ABCB Nuisance.

Transcripts may contain automated transcription errors. Verify important details against the official recording.

0% 0.7% 0.3% 0.4% 0.7% 0.8% 0.9% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.8% 0.9% 0.7% 0.8% 0.9% 0.8% 0.9% 0.8% 0.9% 0.8% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% Felly, mae'r dechrau'n mwy o ffynediadau, gan gynnwys y cwmni a'r arferion. Yn ddiweddarach, mi fyddwch yn ymwneud â'r cyfnodau hynny. Mae'n bwysig bod y cyfnodau'n hir o'u cymdeithasau. Felly, mae'n bwysig i'r cyfnodau hynny. Mae'n bwysig i'r cyfnodau hynny, mae'n bwysig i'r cyfnodau hynny, mae'n bwysig i'r cyfnodau hynny, mae'n bwysig i'r cyfnodau hynny. Diolch. Y'all ready to sun? Yes, sir. You ready to start, Mr. Mitchell? Yes, sir. Okay. Good afternoon, everyone. The Monday, August 24, 2026 meeting of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board is hereby called to order. Roll call. Get the time. Okay. Roll call. Williams. Williams. Williams. Williams. Williams. Williams. Williams. Williams. Williams. Williams. Williams. Williams. Williams. Williams. Williams. Williams. Williams. Williams. Williams. Mitchell present Patel present Sylvester will for president and we have constituted a quorum. Okay, we'll have the pledge of allegiance by Miss Adonis. That was a United States of America. The Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, we're here from the city attorney. Yes, good afternoon. We're here for the first matter regarding shamrock. And I believe they're here and if you'd like for them to speak first, they did. I don't know if you'd like for them to speak first as they file the appeal or if you want us to go go first. Okay, well, we're here because they are appealing the loss of their ABO and it's due to the loss of not conforming. And unfortunately, this board does not have authority to deal with zoning matters here. There are legal remedies here. They're two different boards that they could actually reach out to and appeal to to deal with their conditional use loss here. So as right now, we think that this board's not the appropriate place to be hearing this matter. I understand that the shamrock has legal counsel. We also have some comment cards, so you can decide if you want your attorney to go first and if you want us to respond to the comment cards. Mr. Chairman, I couldn't quite hear you. We speak in this. You have the option of you speaking first of the persons who are listed on the comment called speaking first. It's your option. Yes, sir. So I'd like to have Mr. Colvay, who is the owner of the premises, speak first and then the owner of the real estate, Mr. Hebe. And then I'd like to make some comments if necessary, if they can't tell the whole story, which I believe they probably can. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Hi. So when we came June 30th, they asked us to make progress on the code violations that they had shut us down for. So when they shut us down, they cited us for 48 code violations and they came and did a re-inspection last Thursday. It was four inspectors from the New Orleans Fire Department and two inspectors from the State Fire Marshal's Office. And they were inside Shamrock for about two hours, measuring doorways and fire capacity and looking the whole place over for about two hours. And they have gotten us down to, from 48 violations, we just have eight violations left. So we've knocked out 40 of them. The eight violations left were, had to deal with exit doors and entry doors, fire hardware, and handrails. And today, we already have had a handrail company come out today to give us an estimate on the handrails. And we had a door company come out today to give us an estimate on the doors. So hopefully, all these last eight things will be taken care of within as soon as two weeks, or it could be up to four to six weeks. It really just depends on these companies doing their work. Thank you, sir. Next, we'll hear from Mr., do you have anything additional to say? We'll hear from Mr. Hebe. I'm the landlord, and I don't have much more to say besides we've been working with Brian to get everything addressed. And I think he's done a good job. Young man's trying to get his business back open. It's a super impressive business, 17,000 square foot. How many pool tables do you have? He now has 30 pool tables up there. I think it's an amenity that the city can use. And hopefully, you guys will look favorably upon him and be able to get him back open and up for business. Thank you, sir. Next, we'll hear from Mr. Halpern. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, my name is David Halpern. So I'm here on behalf of Four Pins, who actually owns the property. Mr. Hebe is one of the principals of that entity. And I've been watching this process for quite some time. And it looks like Mr. Colvay has done everything he possibly can. You know, the city is a pretty big and Byzantine process to go through it and get the right permits. He's done it. He had some serious code violations. Not in terms of life safety, but in terms of the number of code violations. It's taken him a while to do it.

Some of you were here last time that he spoke, and some of you were not. But most of the delay to this point has been because of Mr. Colvay doing the work himself. He doesn't have an unlimited budget to hire, you know, a big contractor to do the work. And that's really been the cause of the delay. He has not been able to open. And the only reason he hasn't been able to open is because of the scheduling with the, you know, the code violations and for people to give him direction. I think the fire marshal's office he referred to, there were six people out here last Thursday, looking at it, making sure he has everything straight. He now has a very clear roadmap to do what needs to be done. And he has the ability, the capacity to do it. And so what he's here today and what we're here on his behalf to ask today is to give him enough runway to finish it so we can put this property back into commerce, because it's been empty. You weren't here. Some of you weren't here. Some of you were. You heard some of the tenants talk about the fact that the place is a lot safer when there's activity. You know, places can stay open a little bit later when there's activity. So basically, we're just asking for enough time for him to get it done right so this property can be in commerce and pay taxes to the city. Okay, question. Okay, it's the city attorney's contention that it is not under the purview of this board to make such a decision. How do you respond to that? Well, mainly, so they've denied our license. And the only reason they've denied our license is because they said the 180 days had passed. But the problem is, we could not open. So the city's own conduct has prevented us from, you know, being able to reopen along with the licensing process. And so I think this board has every right to be able to give us enough time, as they recognized in the previous hearing in June. Okay, I'm going to ask the city attorney to respond to that. Well, if he... No, there was an opportunity for him to renew at the time when the first permit would have elapsed. He could have renewed it continually after that. That would have given him an extension. And unfortunately, that didn't happen. That the renewal of that permit was dead. And he had another opportunity. At that point, he could have gone in front of BZA to have them litigate whether or not the zoning could have been anything. And so now those delays have lapsed. So now we have the only other opportunity was he'd have to go in front of the CPC board and utilize their process to try to get that non-performing use reinstated or changed to whatever he needs. Okay, any other... Also, the... Sorry. I'm sorry. The CZO also applies where if the building permits had been properly applied for, there could have been an extension of time. That was not done. Well, from safety and permits can read the applicable law into the record. So in essence, this is not the entity that they should be dealing with at this point? It is the city's contention that they should be dealing with the BZA, your honor. It's just this is not the proper board for zoning matters. What they're trying to do is create an end run around the BZA and have a separate, you know, ABO entities can go to this license, can go to this board and get zoning done. That's not correct. All zoning for the city is done through the CPC and the BZA. There are no other boards of the city that can deal with that. So the ABO board would not be the proper one. So it can be true that this person is trying to do everything they can and needs an off ramp, but they need that ramp through the BZA or the CPC to apply for non-performing use because it was lost. To recap, your contention is that instead of Appealing to the beverage, the ABO, they should be appealing to the BCA, is that your contention? Yes, or applying to regain a non-conforming use. I believe at the last hearing he acknowledged that he knew that that was a route, but said he couldn't afford it because of the excessive legal costs. But, so it's just, this is not the proper board to decide zoning matters. Okay, so that's the Shamrock's attorney. Do you care to respond to that? Yeah, well, so, I mean, again, Mr. Colvay is just trying to do business, okay? Like, complying with the alphabet of all the different agencies has proven to be a problem, whether it's BCA, ABO, I don't know, all the different agencies that they refer to. In the first place, they never brought that up in the first place when we came to the hearing last time. I wasn't at the hearing, but Mr. Colvay was. And so, it is within this board's power to issue the license. Now, if the city attorney's office thinks that the license was improperly issued, the city attorney's office can take an appeal of that decision or do whatever it wants, but it is within this board's purview to issue the license. That's its sole job is to hear our appeal, and they can either accept it or they can deny it. And we're just asking here so that you would accept it so that my client can put this property back into commerce, can hire people, can sell soft drinks as well as beer, can have people play and make the place safe and pay city taxes. And that's all we're trying to do here, not have to delay another three months, six months, nine months, 12 months. Okay, so here's where we're at. We have the responsibility to either assess what the city attorney is saying or to, in contrast, to respond to what you're saying. So that's the issue at this point that the board has to deal with. Any other questions from board members? Yes, Mr. Chair. I actually have a number of questions, and I think I want to get some clarity for the record. I'm the former chair of the city planning commission.

When I look at my packet, I don't have much information, and I'm hoping that the city attorneys, that you can walk us through the process in terms of the difference between what we do, what BZA does, what CPC does, and how this gentleman got here relative to whatever violations or how long the property's been out of commerce. Because I think it's very important that, for those watching, for those in the audience, that everyone really knows what's going on in the process that you say should be followed. So I have Phillip here from safety and permits who can talk to some of that. But essentially, we came here because they filed safety and permits, denied them their ABO license. At the time, despite what was represented, there were life safety issues. There was non-working sprinklers. They were shut down for 48 violations, including life safety issues. Let me stop you right there. And this board has nothing to do with that, right? Correct. That just explained how we got. So that was the beginning of when they were shut down. So during that time, the permits weren't applied for that maybe would have extended the time frame, and they lost their non-conforming use. They were denied an ABO permit because they didn't have non-conforming use to operate as a bar in an area that no longer allows that to be operated as. And that's the zoning issue. That's the zoning issue. And therefore, you know, this is one of the many boards of the city of New Orleans. And your opinion is the opinion of the city. So there are, yes, there are other boards, but each of them has their own function. BZA is the, you know, it says Board of Zoning Appeals. So if you have a zoning issue such as non-conforming use, you would bring it before that board who has the authority to maybe grant the non-conforming use you're looking for. But this board strictly deals with alcohol beverage outlets. So did you have an alcohol beverage manager's permit? Anything in Chapter 9 of the Municipal Code would be addressed as reasons why you didn't get your alcohol beverage outlet license. We're here because we didn't even get that far because you have a zoning problem. You can't even operate as a bar in the area that you're trying to operate. So what the, our opinion is that this board cannot, you know, not everyone has access to the ABO board. Only those entities with an ABO license does. So are we now saying that entities with an ABO license have a way around the BZA that they can just come to this board and this board will make a zoning determination? Because if you say they can operate as a bar, that's a zoning determination because that's no longer zoned to be a bar. Now, you're granting a non-conforming use that otherwise the BZA would have to do or, and maybe I misspoke when I said CPC, but there are other boards you can apply to to gain a non-conforming use. So then that's a zoning matter. That's not a matter that deals with bar man, you know, an ABO manager on premises or you're, you didn't have the right people sign off on your appeal. Like those would be grounds that we could hear before this board. But we can't cross into zoning matters that other boards have jurisdiction over that they have their own rules in place and their own procedures to do that. Because then we'd just be saying, okay, everyone with an ABO license, you can bypass the BZA and come direct here and get maybe a different opinion than the BZA would have done. Because we don't know the BZA's rules and procedures because that's what they do. And then also, am I correct that the different entities we're talking about, this board, BZA, they all have different notice requirements relative to the community about what's going on? Yes, sir. Yes. And, you know, especially with this process, there's no community notice that goes out. But with the BZA, there might be. So then the community would have a chance to come in and weigh. Because I know there were safety issues when Shamrock was open. I understand that was former ownership that they want to allege. But the NOPD had substantial crime problems surrounding the former entity, Shamrock. So maybe community members can show up at the BZA and speak their piece as to why this place should or should not be open. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. So I think the issue is at hand. Ms. Colbert, you'll be given an opportunity to speak. I think the issue is at hand right now is having heard what the city attorney, how would you address it from that standpoint, the contention that you should be applying to the BZA and not this commission? Well, just to clear one thing up, she said the problems with Shamrock were under former ownership. I've owned Shamrock since 2009. So that was my only person who's owned Shamrock is me. So I've been there the whole time. And we really never had any safety problems until people started loitering in the parking lot and barbecuing in the parking lot and doing DJs. And we did call the police. And the police really just never came and dispersed this activity in the parking lot. And so that's ‑‑ and that was basically over the ‑‑ about like from 2022 to 2024 is when the parking lot was getting, you know, we tried to run them off and they wouldn't listen to us. We called the police. Hey, we got somebody barbecuing in our parking lot. They refused to leave. Can you please come out here? They never show up, never come. So also she said that this appeal was for people who have an ABO current license. But the whole reason I don't have an ABO current license is because they're not renewing the one that I have been renewing since 2010 every year, every May. So on one hand they don't renew it and then they say I can't come before to appeal because I don't have the license. If I had the license I wouldn't need to appeal. Number two, the lady in the middle, I don't know her name, for the city, she said that I did not renew a permit. In 2025 I went down there and renewed my ABO.

And we had been closed for a lot longer than 180 days in 2025. We had been closed for about nine months. From September all the way to May. And they renewed my permit in 2025. And Mr. Hamilton right here, he said they made a mistake in 2025 when they renewed my permit. So because they made a mistake, I went ahead and went in debt over $400,000 more in debt paying my rent because he made a mistake issuing me a renewal. So in 2025 he could have said, oh, you've been closed more than 180 days. We could have gone through this in 2025 instead of they having me pay rent for a whole other year and utilities and keep on putting money into the place. And then they're like, oh, we made a mistake. We weren't supposed to give you a renewal. So I paid for my renewal in 2026. And we're pretty much ready to open. We just had to get some handrails put in and a couple of things put on the doors, some safety latches on the doors. And everybody wants us to reopen. Well, we were there today. We had six different people stop and say, hey, are you all about to reopen? We had the post office guy, the mailman. We had other shopkeepers poke their head out the door and said, hey, we really need you to open. The other shops in the shopping center, if you go there, they're not doing the same business. Shamrock would bring a lot of people there and they would spend money at the Rio, the Rainbow, the clothing store. They'd spend money at all the tenants' places. Okay, sir. Well, I'm very sympathetic to your cause. Mr. Chair, actually, I have a couple of follow-up questions if I may. I'm just trying to understand the process. So after you were issued the permit, I believe in 2025, did you reopen or what happened after that? No. No, I got the permit and we just kept on doing work. And then we had an issue with the restaurant hood company came out in October, November. And a state fire marshal came out with the restaurant hood company, but they didn't tell me they were doing an inspection. So the bar was locked and they couldn't get in. And the hood inspector from the state, I think his name was, I can't remember his name actually right off the top of my head. But he was mad because he couldn't get into a locked business to do his inspection. And then I was mad at the hood company. I said, why did you bring an inspector here two days before Thanksgiving? You didn't even tell me. And now you got the inspector mad at me because he can't get in. So the inspector yelled at me over the phone and he told me, he's like, I'm just going to cite you for anything I can beyond the hood. And then that was a delay, like back in October. But now we've got our sprinklers green-tagged, our fire alarms green-tagged, we're ready to open. So, for the city attorney, where are safety and permits in this process now? Safety and permits is denied, so they're done. It's my understanding that all the inspections were done by the state. The city can't really speak to what the state fire marshal, but, you know, other than to say they're not here to defend themselves. But, you know, it's my understanding, my colleague Alexis... We do have a copy of the state fire marshal report, if you guys like to see. Yeah, tell me what's going on with that. The city was there this past Thursday with the state. Yeah, it appears that there are some outstanding issues that the state still has shut them down. They've given them 30 days to rectify, and then once that is done, the city can go out and do another inspection. Talking about the BCA? I'm sorry? Talking about the BCA? No, the state fire marshal and NOFD. So would it be state fire marshal goes out, and then they say clear, and then safety and permits goes through? Yes, and NOFD. The safety and permits position would still be that they should not be issued an ABO because they have not gotten the conforming use issue straightened out. Right, I understand. But NOFD would go out, though. I think that's what he was asking after. Yes, okay. Philippine Department of Safety and Permits. I would like to read the statement regarding renovation building permit that could uphold the nonconforming use, as Attorney Buffington was referring to, and not the ABO. This would be section 253C of the CZO, discontinuation or abandonment. A particular use that is established as a nonconforming is deemed abandoned when the particular nonconforming use is discontinued or becomes vacant or unoccupied for a continuous period of 180 days. An abandoned nonconforming use may not be reestablished or resumed regardless of intent. Any subsequent occupancy shall comply with all regulations of the zoning district in which the land or structure is located. Where a nonconforming use has ceased operation for renovations in conjunction with a lawfully issued building permit, the nonconforming use shall restore operation within 180 days of the use. So this is what Attorney Buffington was referring to. If a building permit was put in, an issue, that would hold the legal nonconforming use for another 180 days. And upon that, sometimes you can also get an extension with the building permit if you need further extension to complete your renovations. What was that citation again? It's comprehensive zoning ordinance 25.3.C. Thank you. I wanted to respond to that. He specifically said if you close for renovation, that's a voluntary thing a business does. The city came to Shamrock that had been open for 14 to 15 years, nonstop, seven days a week. The city gave us 48 code violations and shut us down. I did not voluntarily close to do a renovation. It was the city closes you. And when they closed this, they didn't say, hey, we're shutting you down and just let you know. If you don't take care of these 48 things in 180 days, you can't even renew your permit. They didn't even say that. They just said, hey, it says clearly on this page when you take care of this, they will let me reopen. There is no time limit given, no deadline given.

It says that on the city's report. It's a cease and desist. It's not a voluntary renovation where I just voluntarily closed to renovate. I got sidetracked and then I just, my time expired because of me. Just, you know, the city shut me down. So whatever his law about the 180 days for renovation, that doesn't apply to what we did. Okay. Let me ask this question. The city's contention that this board does not have the purview to issue the license. Would you be willing to go through the process as prescribed by the city attorney? Are you asking me that? Yes, sir. I mean, it's obvious what the city, this part of the city just doesn't want Shamrock to reopen. That's what it is. So they're going to, they told me, the city, the ABO sent me a letter and they said I had to come here and appeal. So they already told me that this is the avenue. They didn't tell me back in May, said, hey, you need to go through whatever that CDC, whatever other thing she was telling you said. So they already got me on, have me on this ABO appeal track now since June, July, August, three months. They've delayed, you know, this is a delay because we can't get open. That's a lot of rent paid, utilities paid. So they already got me on the wrong track if that's what they're saying. They tell me to come here. I'm here. Now I'm here. They're like, oh, now you're supposed to go to a different place. You weren't supposed to come here. And again, when we go to their next place, their only objective is for the bar to never reopen. So when we go to that one, if something hits a snag there, then they could say, hey, you know what? You're actually in the wrong department again. You need to go to some other department. And it could just go on for months and months and months and years. And, you know, their obvious goal is just for this bar to not exist. That's what the goal is. I would like to add that the avenue for this is a conditional use in this zone in MU1. If a conditional use is established at this location through the process, then it will be an established use at that address. It will no longer be a nonconforming use. So he would not have to worry about 180 days you have to be in operation. So a conditional use, if it is granted at this location, it will be established as a bar with that use at that address. Any response from the city attorney? No, nothing further at this point, sir. Do we have a motion? First of all, are there any questions or comments by other members of the board? Is there a motion on the floor? May I ask a question? Sure. We called here June 30th for the hearing. And they said nothing about this CDC thing at that time. So this is just something that just came up with for this go around now that we've gone through getting through this list. Now they're coming up with something new. Did Colbert apprise either the process as he was given notification that the BCA was the controlling authority in this matter? The BCA would be the designated authority by the fact that on the denial letter it said that it was for nonconforming use. So therefore that would put him on notice that this is a zoning issue and that that's the proper board. It's in the name itself, Board of Zoning Appeals. Is there a motion on the floor? What is out of our hands if we can't grant the permit? It needs to go to BCA. Correct? I'm sorry, could you say that again? It says out of our hands we can't grant a permit until he goes to BCA. BCA. Correct? That is the position of the city, sir, yes, that in order to get the nonconforming use for this board to be able to do anything, he would need to first go to the BCA and obtain that nonconforming use because, as Mr. Hampton said, it's permanent as to that address. So it's not something that should be done lightly. You did mention at the previous hearing that we were here on an issue of nonconforming use. Is there a motion on the floor? Any other questions? We need a motion. I move that the matter concerning Shamrock, that it be moved to the proper jurisdiction, which is the BCA. Is there a second? Second. Questions? Comments? Any discussion? Sir, with all due respect, I totally appreciate where you're coming from and I totally appreciate the complexity that is city governance. But unfortunately, you know, my opinion is that our hands are tied because I do believe this is a zoning issue. I just want to say, with or without the ADO permit, I have to reopen because I do have 30 pool tables and all that that are up there. So if I open and can only sell Coke and waters, it's going to create a security issue similar to maybe what's under the Claiborne overpass where they had a shooting a couple weeks ago. The block parties are going to come back into the parking lot and they're going to be drinking in the parking lot again and possibly bringing their liquor into the bar. I don't know what the bring your own beer is laws are here, where you bring your own alcohol into restaurants and that can't get an ADO card. They let you bring your own liquor into restaurants. I don't know what those laws are. We're going to open even though the bar might not even make any money, might lose money. But to get open and also Shamrock has the support of 60,000, 70,000 people in New Orleans. We have 20,000 people on our Facebook. I have not reached out to any customers yet. If I post this on Facebook and get 200,000 people upset because that was the place they like to go to shoot pool, they like to go there and hang out and eat food, they're going to be highly upset. A good portion of the city wants this bar to reopen. As Mr. Mitchell meant, we are sympathetic to your cause and we appreciate the efforts that you've made to progress properly in this process. However, Mr. Mitchell's contention is that we simply do not have the authority to grant a license when there's still issues with the BCA. Now what could be recommended is that you would appeal to the BCA that you would do the stipulations as required by them.

A conditional use permit, because we called a consultant and they gave me an estimate of $25,000 minimum to go through that process. With the BCA? To go through the non-conforming 180-day thing. And he said it's not guaranteed you're going to even win, because you know you're going to get whatever neighbors they can get to say, oh, Shamrock was a nuisance. And then you'll have the Shamrock crowd like, we like to go there, we want it to open. We don't have that many neighbors. There's only like five houses on the side street and five behind us. It's not like the conditional use thing was really designed for a bar that's stuck back into a neighborhood that's all residential and the bar is messing up the whole neighborhood. We have Chick-fil-A right across the street. We have bars right across Tulane Avenue opening. It's mis-zoned anyway. It should be a C2 zoning anyway, and it was that when I opened. 2015, they said they changed the zoning. I don't even know why change the zoning on Tulane and South Carrollton Avenue to anything but C2. That's what it should be zoned for. When they denied my renewal, which again, they've led me down the wrong path in 2025 because Mr. Hamilton admitted, oh, we renewed your permit by mistake. And they said nothing about, well, your mistake cost me to pay $300,000 worth of rent because you made a mistake. What about that? Is the city going to help compensate that rent because they made a mistake about that permit? That's what they said. Just at the first hearing, again, they didn't say anything about this 180-day BAC. I don't know the name of that thing that they said, the BCA. That wasn't brought up. So again, two more months, and here we go through working through this list, and they change it again. So it's $25,000 at least to go through this process and drag on for months. And since they don't want to give me the permit, even if we get approved, then it's going to be like, what else are they going to come up with after that to not open? Okay, so there is a motion standing on the floor. But again, we are sympathetic to your cause, but our hands are tied. That is not in our authority to make the decision to grant you an ABO license when the matter at hand, the situation, is that there hasn't been proper in the process of following the dictates and the mandates of the BCA. So there is a motion on the floor that this matter would be referred to the BCA in this matter. Is there a second? Second. Oh, that was long. It's not showing on the... It's not showing. The votes aren't showing on the screen. What was your vote? Okay, gotcha. Okay. It has been properly moved and seconded. And as a result, the motion passed. Thank you for your time, Mr. Tolbert. Right here. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Someone's here for the... Okay. Okay. Next on the agenda. Everybody ready? Next on the agenda is a statement from Ms. Janika Tobias, owner of Numbers. Doing business as Numbers. Yes. Yeah. Good afternoon again, Chair. So we're here for Numbers because they had lost their... Their application for ABA was denied because there was an issue, again, another zoning issue, an expansion of a deck on their property that was not properly permitted. There was a permit initially applied for, and then it was closed out before anything ever happened was approved. So their ABA was denied. I believe that's why she's here appealing. But she does currently have a temporary ABO that won't expire until, I believe, October 28th. So that's an issue. But in the meantime, there's still the zoning issue that will still be an issue once that temporary ABO expires. So we will have to, again, go in front of the BZA to take care of that matter because you guys, again, don't have jurisdiction over zoning matters. Okay. Mr. Chair, I have a quick question for the city attorney's office. Again, I'm just trying to get up to speed. So when the notices of violations go out in a situation like this where we have, like, a non-conforming use or a zoning issue, does our notice to the permit holder say that? So, yes. We have the letter that we sent to them right here, and it tells them that we revealed in our investigation that their location did not remove the zoning violations. So they trigger the fact that there's an issue with zoning for them. Okay. Do we cite the particular quota provision? I'm just curious. No. Okay. In this instance, we did cite, too, there was an open permit that they had for the deck and that they failed to build the deck in accordance with. They failed to obtain a permit. Yeah. Phil, can you clarify? Okay. Thank you. For clarification, during the ABO inspection, it was determined that the deck was built without permits. Again, like Attorney Buffington said, permit was submitted, but the permit was closed out and not issued. And also, upon the ABO inspection, it was noticed that the deck was built across lot lines, which is another zoning issue. I believe it's section 150-955, where an ABO or a business can be on one lot of land or to each location or each business, which is the address. So this would be a zoning issue where it needs to be a resubdivision for both addresses at this location that does have the unpermitted deck adjacent to it. Okay. Ms. Tavarez, is there a response? No. It just took me, like, six months just to get to this part right here. I just was, like, going back and forth, back and forth, back and forth. And the previous tenants, they already had everything. So it was, like, why I have to go through all this when they had previous tenants that were able to get their permits with no problem? Okay. As a point of clarity, when you said you were going back and forth, who were you going back and forth? City Hall. Like, they would tell me I need to do this, I would need to do that. Then I get everything they say I do it. And then they came out to inspect it, I passed, and then next, it was always something that was out of my hands, like I couldn't do anything, but.

What city agency were you conversing with? I believe, I think I met with him before. I'm not sure. Safety and Permits? Would that be Safety and Permits? Yes, Safety and Permits. I believe the constituent was referring to open comments to resolve to issue the occupational license. Once we have all the information, we review it, and if anything needs to be amended or needs corrections, we would send out open comments and say, attention, please submit a floor plan that has the dimensions, something like that. So that could be, if I'm not mistaken, the going back and forth in regards to getting things for the occupational license prior to the ABO inspection. Okay. As a point of clarity, where do exactly we stand on this matter? Well, right now she has a temporary ABO license, which will expire in October. And once that's over, she will no longer have an ABO license, and we will still have the issue of the zoning issue regarding the deck and crossing over lot lines. And until that can be rectified, she will not be able to get another ABO license. Okay. Go ahead, sir. So the temporary ABO is put in place to also help the constituent, allow time for her to get to the right avenues to obtain, if possible, the annual ABO. Okay. Questions? Mr. Biles, have you gone through the zoning? Well, I end up getting, well, I've been talking back and forth to the landlord as well towards the end because it was like there was nothing I could do. I don't know what else to do. It's like it's been six months. I'm losing business. I've got to keep getting taken away from the restaurant to come and deal with it. So I end up, she ended up giving me a number to Chris Young, and so far this is where I'm at. I was able to get approved for the temporary. Until then, I wasn't able to do that either. So I don't know. I'm just following everything they're telling me to do at this point. So I have a question about there's a deck that went over the property lines. Yes, it crosses. The business is located at 3735, and it crosses lot lines with the 3731. And I believe the parcel owner owns both of the lots, so that was one of the zoning issues. A business cannot cross over lot lines, despite if the ownership is common. So that would be a situation that needs to be with the City Planning Commission to re-subdivide that, to remove that address. And do we know how long that condition, that deck had been like that? Let me see. Give me one second. So the renovation permit for the deck was submitted May 26, 2020. For whatever reasons, it was closed out and it was not issued. The deck was, a permit was submitted for it, but no motion was on it. So explain that permit. So the property owner applied for a permit to do this work and was granted the permit? No, sir. It was submitted, and then notes were sent out for the person who submitted it to reply back, to get more information, to get it moved through the process. To follow the process, right. And the process, it seemed like it just never moved after comments were sent out. This was prior to the current business owner. Right, I understand. Thank you. Mr. Rice, do you have a response to that? All I can say is the people that was there before, they didn't have any problems. And now, like I said, it just was a hassle with me trying to get in to get my business started. And now I have to go through these procedures. But they say they didn't have any problems with getting a permit. That's what the landlord spoke to one of the ladies in the permit department. As a point of clarity, what specifically is the city attorney recommending? I'm sorry, repeat the question again? Is there, just as a point of clarity, what position, what recourse would the city attorney's office like to offer? Yeah, going through the zoning process through the BZA or CPC, whichever one to clear, get the deck cleared. I mean, that's the only way we can take care of that. And once that is rectified, she can apply for her ABO and go from there. Or they could tear the deck down, just rectify the situation with the deck. And then the entity can be granted its appeal. So the permit that we would authorize, does that go to the business as opposed to the property owner? It would go to the business, correct. But the property owner is also responsible for making sure that... I understand that. Yes, sir. Okay. Having heard all this information, is there a motion on the floor? I just wanted to make one point clear, though. Yes, ma'am. She still does have time to apply to BZA. Her time has not lapsed. She still has time to apply to BZA. Her time hasn't lapsed, that time period that she has. Thank you. Go ahead. I'm sorry, you said she has time to go to the BZA before that temporary ABO permit? Not before the temporary ABA. Not before the temporary ABA. Well, yes, technically before the temporary ABO lapses, but there's a certain window that you have to appeal to the BZA, and she's still within that window before she has to take other steps. Wouldn't that appeal have to come from the property owner as opposed to the business? I don't know. I'm not quite sure about that one. I would think it would be from the business. Ms. Tobias, are you amenable to going through the BZA process because you do have time to accomplish this? Are you agreeable to go through the BZA process as prescribed by the city attorney? From my understanding, I think working with Chris, I guess he said he was working with Ms. Barnes, the landlord, to see. So, I guess, I don't know. It was out of my hands, they said. I couldn't do anything. It was up to the landlord to go further because that was her property, not mine. I only rent the place because, the restaurant, because of the section of the patio and everything else. Like, every tenant that had it before had the permits to dine outside and eat. So, that's the only reason why, like I said, that was part of me getting this location. Okay, point of clarification.

Because the property is owned by an entity other than the tenant, in that case, who's responsible for making sure that the adherence of the BZA are in effect? I think they're both made aware of the issues. So, I would say the responsibility is on both of them. On both parties? Yes, sir. Okay. Any other questions? So, hypothetically, if the owner is the only entity withstanding to go through BZA and doesn't choose to do so, then the business is pretty much stuck, hypothetically. If I'm assuming, if I'm correct. It's kind of similar to when they go to city plan commissions, Thank you. Any other questions? Comments? Is there a motion on the floor? We can't give advisory opinions to the BZA, can we? Am I misled? That's Emma right back there, your counsel. Is there a motion to be had? If the appeal is denied, how long would the business still be able to operate? If the appeal is denied, we have denied them an ABO permit, they would be able to operate as long as the temporary permit is in effect, which I believe would be through October 28th. So to add on to that, they will be able to operate with a temporary ABO until October 28th, 2026. However, this is a restaurant, so the restaurant, as long as they have the occupational license, which I believe expires at the end of every year, December 31st, they still can operate as a restaurant until that ABO issue is corrected with the building permit. And at that point, she would have to go through the entire process of reapplying? Just for the ABO, just for the occupational license, that's not in question here. Okay. Is there a motion on the floor? I'll make a motion to move this to BZA as well, under the BZA jurisdiction. Okay. Go to machines. I have a point of order relative to the motion. Do we need a motion to either accept or deny the appeal, or are we appropriate in asking for basically moving to move this to BZA? Emma? I mean, we can certainly... Right, so my appreciation is we either have to either deny the appeal or overturn the city attorney's office. Yes. Okay, so there's a motion on the floor. Any other questions or comments? Mr. Chair, I don't think we have a second just yet. Just a second. Yes, just discussion on this. Mr. Bias, I totally empathize with this situation. Sounds like you have legal counsel. I'm not going to offer you any legal advice, but I would have some detailed conversations with him about your remedies, what your remedies are. Also, with respect, this is only my second meeting here in respect to how we conduct our business. It seems like the processes aren't getting out to the impacted citizens in terms of what's being applied, what we're looking at. And I just I hope that the city has the resources to provide more clarity going in when appeal is denied. That's all I have. Okay. So therefore, yes. I'm sorry. I would just like to speak, reply to that statement that we did in this situation, did send remedies for the building permit, as well as for the resubdivision to CPC, just for the record. So so what would what would help me as a commissioner is if I could get a packet to help show me what's going on. That's how that's how CPC did it. I had everybody's position papers. I had all the communications. So before I get here, I kind of know what's going on. Thank you. Okay. Any other comments? Okay. So we have four years. As a result, the motion is carried. Thank you for your attendance. Mr. We wish you that in conjunction with the agencies that we talked about and spoken that you will be able to continually work out a solution to your problem. I believe you can. And I earnestly believe that you're trying your best. And I think this thing can work out with the efforts of both parties. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Ratification of the sales tax hearing. Oh, sorry about that. We have Miss Miss Nancy Green in attendance. Miss Nancy Green in attendance. I don't think so. Okay. Ratification of the 824 26 sales tax. Ratification of the sales tax hearing. Hearing number 1926 TX patio 17 LLC doing business is patio 17. A judgment has been rendered in the amount of two thousand fifty dollars payable within 60 days. Hearing number 2626 TX Anthony APR senior doing business is Tony's his parakeet bar and lounge. A judgment was rendered in the amount of thirteen hundred dollars payable within 60 days. Hearing number 2826 TX bar and grill LLC doing business as the island. A judgment was rendered in the amount of nine hundred dollars payable within 60 days. Hearing number 3426 TX 237 Decatur LLC doing business as Australia. This matter was continued to the December 29th hearing. Hearing number 3726 TX knowledge here's LLC doing business as the 337. A consent judgment was made in the amount of six hundred dollars due due by September 21st. And number 4526 TX 301 Royal LLC doing business as Curio. This item was continued to the October 23rd hearing. Hearing number 4826 TX 522 restaurant LLC doing business as Bywater American Bistro. A judgment was rendered in the amount of twelve hundred dollars payable within 60 days. Hearing number 5126 TX Colorado 365 group LLC doing business as process. This item was continued to the October 23rd hearing. Hearing number 5226 TX the spot bar and hookah lounge LLC doing business as the spot bar and hookah. A judgment was rendered in the amount of eight hundred dollars payable within 45 days. Hearing number 5426 TX 1600 Basin and companies doing business as 1600 Basin. A consent judgment was made in the amount of two hundred fifty dollars payable by September 21st. Hearing number 5526 TX good luck 2021 LLC doing business as JNY food and gas. A consent judgment was rendered in the amount of three thousand nine hundred dollars which the permittee has satisfied they paid. Hearing number 5626 TX 90s coffee LLC doing business as the chicory house. A consent judgment was rendered in the amount of forty six hundred dollars payable by August 11.

Hearing number 5726 TX Crescent City Brewhouse Incorporated doing business as Crescent City Brewhouse. A consent judgment was made in the amount of thirty six hundred dollars payable by the, it was paid by the permittee. Hearing number 5826 TX Diannexin Nolan Incorporated doing business as Diannexin 2. Consent judgment was made in the amount of four hundred dollars payable by September 18. Hearing number 5926 TX Sunfood LLC doing business as Diannexin. A consent judgment was made, was ordered in the amount of four hundred dollars due by September 18. Hearing number 6026 TX Miel Brewing Company LLC doing business as Miel Brewing and Taproom. A consent judgment was ordered in the amount of four hundred dollars due by 9-11, September 11. Hearing number 6126 TX Empire State Delicatessen LLC doing business as Empire State Delicatessen. A consent judgment was made in the amount of four hundred dollars payable by September 14. Hearing number 6226 TX Seabrook Harbor LLC doing business as Empire Seabrook Harbor. A consent judgment was made in the amount of five hundred dollars due by September 12, which is thirty days from the August date. Hearing number 6326 TX Rue Muses LLC doing business as Rue Muses. A consent judgment was made in the amount of four hundred dollars due by September 12. Hearing number 6426 TX Beach Plum Berry LLC doing business as Beach Plum Berries Latitude 29. This item was continued to the October 23rd date. Hearing number 926 TX Joel Catering LLC doing business as El Mercado. A consent judgment was made in the amount of three thousand eight hundred fifty dollars payable within thirty days, which is due on September 23rd. And that concludes the ratification. Okay. A motion to recommend the ratification of the sale tax hearing is on the floor. Motion to ratify. And probably moved and seconded. Nobody. I'll take it. It has been probably moved and seconded as a result of this with four yeas as a result of the motion so carried. Right now we will entertain a motion for adjournment. Motion adjourned. Second. Full motion. Full yeas rather. Motion to order. Motion to adjourn.

ABCB Nuisance.

Summary

Overall context

Item 1: Shamrock (ABO license, nonconforming use, jurisdiction) — Issue

Decisions / votes / actions

Speakers (clear references)

Unresolved issues

Item 2: Numbers (Janika Tobias) deck expansion and zoning issues — Issue

Decisions / votes / actions

Speakers (clear references)

Unresolved issues

Other related matters and procedural context — Safety & Permits and City Attorney input

Public input

Consent judgments and related administrative actions (sales tax hearings) — Summary of consent judgments (hearing numbers, entities, amounts, due dates)

Ratification

Adjournment

Speakers

Unresolved issues across the meeting (as noted in the materials)

Transcript