Council reconsiders and approves SuperOne Foods liquor license after petitions and public comment

The Common Council voted to reconsider and then approve SuperOne Foods’ application for a Class B liquor license on Oct. 20 following a public hearing that included petitions, attorney statements and public comment both for and against the license. The motion to approve passed on a roll-call vote, 6–1, with several councilors abstaining earlier in the sequence as required by disclosure.

Councilor Garfield made the motion to reconsider action taken Oct. 6, and the council approved reconsideration. Attorney for SuperOne reported the company had submitted more than 3,100 petition signatures in favor of the license. Attorney Steve Ladin, representing local bars and liquor stores, urged the council to deny the application, arguing it would harm existing businesses and citing minutes from prior meetings in which the applicant or related parties had allegedly promised there would be no tavern or liquor store at the proposed location. Several East End business owners and residents argued the proposed license violated earlier understandings about the property and would add another bar/liquor outlet to a neighborhood they described as already served by existing establishments.

Supporters of the license included SuperOne employees who stood in the council chamber to show employee backing for the application. Attorney for SuperOne urged councilors to treat SuperOne consistently with prior applicants and to avoid using the council’s licensing power to regulate competition. Counselors voting against the license were asked to state reasons on the record per city practice; Councilor Olsen said he voted no because he had not received additional information since his earlier vote against the license. Other councilors said the vote should be based on whether denial would be arbitrary or capricious; the city attorney’s prior guidance on legal risk was referenced.

After roll-call voting, the council approved the license application 6–1. No further conditions were placed on the license in the recorded action; councilors who voted against or abstained cited concern about prior statements and impacts on existing businesses.