HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-27-17 Public Comment - J. Kleine - TapRoomDear Commissioner Mehl:
Please oppose the Taproom’s request for a full liquor license.
Here are four reasons why:
1. A business address should not be allowed to change for the sole purpose of circumventing
the law.
The City of Bozeman approved a CUP for beer and wine based on an application from the
Taproom submitted in November of 2015 which included their Development Review
Application with both the 101 N. Rouse and 321 E. Mendenhall addresses (see page 233 of the
city’s report). Attached was a letter from the Bozeman Public Schools addressing the 600 feet
between the school and the proposed bar, but the city chose to ignore the 100 N. Rouse
address and instead let the Taproom use its 321 E. Mendenhall address and issued the permit.
That address was never included in the application for a license to the state. Now the Taproom,
wants to try using the 100 N. Rouse address to circumvent the law again. On Sunday, March 26,
2017, the Bozeman Daily Chronicle quoted Taproom owner Eric Cade as claiming, “This building
has two addresses and we can change the address back and forth as many times as we want.”
This charade is fraudulent and should be stopped.
2. Allowing hard alcohol to be served significantly alters the current use of the site and is not in
compliance with the original plan.
The Taproom’s Development Review Application (again see page 233 of the Nov. 2015 city
report) states “Beer and Wine” under description. Nowhere in the 64 page document is a full
liquor permit mentioned.
According to both the Taproom website and Facebook page, “The Bozeman Taproom & Fill
Station will provide Bozeman with the best, most diverse, selection of beer and wine available.
Our vision was born to provide locals and visitors a unique beer and wine drinking
experience…We do not brew beer, we will simply serve what we feel is the very best beer and
wine available to us in Montana - a taproom not a brewery. We will not be restricted by the
pour limits or operating hours our breweries are bound to. We will be able to serve an
unlimited number of pints, pitchers, growlers and glasses of beer and wine to thirsty locals and
visitors…We will provide this community with something many others have wanted in this town
for a long time. A local community mountain sports beer bar!
Moreover, during the November 2015 City Commissioners meeting where a CUP for the
Taproom to serve beer and wine was approved, disregarding concerns stated by the School
Board, there was never any discussion of hard alcohol. This is very clearly an altered use.
Hard alcohol attracts a different clientele than beer and wine drinkers, allows patrons to
become intoxicated more quickly based on higher alcohol content, and changes the business
from what it is advertised, claiming and reputed to be. According to City of Bozeman criteria in
regard to change in use, the Taproom application for a full liquor permit does not meet criteria
number 3 regarding unsafe or hazardous conditions associated with the proposed use of the
property. The Taproom impacts the emotional health and safety of Hawthorne school children
as was demonstrated in December through letters and testimony.
3. Due to the altered use and address change several modifications should be required to the
CUP for the Taproom to serve any alcohol.
Back in December you already heard many of the arguments why allowing alcohol consumption
and in considerable view of elementary school students is detrimental to the social and
emotional health and well being of these children. The following are conditions which are
necessary to protect the general health, welfare and safety of Hawthorne Elementary School
children. Please refer to Chapter 38, No. 3 of Bozeman Municipal Code for the suggested, but
not limited list of modifications the city may require for a CUP for conditions that are “deemed
necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare .” Here are some suggestions
relating to several items on that list that should be required during the school year:
a. Regulation of use.
Use for the sale of hard alcohol was never an allowed use. It should be regulated to only during
no-school hours, after 5:30 pm Monday through Friday and on weekends.
b. Special yards, spaces and buffers
Visual buffers such as blinds over the bar windows should be required should be required
during school hours, 8 am until 5:30 pm, Monday through Friday.
c. Special fences, solid fences and walls
A solid fence or wall should be constructed on the east side of the rooftop bar facing the school.
j. Regulation of hours for certain activities
No alcohol should be served during school hours, Monday through Friday 8 am-5:30 pm.
4. Montana law supports the notion that an alcohol license is not a right, but a privilege, and
cities may enact ordinances relating to this as they see fit whether or not an application is
pending.
For a similar case where the City of Whitefish adopted an emergency ordinance to protect a
school that was within 420 feet of a business seeking an alcohol license, refer to Germann v.
Stephens 2006 (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mt-supreme-court/1477073.html). The Montana
Supreme Court upheld the earlier District Court’s ruling and the rights of the city.
Here are some relevant parts of the Montana Supreme Court’s ruling:
Section 16-4-401, MCA, outlines the necessary criteria for obtaining a liquor license in Montana.
That section states that a “license under this code is a privilege that the state may grant to an
applicant and is not a right to which any applicant is entitled.” Section 16-4-401(1), MCA. The
statutory scheme provides broad discretion to DOR to determine whether an applicant qualifies
for a liquor license. For example, § 16-4-405(3)(a), MCA, provides that DOR may not issue a
license if it determines that the welfare of the people residing in the vicinity of the premises
would be adversely or seriously affected by issuance of the license.
Moreover, Germann cannot assert that she ultimately was entitled to a liquor license. The
statutory scheme explicitly states that receipt of a liquor license is not a right, but a privilege.
Section 16-4-401(1), MCA. The legislature vested DOR with discretion when determining
whether an applicant qualifies for a liquor license. Germann accordingly did not enjoy an
entitlement to a liquor license. ¶ 32 The mere fact that Germann had applied for a liquor
license at the time that the City had enacted the Ordinances did not guarantee she would
receive such an entitlement. We rejected a similar claim in Seven Up Pete where a mining
company in possession of a State mineral lease argued that its application for a mining permit
provided it with a protected property interest.
Clearly these business owners do not have any interest in looking out for the concerns of the
children attending Hawthorne school, their parents, school administrators, the Bozeman School
Board, or concerned Bozeman citizens. None of the three owners from the Taproom have
acknowledged anyone’s concerns, but instead are attempting to circumvent state law. Do the
right thing by both the children of Hawthorne Elementary School and Montana State Law and
deny the Taproom’s request for a CUP to serve hard alcohol and require any new permit for
beer and wine to have the suggested modifications.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Julie Kleine
Bozeman, MT
"Every single day, do something that makes your heart sing."
-Marcia Wieder