Kane County Liquor Commission deadlocks on Black Jack’s liquor license after public concerns, chair recusal

The Kane County Liquor Commission failed to approve a Class C bar license and Sunday endorsement for Black Jack’s Gentleman Club on June 25 after the chair recused herself and the remaining four commissioners split their votes 2–2.

Public commenters raised objections before the hearing, saying they feared gambling, increased police calls and the presence of partially nude performances. During the hearing, applicant owner Ann Marie Butida told the commission the club has operated at the address since the 1990s and that she intends to operate as a 21‑and‑older club if a liquor license is granted. "We plan to operate as a club 21 and older in compliance with the local law," Butida said.

County staff attorney Michael O'Brien told commissioners the applicant, Elgin Entertainment Holdings Inc., provided BASSET certificates, background checks and liability insurance of $1,000,000 for general and liquor liability and that the lease with the property owner (A and D LLC) allows operation as a gentleman’s club and sale/consumption of alcohol. O'Brien also noted that, if the local commission grants a license, the applicants may then apply for a state liquor license and an Illinois video‑gaming license.

The club’s general manager, James, said the business had called the Kane County Sheriff twice since the start of the year — incidents that involved intoxicated patrons arriving in the parking lot and led to arrests. "Since the first of the year, we've had to call Kane County Sheriff twice," he said. Butida and her attorney, Britney Patterson, said this is a new corporate applicant with different ownership and a lease that began in 2019; they said the prior liquor license earlier in the decade was tied to a different owner and corporation.

Commissioners debated the application’s community implications and whether the commission should add license restrictions. County counsel and staff indicated the Liquor Control Ordinance (cited in discussion as including section 3‑41) allows the commission to impose restrictions on a license — for example, specifying dress or performance standards and prohibiting full nudity on licensed premises — and to enforce compliance or revoke a license if necessary. Several commissioners voiced moral or quality‑of‑life concerns; others said the business had operated without a liquor license for years and that the commission could revoke a license later if serious problems develop.

When the recused chair stepped out for the vote, the roll call produced Berman (no), Pius (yes), Linder (yes) and Burgess (no), producing a 2–2 tie. A tie failed to reach a majority of the four‑member quorum, so the license application did not pass. Staff clarified that county liquor‑control votes require a majority of the quorum to approve.

Because the application failed for lack of majority, the applicant did not receive the local license and may reapply or request reconsideration at a future meeting. The commission also noted it can attach conditions to a future license if it chooses to grant one.