5/17/2023 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the zoning regulations it was determined that the proposed use of a Kava Bar did not conform to the schedule of uses outlined in the code. He went on to say that the principle business activity was the sale and consumption of beverages with intoxicating effects which aligned more closely with that of a bar rather than a permitted use under the zoning code. Based on those findings he recommended to Mr. Dorenkott that the application for zoning approval should not be approved, and that the applicant should be informed of their appellate rights under the code. Mr. O'Malley referred to exhibit 3 and 3a and explained of the correspondence from Director Upton's office to the former building commissioner was to inform him of the adoption of Resolution 2022-100 which presumably imposed a moratorium on certain activities or land use. Additionally, it was mention that there was a likely violation of the moratorium by the applicant and it was requested the building commissioner initiated an investigation. The applicant then argued that their sign application protected their right to use the property without obtaining a certificate of occupancy, in which Director Upton stated he did not agree with the argument. He explained there were other businesses in the city that obtained sign permits before they obtained a certificate of occupancy, which indicated the application for sign permit and change of use operate independently. It was understood that the city retained its rights to enforce the zoning code, regardless of the withdrawal of the sign application requirement. Therefore, it was suggested that the transition from The Best Damn Tacos to the Kava Bar would have required applying for and obtaining a certificate of occupancy, and that it is believed this understanding was straightforward and accurate. Mr. Khawam cross examined Director Upton. He questioned Director Upton regarding his education, his interpretation of ordinances and his basis for requesting the Moratorium on on-site consumption due to concerns about potential impairment and public safety. Director Upton clarified that while he did not study interpreting zoning codes during his education in urban planning, but that he was required to interpret ordinances as part of his coursework, He also confirmed that the term "intoxicating" was used by Mr. Kovatch in reference to the substances and that he also drew on articles and input from a professional network to assess potential impairment and driving -related concerns. Director Upton also acknowledged that he was not a medical doctor or a scientist, and he did not personally conduct studies on the substances' intoxicating effects or impairment while driving. Instead he relied on the information available to him to make a deductive analysis and concluded that on-site consumption could be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare due to the potential for impaired driving. There was a discussion between the on-site consumption and retail sale of substances like Kratom. Director Upton explained that his view, on-site consumption poses a greater risk to the public safety in terms of impaired driving. He compared the retail sale of Kratom to buying potato chips, where one can consume at home without the need to drive immediately after ingestion. It was determined that Director Upton made it known to the previous Building Commissioner about a potential violation and requested an investigation. There was no indication that and investigation was conducted or any findings of fact were communicated from the Building Commissioner. It was found that a letter was sent to the applicant that indicated the violation, on March 16th, 2023. The discussion then went to Director Upton explaining the use of a business and the procedures involved in changing the principle use under the zoning code. He explained that if a business changes its principle use they would need to submit a change of use application. He explained that a principle use refers to the main operation or purpose of the business. If a business changed its name and shifts primary operation from serving tacos to serving coffee, it would be considered a change in principle use and would require a change of use application. He proceeded to highlight the importance of consistent application of the city's zoning code and the