From: Yvonne Ivey/Columbusga
To: Teresa Tomlinson/Columbusga@COLUMBUSGA,
Cc: Pamela Hodge/Columbusga@COLUMBUSGA, Clifton Fay/Columbusga@Columbusga, Lucy
Sheftall/Columbusga@COLUMBUSGA, Isaiah Hugley/Columbusga@Columbusga
Date: 12/06/2013 07:09 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Joyce Wages called...
Hello Madam Mayor,
Ms. Wages owns a building at 3418 Buena Vista called the Golden Cue that
previously held a beer and wine on premises alcoholic beverage license to
operate as a bar/pub. This location was previously protected under the
grandfather clause of section 3-5(h) of the Columbus Code to operate as a
bar/pub to sell beer and wine (the location is within 300 feet of a church and
residential property). The grandfather clause on this location expired
12/31/2012.
The last licensed year for an alcoholic beverage license on the location was
for the year 2011. During this time, Ms. Wages was listed as the owner of the
business and her daughter, Ms. Ashley Pope, was the alcoholic beverage
licensee.
Ms. Wages leased the business to a new tenant and a transfer application was
submitted by Mr. Kevin Crowell requesting the alcoholic beverage license to be
transferred from Ms. Pope to himself in November of 2011. During the review
period for the transfer, it was found by Staff that the applicant, Mr. Kevin
Crowell had misrepresented some information on the application in which he
listed himself as the owner and he was not the owner of the business. The
owner of the business was Mr. Al Hice. Mr. Hice felt that he would not qualify
for an alcoholic beverage license since he had some felony convictions on his
records and Mr. Crowell tried to help him out by applying for the license under
his name and listing himself as the owner. We informed Mr. Hice that if the
felony convictions were not within the last 10 (ten) years, it would not be
disqualifying.
Staff informed Mr. Hice and Mr. Crowell that the application submitted by Mr.
Crowell was a misrepresentation of the facts and/or a true application and
could be construed to be a fraudulent document. Mr. Crowell and Mr. Hice
stated that was not their intent, it was simply a friend trying to help out a
friend.
Staff informed Mr. Hice and Mr. Crowell the application Mr. Crowell filed would
no longer be acceptable to complete the transfer process due to
misrepresentations and Mr. Hice would have to apply as a new applicant.
During this time, Madam Mayor, the grandfather clause was still valid on the
location since it would not expire until 12/31/2012. Myself and staff had been
conversing with Mr. Hice during the first 3 months of 2012 regarding this.
Mr. Hice started the process by submitting a sign/survey alcoholic beverage
application in March of 2012 and rescinded the application on the same date of
submission and requested his money back.. Staff again, informed Mr. Hice about
the importance of the grandfather protection regarding this location since
there is a church within 300 feet of the business and if the grandfather clause
lapsed, the only allowed activity would be a "traditional restaurant".
In March 2012, Ms. Wages filed the required paperwork to close the business
license and alcoholic beverage license account, listing 2011 as her last year
of business operations. Mr. Hice applied for a business license to operate a
recreation center with no alcoholic beverages.
Since no one followed through with an application to apply for a beer and wine
on premises alcoholic beverage license by 12/31/2012, the location is no longer
protected under 3-5(h) of the Columbus Code.
Presently, Ms. Wages has someone interested in the property, but they want to
be able to sell alcoholic beverages. Informed Ms. Wages the location was no
longer protected under 3-5(h) of the Columbus Code; with the exception of
operating as a ?traditional restaurant?.
Ms. Wages wanted to know if there could be an exception to the rule since she
was the owner of the property and had a vested interest. She felt it was not
her fault that the tenant failed to obtain an alcoholic beverage license;
thereby, causing the location?s protection to lapse. Staff informed Ms. Wages
we did not have the authority to grant that exception and would have to consult
with the City Attorney and upper management. Per the City Attorney, the
location is no longer protected under 3-5(h) and an exception could not be
given to her at this level.
Ms. Wages wanted to know if there was anyone else she could appeal to and staff
informed her that she would have to go through Columbus Council.
This is summary of the circumstances that are detailed in the timeline I will
be forwarding to the Finance Director regarding this matter.
I hope this helps, if not, please let me know.
Attached below is an excerpt of 3-5(h) for your convenience.
Respectfully,
Yvonne
x3091
Sec. 3-5. Prohibited locations.
(h) All locations for alcoholic beverage licenses which do not meet the
distance requirements or the issuance of a new license, but which,
nevertheless, were operating with a valid license issued prior to restrictions
for location imposed by this chapter or previous ordinances, are despite the
restrictions of this chapter, eligible for reissuance of the same category of
license or restaurant license if application therefore is made within one year
of the date that the business operations for the previous license ceased. This
provision shall not apply to non-alcohol retail establishments as defined in
subsection 3-1(gg) of this chapter.
Attachments
No attachments for this document.