Laserfiche WebLink
Minutes of Public Hearing on April 24, 1972 <br />-2- <br />Mr. West asked if a liquor permit has been issued to that property. A gentleman <br />in audience said he had read that a permit had been issued at that address to <br />Toms Place. <br />Rev. Blasius stated he had called realtor tonight and asked if property were for <br />sale. He was told it was and given a price for property. He does not knew if <br />there is an option on the property but indications are that property is for sale. <br />Mr. West commented that often on apiece of property such as this, a liquor <br />.permit will be requested with no intention of using it at that particular location <br />and then transfer it when they have a tavern or building suitable for it. <br />Mr. Gottlieb, address not stated, commented before license can be issued the <br />building would have to have inside restroom facilities. These facilities are <br />outside of the present building. Mr. West commented the present building would <br />have to be torn down - a tavern could not be put in the building as it is. <br />Mayor Christman discussed the County Board of Health inspection, etc. He under- <br />stands from "hear say" that the liquor license is not for that location. Some <br />people will acquire a liquor license and wait until a resaturant or someone needs <br />one and than sell it. The State Law requires they have to be opened for 90 days <br />before they put it in escrow and does not know how they get around all of these <br />points. Mayor Christman states there are two questions here - (i) the zoning <br />on these parcels whether it be for another Dog & Suds operation, liquor spat, <br />or someother retail use and zon~:ng as it exists now, and (2) whether or not it <br />is suitable for a liquor license. He does not know how this can be resolved but <br />feels the zoning should proceed to retail or commercial and not the present zoning <br />because the property owner is entitled to use the property. Owner could go to the <br />Courts and get the use of the property regardless of the zoning on it. <br />Mrs. Kermit, Lorain Road, asked once it is rezoned back to commercial would there <br />be any way to prevent a bar from being there. Mr. West said if it is retail general <br />we cannot stop them from putting one up, other than suitability of structure, etc. <br />Mr. Limpert asked if there is any possibility of restriction - find out what it <br />will be used for. Mr. West explained getting certification from owner that a bar <br />will not go in there - deed restriction. <br />Mr. West said his Committee will make a recommendation to Council but before this <br />happens, he will insist the owner meet with the B.Z.. & D. Committee as to what he <br />has got and what is going on. <br />Mr. Prokasy stated he does not feel there is much choice as to the action Council <br />must take, because to not take action would act as confiscation of property to <br />keep present zoning, and owner could go to Court and get a permit for business <br />purposes. No point in letting matter go to a court case that wtEthout question <br />City would lose. <br />Mayor Christman pointed out that part of this problem is that we act an the zoning <br />by request of people who only have options on the land and then, as in this case, <br />the option expires, and the parcels are zoned. Feels that in the future it should <br />be ascertained if they awn the property. Does not see that there is any real rush <br />~~~ <br />