Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Hughes moved to close the public hearing; seconded by <br />Ms. Raymond. <br />Onizuka: Moved and seconded to close the public hearing. Any discussion? I have one <br />question. Is Mr. Shropshire on the application for the license, or is he just the landowner? <br />Takase: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Shropshire is not an applicant on the license, but he is the <br />landowner of the applicant, Mr. Bender. He was the landlord of Mr. Bender. Technically, <br />he probably would have been an interested party and that is why we are recognizing him. <br />But, as you heard said, one, he missed the deadline; and, secondly, there's a difference in the <br />way we treat interested parties versus applicants in that they have different deadlines. But, <br />suffice it to say, as Craig said, he didn't make the filing deadlines, even in the best -case <br />scenario. That's why we're taking this action. Also, he raised a point this morning about the <br />Mayor's proclamations, but what Craig was saying is that, in his opinion, that is inapplicable <br />in this case, as well. <br />Onizuka: Thank you. Any other discussion? <br />Ibarra: Mr. Chair, I have another question, following up with Gerald's comments about who <br />is the... Gerald, there is the applicant interest and a landowner's interest, and as far as the <br />application, and as far as the meetings, who's burden was it to conduct these meetings—the <br />applicant or the landowner? <br />Takase: There's no burden for them to have a meeting, but it would typically be in the best <br />interest of the applicant to have made contact with the landowners. In this case, the <br />landowner seemed to be taking over for the applicant at this point, trying to appeal <br />the case. <br />Ibarra: But the decision was against the applicant, not the landowner, right? Does the <br />landowner have any standing to ask for a recon? <br />Takase: Yes, technically it's against the applicant. I believe he would have standing because <br />he did enter a letter as an interested party to the original hearing. <br />Ibarra: Thank you. <br />Onizuka: Thank you. Any other questions? <br />Greenwell: Claude, I question why this discussion has come up in the meeting when, <br />yesterday, there was a letter that said that they were pulling back this petition for a rehearing? <br />Onizuka: The letter was just that he was not participating in this meeting today. <br />Greenwell: So why is he here participating today? <br />Takase: He's only submitting testimony on the matter. <br />JULY 2, 2020 -LIQUOR COMMISSION MINUTES 9 <br />