Tampa council suspends Grand Cathedral Cigars alcohol sales for seven days after hearing on patio service

Tampa City Council voted Jan. 25 to suspend the alcoholic beverage privileges tied to the permit for Grand Cathedral Cigars, at 221 North Florida Avenue, for seven days beginning Feb. 12, after a public hearing on a city notice of intent that the bar had sold and allowed consumption of alcohol outside the area authorized on its site plan.

City attorneys presented evidence including sworn testimony from a private investigator and city staff to support the charge that alcohol was sold and consumed on the business’s patio area that the council-approved site plan designates “no alcohol sales allowed.” The legal department said that the suspension is authorized by Land Development Code section 27-318, and that the council may suspend an alcoholic beverage permit where an establishment operates in a manner that repeatedly creates “negative secondary effects” on surrounding property or otherwise violates conditions placed on approval.

The city’s attorney, Susan Johnson Velez of the legal department, urged council to weigh the code criteria and said witnesses would show the patio had been used for sales and consumption in conflict with the site plan. "There were sales on the patio and the evidence will support that," Johnson Velez said during the hearing. The city also introduced a development coordination manager and a sworn Tampa Police officer who described notice and service steps for the hearing.

Attorney Mark Bentley, representing Ybor City Grand Cathedral LLC (doing business as Grand Cathedral Cigars), argued the city had not given the business proper notice and that the instances cited by the city occurred during catered events conducted under a state catering license and a state-issued 4COP license. Bentley said Florida law allows licensed caterers to serve alcohol at catered events and that the company had contracts and records showing the two cited dates were catered functions. "It went straight to notice of intent, which is very unusual," Bentley told the council, and he argued the private investigator’s purchases were conducted amid lawful catered activity.

The city countered that two separate legal grounds were in its notice: subsection D (operation with negative secondary effects on surrounding property, including the imposition of reasonable notice requirements) and subsection N (violation of a condition, limitation or restriction imposed by council or the zoning administrator at time of approval). Eric Cotton, development coordination manager for the Development and Growth Management Department, pointed to the approved site plan that limited alcohol to the building and specified the adjacent RM-24 area as not allowed for alcohol sales or consumption.

Brett Bartlett, a private investigator retained by the city, testified that on Nov. 11 and Nov. 18, 2023, he sat on the patio, purchased drinks and received time-stamped receipts showing sales. Bartlett described buying drinks from staff who returned them to patrons seated in the patio area he marked on the city site plan. "I purchased a Corona Light... I went and sat down at the patio and I was sitting in this general area here, right along the fence," Bartlett testified when asked to describe his observations.

Neighbors and other residents provided conflicting testimony about noise, code enforcement and building permits. Several neighbors told council the patio and outdoor music had created ongoing nuisance effects; others — including customers, local business owners and musicians who perform at Grand Cathedral — described the venue as a civic and charitable contributor to the neighborhood and disputed claims that music or activities had been unreasonably loud. Musician Tanya Navarro, who performs at the venue, said staff monitor volume and she had seen aggressive exchanges from a particular neighbor: "Angela, the owner, has gone above and beyond to ensure that... we are positioned so that the sound is not even facing their home," Navarro testified.

Council members asked questions about process, the city’s use of a private investigator, the scope of state catering law, and whether the city had previously provided an opportunity to cure. Defense counsel and city staff disagreed over whether prior written notice to cure was required under the particular code subsections the city cited. The legal department maintained the city had met procedural requirements to proceed on both grounds.

After extended discussion, council members voted on a motion that included explicit findings that alcohol had been sold and consumed outside the area authorized on the site plan and that the conduct supported a suspension under the cited code sections. The final vote carried after amendments and roll calls; the council directed staff to post the suspension notice on the property. The suspension applies to the establishment’s privilege to sell alcoholic beverages and is limited to seven days beginning Feb. 12.

Council members and city counsel repeatedly told the public the suspension addressed the alcohol-permit condition and city code criteria rather than the broader list of alleged building- and permitting-related violations, which the city said are being pursued through other administrative channels. The council also heard repeated requests from neighbors and from supporters of the business that the parties pursue mediation or neighborhood meetings to resolve ongoing disagreements about noise, operations and permitting.

The council’s action does not revoke the business’s alcoholic beverage license; instead it imposes a limited suspension tied to council’s findings about sales and consumption outside the area authorized on the site plan. The legal department said other code enforcement and permitting matters remain active and will continue to be processed through their respective administrative procedures.

The council hearing record includes sworn reports, time-stamped receipts, a site plan that labels the RM-24 patio area "no alcohol sales allowed," emails between city staff and the business, public testimony from neighbors and customers, and legal briefing from both sides.