Charles Town committee reviews draft to allow permitted outdoor alcohol service, debates liability and enforcement

A Charles Town committee on Thursday reviewed a draft ordinance that would allow permitted outdoor alcohol service in a designated downtown district and spent the meeting debating liability protections for the city, what types of alcohol would be allowed, sanitation requirements and how enforcement would work.

Committee members said the draft will be revised and returned to the council for formal readings; staff and the city manager are expected to produce an application form and contact list for permit holders.

The draft would create a permit program for businesses to serve alcohol outdoors within a city-designated area. The group discussed whether the city should require participating businesses to indemnify the municipality. “My knee-jerk as a lawyer is to always put an indemnity in,” the committee’s lawyer said, arguing it is a common provision in other cities’ ordinances. Several members cautioned that a burdensome indemnity could discourage participation; others said they had seen similar language in Huntington and other nearby cities.

Members also questioned which beverages the program should cover. Some participants had assumed the program would cover only beer and wine; the lawyer pointed to the enabling statute’s language that limits serving size and requires non-glass containers but does not categorically exclude liquor. One committee member noted the statute includes a maximum cup size provision — the draft incorporates language from the statute limiting servings to a specified fluid-ounce limit — and asked whether cocktails such as margaritas would be permitted so long as they fit in the approved cup.

Sanitation and accessibility were recurring concerns. The draft requires permittees to provide restroom facilities and adequate trash receptacles during operations. Small businesses and bars with tight interior restrooms raised worries that requiring portable facilities or additional outdoor receptacles might be a substantial burden. Committee members proposed clarifying that restroom obligations apply to participating permit holders rather than every business within the designated area.

On enforcement, the committee debated whether city officials should have immediate authority to suspend or shut down the permitted area during an incident. Members asked whether the city manager or the police chief could temporarily revoke a permit during an active incident and whether that revocation could be followed by criminal citation. The lawyer cautioned that revocation in the moment could raise due-process issues if it were followed by criminal enforcement tied to the revocation, and recommended citations be tied to specific ordinance or state violations rather than to a summary revocation.

The ordinance’s penalty provisions drew questions about scope and proportionality. Draft language included fines for individuals and higher penalties for businesses; members agreed to narrow the focus of penalties to actual permit holders and those serving alcohol rather than to non-permit businesses or incidental patrons who happen to leave the zone with an open container.

Committee members also flagged confusing draft language about open containers and motor vehicles and asked for explicit text stating that the ordinance does not permit possession of open containers in vehicles, because state law already prohibits that conduct.

Finally, members found the written legal description of the district’s boundary did not match the map they had discussed. They identified streets and block segments to be included (including West Washington, West Liberty, North George, Valley Place and a mid-block provision) and asked staff to convert the map and the committee’s intent into precise legal description or parcel references.

Next steps: staff will revise the draft ordinance to clarify indemnity language, restroom and trash requirements, the scope of penalties, the enforcement process, and the district boundaries, and will return the ordinance for formal readings. Committee members also requested that the application form and contact information for permittees be added to the staff packet to support timely notification in the event the city manager suspends operations.