City Planner's Case Against Public Bar & Grill

These are the comments filed by the city's Department of Planning, Conservation and Development against a request for improvements by Public Bar & Grill

This establishment received special exception approval on October 11, 2006. During the hearing on September 27, 2006, I indicated the following:

“Currently, the downtown has excellent restaurants but if you are not going to the movies, there isn’t too much to do after dinner. The concept proposed would build off of those coming out of the restaurants and looking for a full evening experience. The applicant has experience running a high-end nightclub/martini bar in Farmington and feels there is a strong market in our downtown.  The concept proposed would be excellent for our downtown. My main concern would be deviations from the proposal, which could be negative for the downtown. We do not want to create a nightclub district like Union Station in Hartford or downtown Springfield but we do want to use nightclubs in a limited manner to provide after dinner venues for a drink and entertainment.”

The Commission agreed with my conclusion and to insure compliance, the Commission approved the use with the following conditions:

“Granted a Special Exception to convert a portion of an existing vacant retail building located at 337-351 Main Street to a new use as a nightclub to be known as Bungalow with the condition that: 1) The Special Exception form filed on the land records shall reference the business plan and the discussions at the public hearing and require that any change in concept be approved as a new Special Exception by the Planning and Zoning Commission; 2) Any transfer in the liquor license shall be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to sign off; 3) Repeated Public Health or Fire Code violations and/or noise ordinance violations in excess of three (3) per year will constitute a violation of the approved Special Exception; and 4) Failure to comply with any of the above terms and conditions shall constitute a violation of the Special Exception and allow the Commission to revoke such permit pursuant to Section 44.07 of the Middletown Zoning Code.”

The approval included a very specific floor plan as displayed in Exhibit A. The floor plan approved has an area of 17.2’x96’ or approximately 1,632 sq. ft. The Fire Marshal reviewed the floor plan and set a maximum occupancy of 128 people.

2010 Request

This is a request to approve a floor plan of 3,055 sq. ft. or a 1,423 sq ft. expansion of the approved floor plan, after the fact. The expansion constitutes an 87% increase in the original approval. Exhibit B is the applicant’s request. The Fire Marshall indicates the maximum occupancy for the new floor plan is 254. I have requested a more professionally prepared floor plan, to date nothing has been submitted.

2009 Violation

In late November of 2009 it was brought to our attention that the establishment had undertaken interior renovations to expand the floor plan. Prior to our department becoming aware of the situation, the applicant had applied for a building permit for interior renovations. The applicant was notified that they had delinquent taxes and a building permit could not be issued. Nevertheless, the construction went forward without zoning approval and without a building permit.

A review of their operation indicates that at some point in time the bar expanded into the adjacent unused space as “overflow”. Those that have frequented the establishment have indicated to me that the overflow space was unfinished with “picnic tables”.

In November of 2009 the owners undertook significant renovations to the overflow space without any permits. The renovations included new walls, floor and doors, a stage, elevated DJ booth,  2^nd bar, seating,  sound system and associated electrical and plumbing work to create a new lounge area.

On December 1, 2009 this office issued a Cease & Desist order for failure to comply with the conditions of the original approval.

On December 3, 2009 the applicant appealed that order to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

On December 24, 2009 they applied to the Planning and Zoning Commission for an expansion/modification of their special exception.

=================================================================

Analysis

First it has to be determined if the establishment has been in compliance with its original special exception approval prior to considering an expansion of that approval. The original special exception included a condition that tied the approval to the business plan and the discussion at the public hearing in 2006.  Any change in concept needed to be approved by P&Z.

The original approval included a business plan. The business plan indicated in part:

“The revitalization of the downtown represents a unique opportunity for an upscale bar.”

“The proposed bar-tentatively named “Bungalow” will provide a local solution to the lack of night time entertainment and live music geared toward the 25-45 age group”

“One of our main focuses is to get involved with the community by hosting charity events and fundraisers and to provide a place where business professionals can meet and enjoy a relaxing upscale atmosphere.”

“Bungalow will specialize in live music entertainment (karaoke, Jazz bands, acoustic bands, etc.)”

“Our Goal is to provide a comfortable and welcoming environment as well as a unique, exciting bar experience. The upscale bar will feature...”

“The focus of the bar’s design will be to create a highly social atmosphere. This will be achieved through the placement of couches, booth seating, and quieter lounge area in the back of the bar away from the crowd.”

The hearing occurred on September 27, 2006. The hearing was closed that night and tabled to October 11, 2006. The record for the October 11^th meeting includes a summary of the concerns at the public hearing.

“The concerns of the last meeting were as follows:

·         Need for actual floor plan. Attached is the final floor plan.

·         Occupancy. Attached is an email from the Fire Marshall indicating an occupancy limit between 100-128 people.

·         Noise. The applicant indicated entertainment would not be until approximately 10 p.m., after the restaurant’s peak time. He further indicated most would be acoustic with no amplification.

·         Downtown Business District. The applicant has met with the Downtown Manager a few times and has requested a letter of support. Both the Chamber and the Downtown District have verbally indicated “they are in full support.”

Based on the applicant’s presentation and those assurances, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the application with the conditions as previously stated.

The concept has certainly changed from what the Commission originally approved. In order to understand the type of establishment that exists, I asked for a listing of the police reports for the property. Attached are the police reports from June 26, 2008 to November 29, 2009. There have been seventy-two (72) reports in seventeen (17) months at that address.

On December 28, 2009, I began hearing rumors about a disturbance at the establishment on Saturday night, December 26, 2009. I requested a copy of the police report. It is very troubling to read about what occurred at the establishment and what the Police had to deal with. The incident was reported to the State Liquor Control Commission. The Commissioner of Liquor Control sent a letter suspending the liquor license indefinitely as quoted in the attached press release (see attached documents).

In an attempt to reinstate their license, the applicant met with the State Liquor Control Commission and the police. The attached letter from LT Desmond of the Middletown Police Department outlines what the Police Department recommended as conditions to the reinstatement of the liquor license. On January 15, 2010 the liquor license was reinstated with all of the Police Department conditions.

The cease and desist was issued on December 1, 2009. The applicant appealed to the ZBA to remain open. Remaining open was with the understanding the Fire Marshal had to sign off, the sound system in the new area would be removed and the bar in the new area would not be stocked or utilized.

Upon information and belief, the applicant re-opened on January 15, 2010 and used the new bar and sound system in the new area, which is a direct violation of the original cease and desist. The Zoning Enforcement Officer inspected the establishment on January 19^th and confirmed that the new bar was fully stocked.

Conclusion

In 2006 as a part of the public hearing I indicated:

We do not want to create a nightclub district like Union Station in Hartford or downtown Springfield but we do want to use nightclubs in a limited manner to provide after dinner venues for a drink and entertainment.”

The applicants understood the concern and tailored their proposal and presentation to address the concern. The Commission placed strict conditions on the approval to ensure that the establishment would be what the applicants represented at the public hearing.

The city now has, on its Main Street, a bar with a capacity of 254, a bar which is required to hire two (2) police officers and four (4) bouncers with bright yellow or orange security T shirts, required to have a metal detecting wand at the front door, and security cameras at the front and back doors. 

I don’t believe the Commission would have approved such an establishment in 2006. The concept has changed without P&Z approval and the establishment was expanded without P&Z approval.

It is clear to me that the owners are unable to control the crowds that result from the new concept and the expanded floor plan. An establishment that is required, by the State Liquor Commission, to hire police officers and security guards and buy security cameras and metal detectors is bound to cause problems for our Main Street.

I recommend you deny this request and instruct the applicant to dismantle the new “lounge area” and return their operation to their original approval with a 17.2’x96’ floor plan.