Greenville council hears resident complaints, votes twice on home-based firearms dealer licenses
Loading...
Summary
Residents told the City Council they oppose renewing a firearms, weapons and munitions dealer license for a home-based seller on Park Avenue, citing safety, traffic and sales of unusual items. Council removed the item from the consent agenda, voted to deny one renewal, then later voted to approve the licenses on a separate roll call.
Greenville City Council members on April 20 heard public objections to renewing firearms, weapons and munitions licenses for two applicants, including a home-based seller at 510 Park Avenue, and voted on the item twice after removing it from the consent agenda.
A neighbor, Dr. Quentin Srivomar of 411 Park Avenue, told the council he opposed the permit renewal “in a residential area,” citing safety, traffic and property-value concerns. “There have been several times when customers come out and look at the firearm that they have purchased in their cars right next to my kids and their friends' play,” he said. He also asked rhetorically, “Selling flame throwers out of a house? Is this the type of community that we want?”
The dispute followed a council decision in November to amend the city ordinance to prohibit ammunition dealers in residential zoning districts. Council members and staff debated whether an existing home-based operation could be considered “grandfathered” under local or state law and whether the city application and license paperwork complied with the updated code.
City staff and council members flagged paperwork issues. At the meeting one councilmember said a Walmart application was missing a signature. City legal counsel, Joel, advised the council that local code and renewal rules apply to license renewals: “according to city code 110.118, each license may be renewed, and the requirements for granting a license are the same for renewing the license,” and he referenced city code section 110.39 in that explanation.
The council removed the firearms licensing item from the consent agenda for separate discussion and then took two formal votes. Council member Cindy Stegmaier moved and Council member Cindy Johnson seconded a motion to deny the license for the home-based applicant identified in the packet. On that motion the roll call recorded: Johnson — Yes; Keeper — No; Begmeyer — Yes; Westmeyer — No; Lena — No; the chair declared the motion carries.
After further discussion about signatures, grandfathering and paperwork, a separate motion to approve renewals for both applicants listed in the agenda item was moved and seconded. Roll call on that later approval showed: Johnson — No; Keefer — Yes; Begmeyer — No; Westmeyer — Yes; Weman — Yes; Belkin — Yes; Brenner — Yes; the mayor’s office announced the motion carried.
Discussion: Neighbors emphasized safety near parks, festivals and children’s yards, and several council members said they wanted staff to verify paperwork and zoning classifications before finalizing approvals. Council members also debated whether a minor home-occupation designation applied and whether an explicit grandfather clause would be required to continue an operation after an ordinance change.
What’s next: At the meeting the council did not set a separate follow-up timetable; staff were asked to verify filings and zoning and to clarify what, if any, grandfathering language would be required to allow a home-based firearms or weapons vendor to continue operating under the revised ordinance.
Ending: The debate closed with the council recording both a denial vote on one applicant and a later approval vote on the pair of renewals; the transcript shows both motions passed in separate roll calls, and council members asked staff to confirm paperwork and zoning compliance before implementation.
