Wednesday, September 11, 2013

live reporting - hearings - liquor licenses


• Zoning Bylaw Amendment 13-718: Changes to §185-7. Compliance Required

hearing opened, no comments from audience, no comments/question from Councilors

This would remove the restriction on putting a parking facility in the downtown area, it already is zoned that way for the residential area - which is backwards.

Hearing closed

awaiting time for start of next hearing

• Violation of M.G.L. 138 §34: Sale, Delivery of Furnishing of an Alcoholic beverage to a person under the age of 21 – Postponed to September 11, 2013- 7:10 PM

Village Mall Liquors

Chief Semerjian provides an update of the operations on June 25th that failed the compliance check

Village Mall Liquors is a first offence
Acknowledge offence, have instituted new procedures since
good cashier/clerk didn't check admittedly

3 days, one day immediate, 2 days held in abeyance
when a package store is penalized, the store closes 
agreed to be Fri Sep 13th

Ichigo Ichie
Jeff Roy recused himself from the hearing

potential dispute at least from the representing attorney, that additional details made present a different picture

as this is the second offense, and potentially disputed Mark Cerel advised to proceed with more formality than the prior hearing

Chief Semerjian restates the report, basically a simple operation, if the drink is given and the operative is able to control 

for purposes for the record, he was asked for the ID, he presented it and was still served

Attorney wanted to clarify on the expiration of the minor license, it does not expire on the date of the birth date

brief video to be shown on an iPad, apologizes for not bringing it on a more viewable format

owner had watched individual enter, fallowed the individual to the bar and talked to the bar tenders to alert them to the under age individuals

no dispute on the service, the owner did have a conversation immediately after the individual left; the bartender was fired, all the employees were re-certified on the license check

there was a violation last year, there was a red-alert for the individual, the only thing the manager didn't do was to check the id himself.

The restaurant took the first violation seriously, and are taking this one seriously
Under the circumstance, asking for consideration, asking for one day

Q - on how many checks have there been since the first one?
A - likely this is the fourth, we have done shoulder taps

Pfeffer - advises going with the 5 days

situation is different in that the second offense within the 2 years so the 2 days held in abeyance need to be considered; would be 5 days now, with two days held in abeyance

If the client challenges, or appeals to the ABC Board it could come back to the Council for  a new hearing

Jones, Mercer, Kelly similar comments on incident, good intentions don't always make for good results. Have a problem with changing precedent

Powderly - steps taken are necessary and thank you for them

motion to move penalty as 5 days served, 2 additional held in abeyance, to commence Sep 20th

No comments:

Post a Comment