5/17/2023 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

need for businesses to submit appropriate applications when there is a change in principle use. It was determined that Director Upton's role was to determine whether a proposed use is similar to one of the listed uses in the code. If a proposed use is determined to be similar, the next step is to include it in the list of uses through the legislative process. Based on this discussion it was also determined that there was a process already in progress with Ord. 2023-52, 53 and 54 being contemplated by City Council to define and set restrictions for certain uses. After more discussion regarding businesses occupying spaces before or after the certificate was issued and permitting was granted, the result ended in a question about whether the moratorium precluded the ability to obtain a permit for signage. Dir. Upton replied that the moratorium would preclude that. It was also found that as a zoning administrator, he worked with the building commissioner and coordinated efforts to ensure compliance with the zoning code and permitting process. If the building commissioner determined that certain requirements can be waived for a specific permit, he would generally follow that direction. It was important to note that the interpretation and enforcement of the zoning code was his responsibility. If there were instances where a requirement was waived but later needed to be applied; die to a reassessment or new information; it would have been. It would not necessarily have been looked at as uneven or inconsistent application, but rather as a correction or adjustment based on the requirements of the code. On re -direct, Mr. O'Malley questioned Dir. Upton whether the Kava Bar was comparable to a coffee shop and whether the applicant was informed of any violation or faced enforcement action. Dir. Upton responded that he had looked into what the Kava Bar served and based on his knowledge stated it served synthetic unregulated drugs disguised as tea, which set it apart from a typical coffee shop. Second, the absence of zoning enforcement action did not make the occupancy and use of the Kava Bar lawful without obtaining a certificate of occupancy. The Kava Bar was still considered to be in violation of the regulations. Mr. Khawam, on his re -direct questioned Dir. Upton about the certificate of occupancy. It appeared that prior to the March 16th letter, Kovatch LLC did not have a valid certificate of occupancy for the Kava Bar. They had a certificate for a restaurant without a drive-thru. When the offerings of the business changed, a determination was made and was outlined in the April 5th letter, that the previous certificate was invalid for the new use. While David Kovatch could make his own determination, the authority to determine the legality of a particular use under a previously issued certificate rested with the office of the Economic and Community Development Director. Mr. Khawam called his first witness, Dr. Bahan. Provided her educational background. Dr. Bayan had experience with Kava, but not with Kratom. She emphasized it was a root, not a synthetic drug, and refuted claims of intoxicating or inebriating effects. She highlighted the positive effects, such as reducing symptoms of anxiety and depression. She admitted she instructed her front desk tell patients seeking relief form those illnesses to visit the Kava Bar and ingest Kava or Kratom. She proceeded to confirm that Kava was not a synthetic substance, and is extracted using water, ethanol or acetone. She stated she hadn't personally experienced any intoxication and felt comfortable driving after consuming it. In cross-examination it was deduced she had no expertise in land use law and zoning and things of that nature. she did not go before Council to testify pros and cons and on-site consumption, and did not participate in the legislative process.