03/19/201
FRANCISG.
anv
3146133172 EXCISE PAGE 01/08
6 15:
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
EXCISE COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE.
‘GWENDOLYN Q, CHERRY-SIMMS
INTERIM EXCISE COMMISSIONER
CITY HALL - ROOM 416 a
(314) 622-4191 Fax (314) 619-3172
SLAY RICHARD GRAY
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY
March 10, 2016
Enhanced Spirits, LLC
DBA: Tropical Liqueurs
Connie Vaughn, Ownet/Manager
1800-06 South 10" Street
Saint Louis, MO 63014
Re: Protest Hearing against Continuation of a Liquor Livense at 1800-06
South 10" Street D/B/A Tropical Liqueurs.
‘Mrs. Vaughn:
The file of the Excise Division reflects that on 11-6-15 Liquor License Letters of
Protest were given to Jeremy Mehrle Protest Representative. On 11-18-15 Liquor
License Letters of Protest were turned in by the Protest Representative. On 12-15-15 a
30-day cut off for the submission of further signatures was set for 1-13-16 at 4:30 p.m.
On 12-15-15 Protest Packet was hand delivered to Protest Representative and Licensee.
On 1-13-16 Protest Representative submitted Protest Petition, On 1-26-16 Protest
Hearing was scheduled for 2-26-16 at 2:00 p.m. On 1-28-16 Protest Hearing letters
delivered to Protest Representative and Licensee. On 2-16-16 Protest Hearing placards
were posted. On 2-26-16 Protest Hearing was held.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1} On February 26, 2016 the protest hearing was held and the following persons
participated in the hearing:
‘Tom Yarbrough serving as Exeise Commissioner
William Tomber Protest Representative
Pattick McCarthy Attomey for Licensee
‘Adam Shook Liquor Control Officer
Connie Vaughn Licensee Owner/Manager
Bradlee Thompson License Owner/Manager
Sgt. John McLaughlin Nuisance Property Officer
Sgt. David Bonenberger District Sergeant ~ 3" District
Ryan Brockehmitt Citizen
Raymond Soaib Citizen03/10/2016 15:39 3146133172 EXCISE PAGE 02/08
Matt Bowers Citizen
Macy Mehrle Citizen
Alex Finn Citizen
Chris Callan Citizen
Benjamin Kurdy Citizen
2) The following exhibits were introduced and accepted into evidence:
Excise Exhibit 1 Ordinance 68536
Excise Exhibit 2 Excise File of Licensee including
LCO Adam Shook’s Investigation
report .
Protest Exhibit 3 Public Nuisance Notice
Protest Exhibit 4 Peak Time Crime Analysis
Protest Exhibits 5-8 Photographs
Protest Exhibit 9 Text correspondence between
William Tomber and Bradlee
‘Thompson
Protest Exbibit 10-11 Photographs
Protest Exhibit 12 Letter from Michael Ziemann
President of Soulard Restoration
Group
Protest Exhibit 13 Letter from neighborhood citizens
Protest Exhibit 14 E-mail from William Tomber to Jack
Coatar, 7" Ward Alderman
Protest Exhibit 15 Letter from neighborhood citizens
Section 14.08.10 of the Revised Code of the City of St. Louis, provides in part as
follows:
“Protest Against License or Application ~ When and How Initiated”
(A) A protest against issuance, renewal or continuation of a package, drink or
C.O.L. license or a 3:00 am. closing permit shall be initiated by submission
to the Excise Commissioner of a written letter of protest signed by either ten
(10) or more persons residing or conducting business, ot ten (10) or more
Persons owning property, within the petition circle of the liquor establishment
Which is the subject of the protest.... Such letter shall contain the name and
address of the licensed premises or proposed licensed premises which is the
subject of the protest, the type of license being protested and the name of the
person who shall serve as the protest representative, Upon verifying that
there are sufficient signatures on the protest letter to initiate a protest, the
Excise Commissioner shall issue protest petition to the protest representative.
He shall also notify the licensee of applicant whose license of application is
the subject of the protest, the Alderman for the Ward in which the licensed
premises is or would be located and the police department that such a protest03/10/2016 15:33 3146133172 EXCISE PAGE @3/08
has been initiated against the license of application. Such notice shall contain
an explanation of the protest procedures as established by this ordinance and
title, and by the rules and regulations of the Excise Commissioner...
Section 14.08.140 Protests — Necessity of majority of signatures on petition
protesting continuation of license — Effect of majority of signatures on petition
protesting a license application:
(A) A protest against continuation of a license may only be sustained by the
Excise Commissioner ifthe protest petitions submitted to him to protest such
continuation contain the signatures of either a majority of the persons
residing or conducting business within the petition circle of the licensed
premises which is the subject of the protest or a majority of the persons
owning property within such petition circle. If, after the first phase of the
hearing is completed, the Excise Commissioner determines that the protest
petitions submitted to him in protest of the continuation of a license contain
the signatures of neither a majority of the persons residing or conducting
business within the petition circle of the licensed premises which is the
‘subject of the protest nor a majority of the persons owning property within
such petition circle then he shall deny the protest and shall not consider
evidence of whether continuation of the license would be detrimental to the
neighborhood in which the licensed premises is located.
3) An investigation revealed that there were 43 property owners within the 500 foot
radius, a majority of which is 23.
4) An investigation revealed that there were 65 occupants/enants within the 500 foot,
radius, a majority of which is 34,
5) Protest Petitions submitted by the Protest Representative contained 36 property
owners’ signatures. (Excise Exhibit 2)
6) Protest Petitions submitted by Protest Representative contained 0
ccupants/tenants signatures, (Excise Exhibit 2)
Rales and Regulations regarding Protest Procedures Section IV General Rules
and Regulations provides in part:
9) Persons who sign both a petition for a liquor license and a
protest petition against the license will have their names removed
from the petition and protest, but shall remain in the total count or
tally.
NOTE: Any person who signs both for and against the issuance or
renewal of a license will be accepted as a valid signer by one of the
following methods:
8) By appearance at the protest hearing and testify, under
ath, as to his/her position in the matter.1/08
03/10/2016 15:39 3146133172 EXCISE PAGE 04/06
'b) By letter to the Excise Commissioner clearly stating
their position, dated and signed and received by the
Excise Division prior to the conclusion ofthe protest
hearing.
7) Property owner, 1801 South 9° Street, LLC already signed Protest Petition.
‘Therefore, David Sicbert’s individual signature is a duplicate and will not be
counted, This removes | property owner signature from the Protest Petition.
8) Property Owner of 1720 South 10" Street, Raymond Soaib, was not a property
‘owmer 30 days before Protest Letters were issued and therefore is not a property
‘owner for purposes of the Protest Petition. This removes | Property Owner
signature from the Protest Petition.
9) Property Owner of 1829 South 10” Street, Joseph Rowley, was not a property
owner for 30 days before Protest Letters were issued and therefore is not a
property owner for purposes of the Protest Petition. This removes 1 Property
Owner signature from the Protest Petition.
10) Property Owner, Robert Brandhorst at 1834 South 9* Street, is outside the radius
per plat issued 11-6-15 and therefore ineligible to sign Protest Petition. This
removes 1 Property Owner signature from Protest Petition.
1) Property Owner, Evan Roller at 911 Soulard Street, is a duplicate signature,
Signature for Evan Roller was previously recorded at 909 Soulard Street. This
removes 1 Property Owner signature from Protest Petition.
12) Property Owner, Carissa Roller at 911 Soulard Street, is a duplicate signature.
Signature for Carissa Roller was previously recorded at 907 Soulard Street. This
removes 1 Property Owner signature from Protest Petition.
13) Based on the finding of Excise Exhibit 2 mentioned above, an investigation
revealed that there were 43 Property Owners within $00 feet radius, a majority of
which is 23. The protest has 30 valid signatures, which constitutes the majority
necessary for a successful protest.
Section 14.08.040 of the Revised Code of the City of St. Louis, provides in part as
follows:
“License detrimental to neigbborhood-Factors to be considered by Excise
‘Commissioner in making determination.”
(A) In determining whether issuance, renewal or continuation of a retail liquor
license would be detrimental to the neighborhood in which the licensed03/10/2016 15:39 3146133172 EXCISE PAGE 05/8
premises is or would be located the Excise Conmmissioner shall consider the
following factors, giving weight thereto as he deems appropriate:
1. With regard to applications for issuance of a License and protests against such
applications, the character of the neighborhood in which the premises
proposed to be licensed are located, with particular consideration being given
to the proximity of the proposed licensed premises to parks, churches, schools,
playgrounds, residences and hospitals and with regard to renewal applications
and protests against the renewal or continuation ofa license, any changes in
the character of the neighborhood since the issuance of the license;
2. Loitering in the immediate vicinity of the licensed premises by persons
frequenting the licensed premises;
3. Littering committed by persons frequenting the licensed premises or by the
licensee, his agents, servants, ot employees;
4, Drinking in public by persons frequenting the licensed premises;
5. Lewd and indecent conduct, including but not limited to public urination,
exhibited by persons frequenting the licensed premises or by the licensee, his
employees, servants or agents, whether such behavior occurs on the licensed
premises or in the immediate vicinity thereof,
8. Sale, use or possession of illegal drugs upon or in the immediate vicinity of
the licensed premises by persons frequenting the licensed premises or by the
licensee, his employees, servants or agents;
9. Harassing of intimidating behavior exhibited by persons frequenting or
ccongregating about the licensed premises towards persons living in the
neighborhood in which the licensed premises are located or towards persons
passing by the licensed premises;
10. Noise associated with operation of the licensed premises or caused by persons
‘frequenting the licensed premises;
11, With regards to applications for issuance of a license and protests against
such applications, existing street and sidewalk congestion in the immediate
vicinity of the licensed premises, and with regards to renewal applications and
protests against renewal or continuation of a license, the street and sidewalk
congestion associated with operation of the licensed premises;
Ke ae existence of proper lighting and appropriate parking facilities, or the lack
ereof;3/10/2016 15:99 3146133172 EXCISE PAGE 06/08
13, Other factors which, due to the character ofthe neighborhood or of the
licensed premises or proposes licensed premises, would be relevant to the
éetermination of whether issuance, renewal or continuation of a license would be
detrimental to the neighborhood in which the licensed premises is or would be
located.
(B) The Excise Commissioner may find that issuance, renewal or continuation of
license would be detrimental to the neighborhood in which a licensed
premise if or would be located without finding that such detriment is or
‘would be due to the fault or negligence, or is or would be the responsibility,
of the licensee of applicant. For purposes of this section a person shall be
considered to frequent a licensed premise(s) if he patronizes the licensed
premises or if he loiters about in the immediate vicinity of the licensed
premises but would not do so except for the existence of the licensed
premises.
14) Testimony was offered and I find that, at least on occasion, littering occurs in the
immediate vicinity of the licensed premises by persons frequenting the licensed
premises.
15) Testimony was offered and I find that, at least on occasion, public urination
‘occurs in the immediate vicinity of the licensed premises by persons frequenting
the licensed premises.
16) Testimony was offered and I find that, atleast on occasion, noise caused by
persons frequenting the licensed premises is excessive and has a detrimental
effect on the neighborhood and its residents,
17) Testimony was offered and I find that, at least on occasi
possession of illegal drugs upon or in the immediate
premises by persons frequenting the licensed preraises.
there is sale, use or
ity of the licensed
18) Testimony was offered and I find that, at least on occasion, harassing or
intieidating behavior is exhibited by persons frequenting or congregeting about
the licensed premises towards persons living in the neighborhood in which the
licensed are located or toward persons passing by the licensed premises.
19) Testimony was offered and I find that, at least on occasion, street congestion
cours in the immediate vicinity of the licensed premises by persons frequenting
the licensed premises.
20) Testimony was offered and I find that the licensed premises lacks appropriate
parking facilities to accommodate persons frequenting the licensed premises and
the resulting parking issues are detrimental to the neighborhood and its residents.03/10/2016 15:39 3146133172 EXCISE PAGE 07/28
LAW
‘The protestors were successful in providing signatures of a majority of either
property owners or oceupant/tenants within the 500 feet radius as set forth in Section
14.08.140 of the Revised Code of the City of St. Louis
Pursuant to Section 14.08.150 (A) of the Revised Code of the City of St. Louis “If
the excise commissioner determines after the first phase of the protest hearing that the
protest petitions submitted to him contain the signatures of either: (1) a majority of the
persons residing or conducting business within the petition cele of the licensed premises
which is the subject of the protest; or (2) a majority of the persons owning property
within such petition circle, he shall sustain the protest unless the licensee shows by a
preponderance of the evidence submitted at hearing that renewal or continuation of
the license would not be detrimental to the neighborhood in which licensed premises
is located.”
This office shall also consider the factors in Section 14.08.040 of the Revised
Code of the City of St. Louis as outlined above to determine if the continuation of
licensee's retail liquor license would be detrimental to the neighborhood in which
licensee is located,
After consideration of al testimony and evidence submitted at the protest hearing
occurring 2-26-15 it is the determination of this office that licensee has failed to meet its
burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence submitted that the
continuation of this license would not be detrimental to the neighborhood in which
licensed premises is located.
Pursuant to Section 14.08.150 (B) of the Revised Code of the City of St. Louis
“df the Excise Commissioner sustains a protest against continuation of @ license he
shall cancel such license effective one month after any decision is filed upholding such
protest,
ORDER
Itis the order of this Commissioner that the protest against the continuation of the
retail Liquor license issued to Enhanced Spirits, LLC D/B/A Tropical Liqueurs located at
1800-06 South 10" Street is hereby sustained. Therefore, pursuant to this order, the retail
liquor license issued to licensce Enhanced Spirits, LLC D/B/A Tropical Liqueurs shall be
cancelled effective April 9, 2016.03/10/2816 15:39 3146133172 EXCISE Pace @8/08
ce:
3 District Captain-Shawn Dace, Neighborhood Improvement Specialist Sandy
Colvin, 7" Ward Alderman - John “Jack” Costar, Dizector of Public Safety ~
Richard Gray, Attomey for Licensee — Patrick McCarthy and Protest
Representative William Tomber.
Received by: ‘Date: March 10,2016