIT.
THAT'S OUR SECOND ARGUMENT AFTER THE ACT.
THAT'S MORE THAN A THOUSAND FEET.
THEN OUR THIRD ARGUMENT WOULD BE IF THE FIRST TWO ARGUMENTS DON'T PREVAIL, THEN WE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO A ONE YEAR EXEMPTION.
BUT, BUT FOR THE MOMENT, WE ARE JUST PRELIMINARILY ON THE ISSUE.
UM, IS THE, ARE THE PREMISES, IS THE PREMISES, ARE THE PREMISES MORE THAN A THOUSAND FEET FROM THAT PROPERTY LINE? AND THE ANSWER WE'VE SHOWN IS CLEARLY YES.
AND SINCE IT'S MORE THAN A THOUSAND FEET, WE DO NOT NEED TO GO THROUGH THIS EXERCISE ANY FURTHER.
UM, MR. JEFFERSON, NO QUESTIONS.
UM, SO WITH THAT, UH, MR. WILKINS, IF YOU'D LIKE TO BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION, YOU HAVE 15 MINUTES.
I, I DON'T HAVE A PRESENTATION.
I'M JUST GOING TO, I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF STATEMENTS.
UM, THE, JUST SO EVERYBODY'S CLEAR, THE ISSUE ABOUT WHETHER THE TRAILER PART IS A USED TO
[00:30:01]
BE CONSIDERED OR NOT, 'CAUSE WE'RE ASKING YOU JUST PUT THAT LITTLE CORNER OF YOUR BRAIN AND LOCK IT UP, AND DON'T WORRY ABOUT THAT.RIGHT NOW, THE ONLY THING THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH RIGHT NOW IS PURELY A QUESTION OF, IT'S REALLY PURELY A QUESTION OF INTERPRETATION OF, OF A STATUTE OR ORDINANCE.
UM, DOES THIS THING SAY THAT YOU NEED TO MEASURE THE THOUSAND FEET FROM THE WALL OF THE BUILDING OR THE WALLS, THIS SUITE? UM, THE CITY'S POSITION IS THAT THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THIS LANGUAGE IS FROM THE WALL OF THE BUILDING.
UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE PARLIAMENTARIAN THAT I THINK VICE CHAIR JUEZ WAS PROBABLY GETTING AT, WHICH IS, IF WE AS A BOARD CONSIDER THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, WILL WE BE AND DON'T FIND FOR THE APPELLANT, WILL WE BE ABLE TO GO BACK AND THEN HEAR THE ARGUMENT ON THE OTHER ISSUE? YES.
UM, MR. SHIELDS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY? I HAVE NO QUESTION.
I HAVE A POINT OF ORDER, I GUESS.
CHAIR, MS. TORRES, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR A POINT OF ORDER.
WELL, IF YOU'RE GOING TO BRING AN ARGUMENT, SHOULDN'T YOU PRESENT THEM ALL DURING THE FIRST PART OF THE, OF LIKE, BRING ALL ARGUMENTS IN THE BEGINNING? WELL, THE PARLIAMENTARIAN HAS SAID THAT'S NOT NECESSARY, SO I'M GOING TO OVERRULE THE POINT OF ORDER.
UM, THIS IS A FOLLOW UP, TRISTAN, TO A FOLLOW UP CLEAR OF ORDER FROM WHERE EVERYTHING WAS PRESENTED.
YEAH, I, I FEEL LIKE MS. TORRES, WERE YOU ON THE FIRST CALL WHERE EVERYTHING WAS PRESENTED IN THE FIRST MEETING? YEAH, I CH I CHAIRED IT WHENEVER HE LEFT, LEFT.
MY THING IS, IS JUST KIND OF LIKE, BRING ALL THE ARGUMENTS YOU HAVE BECAUSE THAT'S YOUR TIME TO PRESENT.
I DON'T THINK, UM, I DON'T THINK SO.
THE, THE PARLIAMENTARIAN HAS TOLD US THAT WE CAN GO, WE CAN GO BACK, UM, FOR ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION.
THAT POINT OF ORDER IS WHAT WE WILL, UM, AND I'M SORRY, MR. SHIELDS, DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY OR CITY'S WITNESSES? NO, SIR.
AND MR. WILKINS, YOU DON'T INTEND TO PRESENT ANY WITNESSES IN THIS PART? NO.
UH, THEN, UH, WE WILL SEE IF ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY.
UM, FIRST ROUND, MS. KYLE? I DON'T THINK SO, NO.
MS. WILLIS, JUST TO BE CLEAR, SO THE, THEY ARE WITHIN THE THOUSAND, IS THAT CORRECT? OR YOU STATED THEY WERE WELL WITHIN THE THOUSAND, IT'S THE CITY'S POSITION THAT THE CORRECT MEASUREMENT IS TO MEASURE FROM THE E THE CLOSEST EDGE OF THE BUILDING TO THE TRAILER PARK.
THE BUILDING IS 883 FEET, I THINK, AWAY FROM THE TRAILER PARK.
IF, IF YOU MEASURE FROM THE SUITE THAT, THAT THE DANCE HALL IS ACTUALLY IN, IT'S MORE THAN A THOUSAND FEET AWAY.
SO WE, YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MEASUREMENT IS FROM THE EDGE OF THE SUITE TO THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE TRAILER PARK OR THE EDGE OF THE BUILDING TO THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE TRAILER PARK.
THE CITY CONTENDS THE CORRECT MEASUREMENT IS FROM THE EDGE OF THE BUILDING.
UM, VICE CHAIR TORRES, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY? UM, YES, MR. WILKINS IN ALL THE OTHER, UM, I GUESS WHENEVER, UM, THE DETECTIVES ARE DOING THIS, THEY ALWAYS DO IT FROM THE EDGE OF THE BUILDING.
UM, THE CITY SURVEYOR IS THE ONE WHO DOES THE SURVEY AND HE'S ALWAYS DONE IT FROM THE EDGE OF THE BUILDING.
SO WE WOULD BE MAKING AN EXCEPTION HERE TO WHAT THE CITY SURVEYOR IS NORMALLY DOING.
YEAH, I I I SUPPOSE YOU'D BE DETERMINING THAT THE CITY SURVEYOR HAS BEEN READING WRONG.
WOULD THIS THEN CAUSE THE CITY SURVEYOR TO CHANGE THE WAY HE DOES SURVEYS? IT WOULD BE SOMETHING FOR THE CITY SURVEYOR TO CONSIDER, AND IT WOULD PROBABLY BE SOMETHING FOR OTHER CITY OFFICIALS TO CONSIDER.
BUT THIS IS NOT A COURT OF RECORD, SO IT'S NOT GONNA ESTABLISH A FINDING PRECEDENT.
IT'S JUST SOMETHING TO INFORM THE
[00:35:01]
CITY SURVEYOR GOING FORWARD.IN YOUR, UH, OPINION? WELL, I'LL ASK THAT FOR THE SECOND ONE.
SORRY, MR. JEFFERSON, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY? NO QUESTIONS.
UH, MR. JEFFS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS CITY? NO QUESTIONS.
DO DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS ISSUE? YES.
AS A FOLLOW UP TO THE VICE CHAIR, UM, IN THE THREE YEARS OR SO THAT I'VE BEEN ON THIS GROUP, MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT EVERY OTHER CASE HAS BEEN A STANDALONE BUILDING.
UH, DO YOU HAVE ANY REC RECOLLECTION OF A SIMILAR SITUATION WHERE WE HAD A SUITE WITHIN A BUILDING, SIR? UM, I GUESS, UH, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT AFTERWARDS, AFTER THE LAST HEARING.
UH, IT'S GONNA, I MEAN, YES, THERE ARE OFTENTIMES WHEN THE DANCE HALL IS NOT THE ENTIRE BUILDING, BUT IT'S RARE THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE EDGE OF THE BUILDING AND THE EDGE OF THE SUITE IS GONNA MAKE THE DIFFERENCE, IF YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I MEAN.
UM, SO THIS, THIS IS, THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT RARELY COMES UP.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE EVERY SINGLE TIME YOU DO MEASUREMENT FOR A DANCE HALL, IT, IT'S GOING TO TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
BUT IT HAS COME UP IN THE PAST.
AND I SPOKE WITH THE CITY SURVEYOR AND HE SAID, YES.
I REMEMBER A TIME SEVERAL YEARS AGO WE HAD TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION IN COURT.
AND JUST TO REITERATE WHAT YOU TOLD VICE CHAIR, WHAT WE DETERMINE HERE IS NOT BINDING ON THE NEXT CASE.
SHOULD THIS EVER COME UP AGAIN? IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT IS TO BE CONSIDERED.
IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT'S, YES, THAT'S RIGHT.
NOW MY HOPE IS THAT, THAT MAYBE SOME CLARITY WILL, WILL COME OUT OF THIS AND, AND THERE'LL BE DISCUSSIONS SO THAT THEY'LL KNOW NEXT TIME IT'S EITHER TO CLARIFY THINGS ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
BUT YES, THERE'S, THIS IS NOT CREATING A BINDING PRECEDENT.
NOBODY'S GONNA LOOK THIS UP AND CITE IT IN ANOTHER CASE.
MR. QUINT, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY? NO QUESTIONS.
MS. SHIN, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY? NO QUESTIONS.
UM, I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
WHAT ARE THE OTHER USES THAT ARE IN THIS BUILDING? UM, THERE IS A, UM, IT'S AN SOV, BUT WHAT IS IT? IS IT A IT'S A NIGHTCLUB.
THERE'S A NIGHTCLUB USE THAT HAS AN SOV LICENSE.
BUT IT IS OWNED BY THE APPELLANT AS WELL? YES.
BUT THEY DON'T HAVE, AS FAR AS THE CITY KNOWS, A DANCE HALL OR, NO, NO.
WE'LL GO THROUGH, UH, HOPEFULLY QUICKLY FOR THE SECOND ROUND OF QUESTIONING.
MS. KYLE, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY? NO.
THANK YOU, MS. WILLIS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY? I HAVE ONE.
SO AS FAR AS, UH, DISTURBANCE, THE, ANY RESIDENTS MADE ANY, UH, COMPLAINTS AS FAR AS DISTURBANCE? UM, WELL I BELIEVE THAT DETECTIVE MONTREAL TESTIFIED AS TO THAT LAST TIME.
UH, DETECTIVE, DO, DO WE HAVE ANY COMPLAINTS ABOUT DISTURBANCES? NO.
THERE'S A HIGHWAY THAT, THAT INTERVENES.
YEAH, I 35 IS BETWEEN THIS PROPERTY AND THE, THE TRAILER PART.
SO I, I THINK THE HIGHWAY NOISE IS GONNA DROWN OUT WHATEVER'S GOING ON THERE.
THANK, THANK YOU MS. WILL, UH, VICE CHAIR TORRES, DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? NO QUESTIONS, CHAIR.
UH, MR. JEFFERSON, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY? NO QUESTIONS.
UM, MR. JEFFS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY? NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
MR. HAYES, DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY? NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
[00:40:01]
QUINT, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NO QUESTIONS.UH, MS. SHIN, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NO QUESTIONS.
AND I HAVE NO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
SO WITH THAT, I GUESS WE WILL GO TO, UH, WE CAN HAVE BRIEF CLOSING STATEMENTS IF YOU WANNA BEGIN.
ON THIS PRELIMINARY ISSUE, I, I, AGAIN, I WOULD JUST GUIDE THE BOARD TO THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE OF THE ORDINANCE, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE RELYING ON.
IT'S FROM THE, UH, NEAREST PART OF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURES USED AS PART OF THE PREMISES.
UH, I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR 30 SOME YEARS AND, AND OFTENTIMES WE HAVE HAD, UH, THESE TYPES OF BUSINESSES IN STRIP CENTERS AND WE DELINEATE WITHIN THE, UH, PLANS EXACTLY WHERE THOSE PREMISES ARE LOCATED AND THAT'S IS HOW IT IS THEN MEASURED.
SO THE CITY SURVEYOR HAS IN THE PAST ALWAYS, FROM MY RECOLLECTION AND MY BELIEF AND MY EXPERIENCE HAS MEASURED IT FROM THE PART OF THE PREMISES DELINEATED AS THE DANCE HALL.
THAT IS WHAT THE ORDINANCE SAYS.
I UNDERSTAND THE CITY MAY TAKE AN ALTERNATE POSITION, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE ORDINANCE SAYS.
SO PRELIMINARILY, WE WOULD REQUEST THAT YOU, UH, UH, REVERSE THE CHIEF OF POLICE BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE PREMISES THAT ARE GONNA BE USED AS THE DANCE HALL ARE MORE THAN A THOUSAND FEET FROM THE UH, PROPERTY LINE.
UH, AND MR. WILKINS, DO YOU HAVE CLOSING? I'LL, I'LL BE MINDFUL OF THE BOARD'S TIME AND WE'LL GO WITH CLOSING.
MR. CHAIR, BEFORE WE GET INTO MOTION, CAN I JUST CLARIFY WHAT THE MOTION WOULD BE? SO IT'S THE PRELIMINARY MATTER WHETHER OR NOT THE DANCE HALL IS LOCATED WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE OF A LOT DEVOTED TO RESIDENTIAL USE.
SO YOU WOULD SAY I MOVE THAT IT IS LOCATED WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET, OR IT'S NOT AND THAT'S THE FIRST ISSUE.
SO THIS IS THE SAME ISSUE THAT WE DECIDED AT THE PRIOR HEARING FOR THE OTHER BUSINESS, WHICH IS THAT THE LOCATIONAL RESTRICTION ACTUALLY DOES NOT APPLY.
AND SO OVERRULING THE DENIAL OF THE PERMIT.
RIGHT? THEN IT WOULD BE REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE, IF YOU FIND THAT IT'S NOT LOCATED WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET.
UM, THEN IS THERE A MOTION FROM THE BOARD REGARDING WHETHER TO OVERRULE THE CHIEF'S DECISION ON WHETHER THE LOCATIONAL RESTRICTION APPLIES IN THIS CASE? I MOVE, GO AHEAD.
I MOVE THAT THE DANCE HALL IS NOT WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF OKAY.
MOTION BY MEMBER KYLE TO OVERRULE THE DECISION OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE AND DETERMINE THAT THE PREMISES OF ENCORE IS NOT WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF THE RESIDENTIAL USE.
MR. CHAIR, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED FOR POINT OF ORDER, MR. HAYES, UM, IN CONCERT WITH WHAT THE ATTORNEY SAID, SHOULD WE BE USING THE WORD REVERSE RATHER THAN OVERRULE? UH, CERTAINLY.
PLEASE SUBSTITUTE THE WORD REVERSE FOR THE WORD OVERRULE IN, UH, WHAT I JUST SAID.
AND WITH THAT, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, UH, MR. QUINT SECONDS.
THAT WAS MR. QUINT, WASN'T IT? YES, SIR.
UH, NOW WE'LL PROCEED WITH DISCUSSION.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK FIRST? I THINK BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE SUITE FALLS, YOU KNOW, FAR FROM THE EDGE OF THE ACTUAL BUILDING STRUCTURE, THAT'S THE, YOU KNOW, FROM THE CLOSEST POINT THAT'S MEASURED, THAT THE ACTUAL DANCE HALL DOES NOT FALL WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET.
UM, AND THEREFORE IT, YOU KNOW, DOES, SHOULDN'T BE DENIED THE PERMIT.
UH, IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION? UH, VICE CHAIR TORRES, YOU RECOGNIZE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION? YEAH, I JUST HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT
[00:45:01]
BECAUSE IF WE REVERSE THE CHIEF OF POLICE, THEN THEY'LL NEVER HAVE TO COME BACK.UM, IS BECAUSE WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS THAT THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S APPLICABLE TO THEM.
AND SO I WOULD LIKE THE SURVEY.
I WOULD LIKE TO JUST SIDE WITH WHAT THEY SAID IS A THOUSAND FEET.
I ALSO DO BELIEVE THAT, THAT THERE IS, UH, A STRUCTURE THERE USED FOR LIVING, WHICH IS A TRAILER HOME PARK.
AND SO WE'RE FORGETTING ABOUT THAT.
AND EVEN IF THEY DON'T HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO OVERLOOK THAT AND TAKE IT AS A RESIDENTIAL AREA.
AND FOR THAT REASON, THEY SHOULD, YOU KNOW, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE, YOU, YOU, THEY CAN HAVE AN EXCEPTION AND COME BACK AND WE'LL SEE THEM IN A YEAR.
'CAUSE THIS IS A NEW BUSINESS.
BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD JUST NOT, UM, WE SHOULD JUST SAY THAT THEY'RE, THIS IS NOT A, A PLACE FOR THEM.
I, I WOULD LIKE FOR THEM TO COME BACK.
SO THAT'S WHY I AM OPPOSING THIS MOTION.
UH, IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK OR IS THERE ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON NEITHER FOR OR AGAINST THE MOTION? I, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON IT.
SO, IN AS MUCH AS I UNDERSTAND WHAT MS. TORRES IS SAYING, UM, THERE'S A FREEWAY THAT GOES BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS ON THE TRAILER HOME PARK.
SO IF IT'S AN UNENCUMBERED, UM, SITUATION, I MIGHT SAY THE CITY MIGHT HAVE A POINT, BUT WHEN YOU'VE GOT A FREEWAY IN BETWEEN IT, ANY NOISE POTENTIAL WOULD BE DROWNED OUT BY ALL THE, THE CARS ON THE FREEWAY.
BUT I ALSO THINK THAT WHEN YOU READ THE STATUTE AND IT SAYS THE NEAREST POINT OF THE, UH, BUILDING THAT'S BEING OCCUPIED, YOU WOULD MEASURE TO THE DOOR, NEAREST POINT OF THE ACTUAL DANCE HALL VERSUS THE CORNER OF THE BUILDING.
'CAUSE I FORGOT THAT MS. WOOD, I'M SORRY.
I'M SORRY MS. KYLE, YOU'RE NOT RECOGNIZED, BUT I'LL COME BACK TO YOU.
UM, IS THERE ANYBODY WHO HAS NOT YET SPOKEN WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION? YES.
UM, UH, YOU RECOGNIZE MR. HAYES? THANK YOU.
UM, I'D LIKE MR. QUINN TO HAVE READ THAT PARTICULAR SENTENCE IN THE ORDINANCE SEVERAL TIMES, AND I COULD SEE HOW IT CAN BE INTERPRETED EITHER WAY.
AND BASED UPON WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT AT THE LAST MEETING, I, I THINK WE SHOULD ERR ON THE SIDE OF LENIENCY.
AND FURTHERMORE, THE, THE, THE, THE KEY FACTOR HERE IS ALL WE'RE LOOKING AT IS THE DETERMINATION OF A THOUSAND FEET.
SO AGAIN, WHETHER IT'S GOT A CO OR WHETHER ANYBODY'S LIVING THERE OR NOT IS, IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT TO THIS MOTION.
UH, IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO HASN'T SPOKEN YET WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION? UM, MS. SHIN YOU RECOGNIZE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION? UM, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST RECOGNIZE THAT THE CITY ORDINANCE TO ME, UH, SEEMS VERY CLEAR THAT IT IS ANY PART OF THE BUILDING.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE THE, UH, BUSINESS IS LOCATED WITHIN THE STRUCTURE OF THE BUILDING.
UM, BY DEFINITION, UM, PREMISES IS TOGETHER OF THE WHOLE.
AND SO I THINK, UH, BY USING THAT DEFINITION, IT MAKES THE CITY ORDINANCE VERY CLEAR THAT IT'S FROM THE NEAREST PART OF THE BUILDING, NOT THE NEAREST PART OF THE BUILDING OF THAT SUITE OR THE WALL OF THAT SUITE.
UM, SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT.
UH, IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE MOTION? I WOULD, UH, MR. JEFFERSON, YOU RECOGNIZE TO SPEAK ON THE MOTION? YES.
I, UH, JUST BASICALLY WOULD WANT TO CONCUR WITH, YOU KNOW, WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, UH, FROM MY, UH, COUNTERPARTS.
I THINK THAT THIS COULD BE CONSTRUED EITHER WAY OR UNDERSTOOD EITHER WAY BASED UPON THE LANGUAGE.
UH, FOR ME, I HAD AN ISSUE IN THE LAST MEETING, UM, HAVING CONFLICT WITH GOING ON RECORD AGAINST THE DECISION OF MY CHIEF.
HOWEVER, I DIDN'T LIKE THE SITUATION
[00:50:01]
WHERE, UH, OR, OR LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY, I, I'M NOT GOING TO PUT MYSELF IN A PLACE WHERE I CAN SAY IT'S ALL ON HIM, OR, OR ONE PERSON CAN SAY THIS WAY AND THE OTHER PERSON CAN SAY THAT WAY.I JUST WANT TO, TO HAVE IT PROVEN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
AND IT LOOKS LIKE WHAT I'M HEARING IN THIS TESTIMONY THAT BOTH SIDES ARE IN AGREEMENT THAT IT'S WITH, WITH IT'S WITHIN THE, UH, OR NOT WITHIN THE THOUSAND FEET.
IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR THE MOTION? UM, I WILL SPEAK FOR THE MOTION.
UM, I THINK, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE SAME ISSUE THAT WE HAD WITH DEB Y UH, AT THE LAST MEETING.
AND WE GRANTED THEM, OR WE, UH, REVERSED THE CHIEF'S DECISION IN THAT CASE.
UM, AND, YOU KNOW, WE DID THAT FOR MY MOTIVATION FOR DOING THAT.
MY REASONING FOR DOING THAT WAS THAT I DO THINK THAT THE STATUTE IS AMBIGUOUS AS TO, UM, THE MEASUREMENT, WHAT THE NEAREST PART MODIFIES IN 14 DASH 3.1 B.
I THINK THERE IS SOME AMBIGUITY THERE.
AND SO UNDER THE RULE OF LENIENCY, UH, CONSTRUE THAT IN FAVOR OF THE APPELLANT OR THE APPLICANT.
AND, UM, I, I DO THINK, YOU KNOW, EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T SET LEGAL PRECEDENT HERE, THAT UH, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE, WE DO BE CONSISTENT.
AND SO I'M IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.
IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION? I I HAVE A QUESTION.
UM, IF THERE'S, IF THERE'S NOBODY ELSE WHO HASN'T SPOKEN YET WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION, I'LL RECOGNIZE VICE CHAIR TORRES TO SPEAK AGAINST FOR A SECOND TIME.
IF WE, IF YOU REVERSE THE CHIEF OF POLICE DECISION, THEN THAT MEANS MAYBE NEXT YEAR WHEN THEY'RE, WHEN THE DETECTIVES ARE OUT, UH, YOU, YOU KNOW, DOING WHAT THEY NEED TO DO, THEY WON'T EVEN, UM, COME TO THIS BUSINESS.
CORRECT? BECAUSE IT'S BECAUSE WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT IT'S GREAT, IT'S NOT, UM, WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET.
IS THAT CORRECT? UM, THAT IS ACTUALLY BECAUSE WE DON'T CREATE A BINDING INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE, I THINK IT WOULD BE UP TO THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HOW THEY WANT TO ADDRESS THE PERMIT RENEWAL.
UM, SINCE THIS BEING AN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE.
MR. WILKINS, I'LL RECOGNIZE YOU IF YOU HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.
WELL, I, I THINK THAT THE ANSWER IS PROBABLY YES, THAT WE WON'T BE BACK HERE FOR THE LOCATIONAL RESTRICTION.
THE APPLICATION IS GOING TO GET REVIEWED BY DPD FOR COMPLIANCE WITH ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE, UH, ET CETERA.
UM, EVERY YEAR FOR THREE, THREE YEARS.
AND THEN AFTER THAT, OR NO, I EVERY YEAR.
UM, SO THEY'LL, THEY'LL ALWAYS BE YEARLY BEING VIEWED BY DPD FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE.
IT'S JUST LOCATIONAL DESCRIPTION WHAT GETS YOU.
SO A FUTURE PERMIT WOULD NOT BE DENIED FOR THE LOCATIONAL RESTRICTION, BUT IF THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH THE BUSINESS, IT COULD BE DENIED FOR GOOD CAUSE.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? UH, VICE CHAIR TORE THAT DOES AND THAT'S CONFIRMS MY DENIAL OF THE MOTION.
AND ALSO, MR. JEFFERSON, OH NEVERMIND.
UM, IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE MOTION? IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE, UH, WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR THE MOTION? IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO'S ALREADY SPOKEN WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR THE MOTION? RIGHT.
IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE MOTION? EITHER WHO HAS OR HAS NOT SPOKEN? ALRIGHT, IF THERE IS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION AND I SEE NONE, UH, THEN WE WILL PROCEED WITH VOTING ON MR. KYLE'S
[00:55:01]
MOTION IN ORDER TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE IN DENYING THE LATE HOURS PERMIT ON THE BASIS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LOCATIONAL RESTRICTION DO NOT EXIST.UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
SO WE WILL, UM, DO A RECORDED VOTE.
UM, I WILL GO THROUGH THE NAMES EVERYBODY.
I'M SORRY I DIDN'T HEAR YOU MR. JEFFS.
WE HAVE SEVEN IN FAVOR AND TWO AGAINST THE VOTE PASSES.
UM, AND THAT WILL CONCLUDE TODAY'S HEARING.
UH, THE TIME IS 9 31 BOARD MEMBERS WHO ARE NOT PHYSICALLY PRESENT.
PLEASE MONITOR YOUR EMAILS FOR THE DOCUSIGN.