Committee delays action on outdoor dining ordinance after public testimony, legal questions

The Economic Matters Committee on Feb. 19 heard public testimony in favor of O-10-24, the ordinance to establish a permanent process for outdoor dining, but postponed further action to allow time for legal review and to circulate finalized amendment language.

Two Eastport restaurant advocates urged the committee to approve the ordinance. Mike Thomasini, who identified himself as a small-business advocate and the owner of 212 Eastern Avenue, said the temporary outdoor dining program launched during the COVID pandemic helped local restaurants and that the ordinance would provide needed certainty. Richard Frano of 29 Eastern Avenue said the program worked well for Eastport businesses and urged a positive committee vote.

Sponsor Alderman Arnett described the ordinance as a vehicle to let restaurants continue outdoor dining by obtaining a one-time special exception that would then run with the property. He said the finance committee considered several amendments and that two of the four parts of an amendment by Alderman Savage were accepted in committee. Alderman Arnett and other members discussed whether temporary outdoor dining should avoid the special-exception process altogether for the temporary use; the city attorney’s office advised that language removing the special-exception requirement could be legally insufficient because special-exception requirements for restaurants appear in multiple sections of Title 21 and could create internal code conflicts.

Committee debate also focused on how many months each year temporary outdoor dining should be permitted. Amendments discussed included options for 3, 6 or 9 months, a January 1–December 31 option with months not required to be contiguous, and a finance-committee amendment to allow certain seasonal parking-lot dining without annual review. Alderman Savage argued for a six-month limit to preserve the “temporary” nature of the program and to avoid creating a de facto permanent use that bypasses parking and other standards. Other members favored longer seasonal windows and said a separate ordinance would be the appropriate vehicle for any permanent changes to parking requirements.

The committee took the following procedural votes: it recommended one part of Amendment 2 favorably (removing contiguous-month limits and allowing seasonal parking-lot dining to require a special exception that does not require annual review), voted no action on Amendment 1 after law staff advised it was legally insufficient, and took no action on Amendment 3. After discussion the committee voted to postpone O-10-24 to the next Economic Matters meeting so members could review the finalized amendment drafts posted to Legistar.

Committee members asked the law office to provide a written opinion clarifying the interaction between the proposed ordinance language and Title 21’s special-exception provisions; the sponsor and other members said they would continue to pursue a path to permanent outdoor dining through separate legislation if appropriate.