Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Alcohol Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Memphis council declines to overturn alcohol commission denial for Quint Liquor appeal
Summary
The council voted against overturning the Memphis Alcohol Commission's denial of a certificate of compliance for Quint Liquor LLC, after weeks of argument over competing surveys and whether a June 2023 approval bars later enforcement of a 200-foot residential buffer in the 1985 city code.
The Memphis City Council voted on April 14 not to reverse a decision by the Memphis Alcohol Commission that denied Quint Liquor LLC a certificate of compliance to operate at a commercial site the commission says lies within 200 feet of R-6 residential property.
Attorney Will Podesta, representing the Alcohol Commission, told the council the applications and accompanying surveys show property zoned R-6 within 200 feet of the proposed location, and cited Section 4-5 of the 1985 Code of Ordinances as the legal basis for declining to recommend a certificate of compliance.
Adam Namus, attorney for the applicant Quint Liquor LLC, told the council the same Campbell surveys and an earlier administrative approval in June 2023 supported the store's lawful operation. Namus argued the Alcohol Commission's later rejection was "arbitrary and capricious," urged that the council reverse the commission's decision, and invoked equitable estoppel because the business relied on the 2023 approval and invested in operating the store.
"The board's decision should be reversed," Namus said, stressing that the new application relied on the same survey and that the business operated from July 2023 until an October 22, 2025 lapse in licensing.
Council members pressed both sides on the facts and on statutory limits. Several members voiced sympathy for the business's claimed investment and community ties; others emphasized the council's obligation to apply the ordinance as written. City legal counsel advised the council that review under the ordinance is nondiscretionary and that claims of equity or estoppel are arguments for a court, not for the council's administrative review.
One neighborhood resident who spoke in support of the applicant said residents knew the owner and urged the council to allow the store to reopen.
A motion to approve the appeal (thereby allowing the applicant to operate) was moved by Councilman Spinosa and seconded by Councilwoman Green. After a roll-call vote the motion failed and the commission's denial stood. The council did not overturn the Alcohol Commission's decision; the applicant retains the right to pursue legal remedies in chancery court.
What's next: The council outcome leaves the Alcohol Commission decision intact; counsel for the applicant indicated equitable and legal arguments remain available in court, and the applicant may petition the chancery court for relief.
