Special Council Meeting On Liquor Store Application

Tuesday, April 17, 2007 04:15 AM

City Map of rezoning application for a proposed liquor store on Vance Road

While a public hearing for a proposed liquor store in the Recreation Place commercial development along Ferry Avenue was withdrawn from last night's City Council meeting at the applicant's request, a Special Meeting of Council has been called for next Monday evening to consider a similar request on nearby Vance Road.

April 23rd had not been scheduled for a regular council meeting and a notice of the public hearing was given out to the media in attendance last night. The information is also on the City's website (click here).

Former City Manager George Paul, who retired last year, will be appearing before Councillors on behalf of the applicant, Sam Bingg.

Bingg has applied to the Liquor Control and Licencing Branch (LCLB) to transfer an existing liquor licence from Joe's Place Liquor Store on 2nd Avenue to 2609/2629 Vance Road. As a result, he's applying to rezone the eastern edge of the subject property (558m²) to allow for the liquor store, but the remainder of the site (2,123m²) would remain unchanged and continue to be used by the existing businesses (Serta Sleep Centre and BBK Recycling Centre).

In a report to council, City Planner Rupinder Basi says a Child's Play Centre on the main floor of the building where the liquor store is proposed would be removed from the site if the rezoning application is approved. Basi points out the application fits a policy guideline of not being within a 500-metre radius of another liquor store -- the property is 1.4km from Rafter's Pub, 975m from the Westwood Shopping Centre, and more than 500m from the Ferry Avenue proposal.

Should City Council support the application though, the planner is recommending final reading be withheld until the applicant completes some outstanding site upgrades that were the subject of two Development Permits issued by the City, including painting parking lot spaces and removing/relocating some internal fences to create more parking spaces.

The Special Meeting goes at 7pm in Council Chambers next Monday night.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 04:15 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Gofaster on April 17 2007 5:39 AM

Do we really need another liquor store in this town?

Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on April 17 2007 7:18 AM

Maybe you can't read, it says they are moving a store. How do you figure that adds up to another store?

Posted by: Gofaster on April 17 2007 7:53 AM

point taken,
I shall reword the comment...
are all of these liqour stores really needed? They must be...
I can remember the town surviving very well on just two...
How times have changed...

Posted by: Palopu on April 17 2007 8:28 AM

Seems to me that places like Joes Place etc; originally had a license for Beer and Wine Store Sales. It looks like these licences have been quietly changed to Liquor Store Licenses, if this is true then it is a little more than the transferring of a license from one place to another. Joes place would continue to sell beer etc; during normal hours and probably have some off site sales.

So in effect we would have more Liquor Stores.

Posted by: postman on April 17 2007 10:13 AM

I don't believe that you can sell offsale if you don't have a liquor store license - hence Joe's place cannot sell off sale once the license is transferred. I do agree, however, that we sure don't need 19 liquor stores (which is the number allowed by the Liquor control board) in this town. I never buy at these private stores anyway as they are a rip off.

Posted by: Chadermando on April 17 2007 11:07 AM

It used to be the 1 kilometre rule. Then that was amended to allow JJ's to relocate closer to Alfredo's.

I remember at the time Alfredo's figured the move did about a million dollars damage to their business value at the time and asked to relocate to the top of University Way, but were turned down by the city due to the 1 kilometre rule with JJ's explained as the exception. In turn they were trying to sell their liquor licence for $850,000 at the time to recoup their loss in business at the current location.

Now it seems liquor, beer and wine, and everything in between can be located anywhere in town. The policy doesn't seem to be applied in a consistent manor. Either stick to the law existing businesses planned around or scrap the whole idea of regulating liquor store licences.

I see the Edgson's Bonnet Hill Pub are the latest victim of this selective right to do business regulated by city hall. It now seems Westwood will also fall victim to selective application of the law.

IMO we are at the point where the free market should prevail and there should be no more restrictions on owning a liquor licence if the 1 kilometre rule is no longer in effect.

Posted by: metalman on April 17 2007 1:18 PM

We do not need more liquor stores. It is free enterprise (who are we to deny someone their right to do business?) and because the government has gone this far in relaxing the rules we (used to) have regarding alcohol, we cannot stop it. Nor should we expect to be able to restrict the rights of individuals to set up shop wherever they bloody well please. It is their loss if they choose a lousy location, and as for protecting another liquor stores' territory, the gov't has no business, absolutely no business determining who can or should set up a legitimate business enterprise, or where they should choose to locate. I repeat, we do not need any more liquor stores, and the laws should restrict the hours of operation, further, they should be closed Sundays, not for religious reasons, but for a day of rest, and to restrict by one day at least when you can buy alcohol. That goes for any other retail shopping as well.
metalman.

Posted by: hadenough on April 17 2007 11:02 PM

The cops have enough to fo in this crime ridden city.Lets not add to it anymore.

Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on April 18 2007 7:56 AM

Metal - the solution is for you to do nothing and not buy any liquor on Sunday. That way you can rest.

Hadenough - so you think these retail businesses are increasing crime because the crooks have robbed the liquor stores? Well we could ask city council to close a few 7/11 stores and that way the crime stats wouldn't change for this crime ridden city. HeeHee!!

Hey Postman - what are you worried about if you never go to these private stores? I think Tim's is a rip off, but I totally wish no ill on the Tim's and those like them. Look how many Tim's and the like are in town. More people die from fat and bad diets than booze. Yet the city council has no problem with those fat retailer businesses which are causing enormous social problems.

Posted by: owl on April 18 2007 4:07 PM

Some suggested numbers

Minimum distance between two establishments

� Alcoholic beverages � off site sales: 1.46 km
� Prescription Drugs: 2.39 km
� Vegetables: 0.56 km
� Newspapers/magazines: 2.87 km
� Pizza take out: 4.63 km
� Burgers take out: 7.83 km
� Underwear: 5.39 km
� Gasoline: 12.62 km

I think if we were to adhere to these reasonable rules, we would all be better off. Not only that, but I think Council will have to abide by those rules which would be applied by a clerk, and Council would be given discretion of whether to allow those well thought out distances giving due regard to the colour of the store awnings of those outlets.

It is high time that the City Administration recognizes the importance of such matters. We have 9 good citizens elected by us to look after our interests in these matters that all too few of us understand the dynamics of.

If we let free enterprise reign, we will simply have far too many people with no underwear eating cold burgers and too many vegetable vendor robberies.

I am still working on some of the other numbers. Having some problems with distances between other beverage outlets, especially take-out coffee. I am seriously looking at restricting Starbucks to the DBIA. I would appreciate some feedback on that.

Posted by: owl on April 18 2007 4:09 PM

BTW ... I am working on a map based data set which will identify the existing facilities which do not comply as well as where there is some obvious room for growth in unserviced or underserviced areas.

Posted by: owl on April 18 2007 4:12 PM

http://www.stupidlaws.com

Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on April 18 2007 10:31 PM

Owl - HeeHee! Good one! Toooo funny!