Local Licensing Authority Agenda and Packet 2017 02 27

Home Browse Search

Local Licensing Authority Minutes January 23, 2017 Page 2 of 4 B. Renewal Application — Isidro Gonzalez Inc. d/b/a Old Santa Fe Mexican Grill — Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License — 592 S. McCaslin Blvd. C. Renewal Application — Tao Asian Inc. d/b/a Bao Asian Fusion & Sushi — Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License — 594 S. McCaslin Blvd. D. Renewal Application — Cane Nero LLC d/b/a Zucca Ristorante — Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License — 700 Main St. E. Renewal Application — Phuket LLC d/b/a Phuket LLC — Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License — 1156 W. Dillon Rd. #4 F. Renewal Application — Jalisco Dos Amigos d/b/a Casa Alegre — Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License — 1006 Pine St. Tennessen called for any changes to the consent agenda. Machado moved the consent agenda be approved. Tennessen seconded. All in favor. Absent: Lipton and Hervey. Consent agenda approved. Authority Business A. Show Cause Hearing — Waterloo Icehouse Inc. d/b/a Waterloo Icehouse — 809 Main Street Chairperson Tennessen noted the Special Prosecutor had a few remarks. Adam Gollin introduced himself to the Authority. He noted he has been a prosecutor for many years. He asked the Authority to withdraw the show cause as he did not find sufficient evidence to proceed. He noted he had spoken to State and Local authorities involved in the case, as well as one civilian involved in the case. He reviewed the investigation that led him to the conclusion there was just not enough evidence to proceed. He noted the State had meted out punishment concerning this incident, but for a different violation than charged by the Authority. Mr. Gollin noted there was no direct evidence of interaction between the bartender and the patron in question. Watson noted the statement from the officer regarding the patron being intoxicated was one of the reasons for ordering the show cause and noted Mr. Gollin's investigation led him to believe there was a question of the alcohol being served directly to that patron. Watson asked if the statement by the bartender concerning not having the group drive home was considered during the investigation. Mr. Gollin stated he did consider the statement, but the burden of proof while light, did not support the charge to Waterloo of serving to a visibly intoxicated person.