Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Alcohol Licensing Sup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners split on removing "change of ownership" trigger from Stone House alcohol SUP
Summary
A proposed amendment to the special use permit language for the Stone House restaurant would remove the requirement to reapply for an on‑premise alcohol SUP on future changes of ownership; commissioners debated whether taking ownership language out would reduce oversight of potential problematic new owners.
Get email alerts on the Alcohol Licensing Sup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City planning staff presented a special use permit (SUP) request Aug. 25 for on‑premise alcoholic beverage sales at the Stone House restaurant following a pending ownership change.
Staff explained the restaurant’s SUP language has evolved: earlier versions (2019) included more detailed provisions; subsequent edits in 2022 shortened the language. The proposed 2025 revision would tie the SUP to the Stone House restaurant use rather than to the named owner, removing an explicit requirement to reapply when ownership changes, staff said. "With the proposed language you can see it's still tied to the business. Right. It just doesn't have that ownership component," a city planning staff member explained.
Several commissioners expressed concern about removing the ownership trigger. "Let's say this owner...sells it to a different restauranteur...who's operated a place that serves alcohol, but there have been TABC violations or serving minors or things like that...we have no quality control over bad actors," one commissioner said, urging the commission to retain the ownership clause as a check on potentially problematic future owners. Another commissioner said consistency across cases matters and said they favored keeping ownership language for oversight.
Staff said the proposed change would be specific to this business and would not automatically apply to other restaurants. The work session did not include a vote; staff said the item would return to the regular meeting, likely with the new owner or both owners present. No formal decision was made.
