Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Liquor Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council declines to request local hearing on Breakaway Billiards liquor permit
Summary
After a resident objected to a new B-1 liquor permit for Breakaway Billiards LLC downtown, council members and the city attorney debated whether the objection met the narrow state criteria; on roll call a majority voted against requesting a local hearing.
A Washington Court House City Council meeting on Nov. 12 heard an objection to a B-1 liquor-permit application for Breakaway Billiards LLC at 131 East Court Street but declined to ask the Ohio Division of Liquor Control for a local hearing.
The clerk read the liquor-control notice and a resident raised an objection, saying the proposal had been presented as a positive downtown anchor but now includes alcohol service. The objector requested that council ask for a hearing. "Does council have any objections to district costs?" the clerk read while council considered next steps.
City Attorney (as transcribed) advised that state law limits valid local objections to specific public-safety or land-use issues. "It has to be specifically related to, like, health and safety issues regarding churches, children, bus stops," the attorney said, listing the kinds of proximity or safety concerns the liquor-control magistrate will consider. Several council members pressed the objector for concrete evidence tying the venue to those enumerated concerns and noted nearby licensed establishments.
Council member Jim Blair framed the roll-call question before votes: "If you vote yes, you're voting to have the hearing. If you vote no, you're voting to not have the hearing." The roll call recorded a majority of No votes (a minority voted Yes), so the council did not request a local hearing on the application.
The outcome leaves regulatory review with the Ohio Division of Liquor Control unless an eligible local requester pursues a hearing or presents additional, specific evidence about protected locations or officer-safety issues. The clerk read the permit notice and the council closed that item and proceeded with other business.
The objection and vote were recorded during the clerk's report and public-comment portion of the Nov. 12 meeting. The council did not adopt any follow-up directive at that time.
