Council seeks second measurement and legal definition after dispute over East 70th Street liquor store

Council members and residents pressed city staff Tuesday over whether a liquor store on West 70th Street met the city's distance rules and whether the site should have been eligible for approval.

The matter began during public comment when a resident raised petitions opposing a new liquor store at "300 369 East 70 Street" (as spoken) and questioned whether the business sits less than the ordinance's required buffer from nearby houses and churches. Council members asked staff to provide more detail and for a second, independent measurement before the matter is considered resolved.

The dispute centers on how the city measures protected distances and which property points count as the liquor-store "premises." Mister Clark, a planning staff member, said the city's planning office uses computerized measurements that calculate from the proposed liquor-store property line back to the nearest residential district line.

"We measure, from ... the proposed liquor store property line, and measure back to where our side up front, to where the nearest residential district line is," Mister Clark said, adding that in this case the site "did meet the measurements" under the planning office method.

Shreveport Police Department personnel told the council they use a different field method. A police representative identified in the meeting as Chief Doo said SPD staff use a mechanical device and physically walk the measured distance when they perform their checks; he also noted state rules can be stricter than city ordinance for certain protections around schools and churches.

Attorney Edwards, the city attorney, told the council that the Unified Development Code contains definitions and that differences in who issues a certificate of occupancy versus a liquor license mean two separate sets of rules apply.

Why it matters: The city's liquor-license and zoning spacing rules protect schools, churches and residential areas from certain alcohol sales. If measurements differ between agencies, affected neighbors may not have had a meaningful opportunity to raise objections before approvals or permits were issued.

What the council directed: Council members asked Mister Clark to bring the planning office's raw measurements to the next council meeting and asked Chief Wayne to have Detective Bradley attend with SPD's field measurements so the council can compare the two methods. They also asked the city attorney to provide a clear, written definition of "premises" for the purpose of liquor-license spacing and to explain how the UDC and liquor-license ordinance interact.

Council members discussed options for an authoritative measuring method, including surveying by engineering staff or a licensed surveyor if necessary. Several members said a calibrated engineering measurement would resolve disputes if the computer map and SPD's walking method disagree.

No formal vote was taken. The council's action was to request documentation and for staff to return with the findings at the next meeting.

"I'll bring more down to show you exactly how they're happening," Mister Clark said, and Councilman Jackson asked that Detective Bradley also attend the next meeting.

Ending: The council left the matter open pending the requested measurements and a legal definition from the city attorney. The next council meeting was set as the forum for comparing the measurements and clarifying which rules control in future liquor-license reviews.