5/17/2023 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

chose to not stand in the way of it, but that it was not suggested that the zoning code was being waived. There was some discussion surrounding the current zoning certificate, which was explained to the board was invalid, and that was in a letter from the building commissioner. Closing arguments took place staring with Mr. O'Malley. He explained the core issue in the case was the zoning code and the provisions regarding permitted uses, conditional uses, and similar uses. The city's position is that the establishment did not comply with the necessary procedures to obtain a certificate of zoning occupancy and that the use of the premises did not fall with the permitted or conditional categories. The city contended that until the necessary application was filed and a certificate issued, the use could not be considered permitted. He asked for the board to deny the appeal. Mr. Khawam expressed the importance of upholding property rights and ensuring fair and consistent application of the zoning code. He explained that the building commissioner's decisions and actions were inconsistent and that his client had operated lawfully and should be allowed to continue to do so. He also expressed concern that should the board deny the appeal is wouldn't have only been unjust to his client but also would have set a precedent that may impact other business owners. Mr. Mackey made a motion to close the public meeting; seconded by Ms. Patton. Board members entered into their discussion. They asked Mr. O'Shae on how they should proceed and specify what exactly were they to determine and vote on. Mr. O' Shae gave them the three items to discuss, were: 1. Was the Kava operation the same use as the Best Damn Tacos, if the answer is no, 2. Was this new use a listed permitted use or conditional use, if that is no, 3. Were you able to make an argument that it is a similar use to a permitted use. He told them to look at exhibit 1 d, the letter from April 5t', and exhibit 2 the letter from Dorenkott to Kovatch Group. He also explained that if the board agreed with the applicant they would sustain the appeal, if they agree with the city's decision they would deny the appeal. Board members discussed the newness of the type of beverage and public consumption, and it was brought up about the city having laws and processes that should have been abided by. Mr. Papotto and Mr. Mackey both agreed that this use was not the same. Mr. Mackey proceeded to say there was nothing in the code that showed it was permitted, conditional, or similar use whatsoever. He stated that it simply was not part of the code in every reading he had seen. Ms. Patton shared that it was not regulated, but was not illegal, it was simply new. Mr. Papotto shared how he perceived the permitted uses and conditional uses and was unable to say that the new use was permitted or conditional. Mr. Mackey felt that the city met the expectation of resolving something that was undefined in the city code. Ms. Patton felt that the permitted use for this type of business was not clear in the code. Mr. Papotto felt the area was too gray. Mr. Kovach agreed with other members on all points. Mr. Papotto requested, proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law. Appeal was denied:4-0 Mr. Mackey motioned to excuse Mr. Rahm, seconded by Mr. Kovach; all were in favor. ADJOURNMENT