Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Alcohol License Denial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies alcohol license for 478 Lounge after public comment, 5–3
Summary
After testimonies from neighbors and supporters, the Macon‑Bibb County Commission denied an alcohol‑license application for 478 Lounge (Lanita Hunt) following public safety concerns and debate over second‑chance arguments; denial was upheld 5–3.
The Macon‑Bibb County Commission denied a request for an alcohol license for 478 Lounge on March 18, upholding a 5–3 vote after a public hearing that included testimony both for and against the applicant.
Applicant Lanita Hunt addressed the commission and asked for a second chance, saying she had installed a new camera system, agreed to probationary terms and sought to run a safe establishment. “I agree to the probationary terms... I’m just trying to start over fresh, abide by all the rules,” Hunt told the commission.
Supporters at the hearing described Hunt as a community contributor and said she had taken remedial steps, including security upgrades and signing a five‑year lease for the proposed location. David Lockett, who said he served 20 years in the U.S. Navy, urged the commission to consider the applicant’s character and livelihood.
Opponents, including neighborhood representative Latricia Wright and a letter from East Pine Hill community leadership, cited concerns about public safety and neighborhood impacts if a late‑night alcohol venue were allowed in Sherling Plaza. Wright told the commission that research and community experience link late‑night alcohol sales with increased crime risk and urged denial: “We respectfully ask that the license be denied for 478 Lounge in Shirlington Plaza.”
Commissioners debated balancing the applicant’s livelihood and community safety. Commissioner Stewart said he was persuaded to support the applicant’s livelihood, while others emphasized neighborhood safety and requested strict adherence to stipulations if approval were considered. Two successive attempts to approve the license failed; a motion to deny passed and was then affirmed, with the chair announcing the denial after the 5–3 tally.
The denial is final for the moment; the chair noted the applicant may refile and apply again but that the application was denied at this meeting. The county clerk will record the motion and make any probationary conditions or reapplication guidance available to the applicant.
