Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Retail Liquor Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board discusses edits to retail liquor ordinance; staff proposes removing residence separation and using application lottery
Summary
On second reading of Ordinance 25-32 staff recommended moving separation requirements to avoid duplication, eliminating the private-residence separation to allow mixed-use development, and setting a process (application window, background checks, lottery or first-come) for new retail liquor certificates; commissioners debated caps, business retention, and public-safety links.
Town staff reviewed an amendment to Ordinance 25-32 (amendments to Title 8, ch. 3 of the municipal code) intended to eliminate duplicate separation standards and make the rules compatible with the town’s updated zoning approach.
Staff recommended moving the 300-foot separation provisions into section 8-3-15 and removing the separation requirement from private residences to support mixed-use development. The staff memo outlined an application process that would include a completeness review, state-required background checks, zoning and location verification, and a prohibition on existing retail liquor owners applying for a second store at certain locations. If multiple complete applications are received during the designated application window, staff proposed assigning applicants an identifier and using a random draw (lottery) to select which application to advance; if only one complete application is received the board could consider that application directly.
Commissioners debated the policy rationale. One commissioner pressed the ideological question of whether limiting entry into the market was appropriate, arguing a lack of marketplace fairness and warning that regulation can create winners and losers among local businesses. Other commissioners raised concerns about retail retention and the potential impact on existing small businesses and noted that neighboring communities have adjusted rules differently. One commissioner recommended engaging local retailers before changing the rules.
Police Chief (responding to a request for public-safety context) said his experience shows that package stores (off-premises liquor sales) typically do not create DUI problems in the same way that on-premises alcohol by the drink can, and that retail cash businesses can be robbery targets for reasons unrelated to their liquor sales.
Staff cited Clarksville as a comparable jurisdiction that used an open selection and lottery approach after adjusting its population-ratio standard; staff said Clarksville received many applications for a limited number of slots and executed a random-selection process to issue certificates. No final board vote on Ordinance 25-32 occurred at the Nov. 17 work session; staff proposed returning with a finalized amendment and a resolution describing the process for adoption and implementation.
