5/17/2023 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

conditional use permit. Since the case involved a restaurant, it was important to address these specific uses and their corresponding requirements as outlined in the code. Other uses may not have been relevant to the case or may have had different requirements specified in the code, so they were not included in the letter. Going back to the other applications, it was established that those reviewed showed examples of new businesses with new names filled those spaces. The requirement to submit an application applied to both new businesses and changes in business names. While there wasn't an example of a change in name without a new business entity the testimony and evidence suggested that the application requirement applied to both scenarios. The process was explained as, prior to receiving the letter form the building department, the business may not have been aware of the requirement to submit a change of use application. The letter served as a notice informing them of the requirement. Until that point, they may not have been considered operating illegally, as it was the enforcement agency's determination based on the application and review process. Mr. O'Malley asked Mr. Dorenkott if after his cross examination did he still stand by the determination letter, the analysis that was provided to the Director of Public Safety, he stated yes. Mr. O'Malley also asked if the cross examination changed his mind about any of the examples provided, and was the Kava Bar the same as The Best Damn Tacos; he stated no. The final question was if the Kava Bar could have proceeded prior to have obtained a certificate of occupancy; his reply was no. Re -direct form Mr. Khawam. He asked if the determination whether a business was operating legally or illegally was made by the relevant authority, such as the planning department, based on the review and evaluation of the applicable regulations and permits. He continued with the question of until such a determination was made and communicated to the business owner, they could not have been characterized as operating illegally. The reply was that the letter that was issued was based on the planning director's determination, and it served to put the applicant on notice of the requirement to obtain a change of use permit. Mr. O'Malley called his next witness; Max Upton, Director of Economic and Community Development. Mr. Upton informed the board of his qualifications and educational background to hold his position. The moratorium was in question and was explained. The moratorium outlined in Resolution number 2022-100 prohibited the issuance of building, zoning, or occupancy permits for premises that would be used for the sale and consumption on-site of substances such as Kava, Kratom, Delta -THC, and Delta 9 -THC. It temporarily prohibited the approval of permits, licenses, variances, or development plans for such facilities. Therefore, it restricted the use of property for these specified purposes and prevented establishments like the Kava Bar from obtaining a certificate of occupancy and proceeding with the intended activities during the moratorium period. It was established that the business owner and his counsel were present at the City Council meeting in November, where the legislation for the moratorium was introduced, discussed and voted on. They witnessed the unanimous vote by City Council members. Information was presented by way of exhibits and provided what appeared to be the registration of a fictitious name for the Sacred Waters Kava Bar West by Kovatch Group LLC. The articles or organization for the LLC had an effective date of November 7, 2018. The resolution 2023-47, dated April 18, 2023 was characterized as an extension of the previous moratorium for an additional 90 days. Mr. O'Malley continued on and referenced exhibit 1D and asked Director Upton to explain to the board his zoning review and the directive given to the Building Commissioner. Director Upton began his explanation which was after the thorough analysis of