The hysteria started spreading through Cleveland’s music world about two weeks ago: word that legislation is in the works that would ban all live music in the city of Cleveland.
Promptly dubbed the “Footloose Act,” it quickly drew opposition in the form of an online petition addressed to “Cleveland City Counsel.” In response, The Plain Dealer decried the legislation by boldly contradicting its own editorial from earlier this summer. Wild-eyed TV reporters embellished the story for bonus ratings. And in multiple interviews, councilman Joe Cimperman effectively took all sides on the issue.
The only problem: They all got it wrong. There’s no attempt to ban live music in Cleveland. Turns out opponents misunderstood a key portion of the proposal.
This article appears in Sep 28 – Oct 4, 2011.
There are tons of bars (that are not considered nightclub) that are in shopping strips. How easy will it be to get this waiver? and how much will it cost?
Facts old zoning and licensing code versus proposed new legislation:
Current Cleveland Codified Ordnances prohibit Live Entertainment and Dancing in Local Retail Districts
(This means amplified, un-amplified, and Disc Jockey’s) Chapter 343.01
Current Cleveland Codified Ordinances permits Live Entertainment in General Retail Districts, provided such use is not within 500ft. of a Residential Zoned District or 500ft. of another entertainment use.
Chapters 343.11 (b)2(L) & 347.12 (a) 1 and 2.
The City of Cleveland Zoning Administrator Richard Riccardi Interprets “Entertainment” as a “Amusement”
Every business making application to have permitted live entertainment is subject to a Zoning review. Generally in 98% of cases the applications are denied. The City Building and Housing Department issues what is called a letter of Non-conformance.
A letter of Non-conformance informs the party what they are requesting is not in compliance with current City zoning codes. The letter instructs the party to file an appeal with the Board of Zoning Appeals.
When the party files a zoning appeal a public hearing is triggered. 90% of appellants are generally approved, but albeit sometimes with conditions.
Music Permits – Are actually bi-annual licence’s. Every establishment that has a sound system or Juke box are required to hold a valid music permit. Chapter 692.
Most business thinks a Music permit allows live entertainment, it does not. It is only the bi-annual license and what the business is allowed is stipulated by their legal use.
Bars and Restaurants are only allowed Radios, TV’s, Sound Systems, and Juke Box’s.
Nightclubs, or Bar and Restaurants with live entertainment variances are allowed the above plus performances, and must comply with conditions imposed by BOZA.
The new proposed legislation is being referred to as a noise ordinance. It states compliance standards for the new “Entertainment Venue Licence” but is not a true Noise Ordnance.
Cleveland has a long standing strong and tough Noise Ordnance for 20 years. Chapter 683.01 (a)
City Council passed unanimously a new set of penalties for organizations (aka businesses) in July 2010.
please review Chapter 683.99 (c) (d) (e)
Sets penalties of $2000.00 for first offence, $3000.00 & revoking of any music & entertainment licence/permit and confiscation and disposal of equipment in violation for the second or subsequent offence.
Outdoor speakers from a commercial establishment are regulated under the Safety Codes in
Chapter 683.06, 683.07, and 683.08. There is a misconception that outdoor speakers are un-regulated and are legal. They are also a violation of 683.01 (a) and can be confiscated by the Cleveland Police and destroyed.
The new proposals will allow acoustical performances in any retail establishment as long as they are in a retail district. Current ordinances does not permit this and forces a zoning variance request.
The new proposals will allow amplified live entertainment with a CUP (Conditional Use Permit) versus the old method of Zoning variances. Zoning variances are for life. So if a business becomes a nuisance nothing can be done. The new CUP can be revoked, businesses are afforded a clear appeal process.
See the locations below that have went before the City of Cleveland board of Zoning Appeals for variances for Live Entertainment.
Respectfully
Henry P. Senyak
Resident Member Cleveland City Council Ad-Hoc Committee on Zoning & Licensing
2007 to present
2011
9:30
Ward 3
Calendar No.11-36:
2365-73 Professor Street
Joe Cimperman
27 Notices
Mark LaGrange, owner, appeals to add live entertainment and an outdoor patio and to expand the occupancy of the second floor to 25 people for a bar/restaurant and two (2) dwelling units in a mixed use building on a 60’ x 123.32’ parcel in a C1 General Retail Business District; contrary to Sections 347.12(a)(1) the use for live entertainment is not at least 500 feet from a residence district, churches or libraries; and no parking is shown on the plan, contrary to Section 349.04(e) that requires a parking area equal to three times the gross floor area of the bar/restaurant and patio plus two spaces for the residential units; and a 10 foot wide landscaped transition strip, providing 75 percent year round opacity, is required where the premises abuts a residence district and none is shown, contrary to Sections 352.08-12 of the Cleveland Codified Ordinances. (Filed 3-15-11)
Postponement requested by the Councilman for consensus from community dialogue about the proposed project.
9:30
Ward 15
Calendar No. 11-26:
3837 Ridge Road
Matthew Zone
6 Notices
WHS Realty Services, Inc., owner, and Salim Hasrouni tenant, appeal to add entertainment/dance hall use to an existing tavern/restaurant on a irregular shaped parcel in a Semi-Industry District; subject to the limitations of Section 347.12(a)(1), the property abuts a B1 Two-Family District where the proposed use is not permitted within 500 feet of a residence district, and a 10 foot wide transition landscape strip is required where none is provided contrary to Sections 352.08-352.12 of the Cleveland Codified Ordinances. (Filed 2-17-2011)
9:30
Ward 16
Calendar No. 11-28:
9208 Detroit Avenue
Jay Westbrook
13 Notices
Brian Lyons, owner, appeals to establish use as a bar with entertainment in an existing one-story building on a 60.26’ x 201.17’ corner parcel in a General Retail Business District; subject to Section 347.12 and regulations for location, the proposed use may not be established on a lot or lots within 500 feet of a residence district and a required total parking area according to Section 349.04(c) is three times the gross floor area or 24 off-street parking spaces; and accessory off-street parking spaces, driveways and maneuvering areas shall be properly graded for drainage so that all water is drained within the lot providing such parking spaces, surfaced with concrete, asphaltic concrete, asphalt or other surfacing materials approved by the Director of Building and Housing, maintained in good condition and free of debris and trash and provided with wheel or bumper guards, located so that no part of a parked vehicle extends beyond a parking space; and landscaped strips shall be separated by curbing according to Section 352.05(g) and a 6 foot wide, side street, frontage landscaping strip is required at the parking lot where it borders the street, as stated in Sections 352.08 through 352.11 of the Cleveland Codified Ordinances. (Filed 2-22-2011)
9:30
Ward 8
Calendar No. 11-4:
7513 St. Clair Avenue
Jeffrey Johnson
19 Notices
Brenell Boynton, owner, appeals to establish use as a restaurant and entertainment hall a two-story building located on a 55.47’ x 149’ parcel in a C1 Local Retail Business District; subject to the limitations in Section 343.01 the proposed use is not permitted and first allowed in a General Retail Business District; and contrary to Section 347.12 the use abuts a residence district at the rear property line and fails to meet the distance requirement of 500 feet from a residence district; and a parking area in the amount of three times the gross floor area is required in accordance with Section 349.04(e) of the Cleveland Codified Ordinances. (Filed 1-14-11)
10:30
Ward 3
Calendar No. 10-227:
820 College Avenue
Joe Cimperman
21 Notices
Tom Leneghan, owner, appeals to add live entertainment to an existing bar / tavern, to remove parking spaces and convert to outdoor patio use on a 38’ x 70’ lot in a General Retail Business District; contrary to Section 349.02 where existing parking facilities, in all use districts, shall not voluntarily be reduced below the requirements in Chapter 349 of the Cleveland Zoning Code, and the elimination of four (4) spaces at the existing lot reduces accessory off-street parking, with no approvable plan submitted to replace the four (4) spaces nor provide new, required spaces for the proposed patio use; and pursuant to Section 349.04(f) a bar / tavern / restaurant with live entertainment use is required to provide accessory off-street parking in the amount of three times the gross floor area and no parking lot plan is provided; and a bar with entertainment use must be at least 500 feet from a residence district, public libraries and churches, and contrary to Section 347.12(a)(1) the proposed use is within 500 feet of a residence district to the rear, a public library at 850 Jefferson Avenue and three churches; and a 10 foot wide landscaping strip providing, 75 percent year round opacity, is required where the proposed patio use abuts a residential district to the east, and no landscaping plan is provided, contrary to Sections 352.08 through 352.12 of the Cleveland Codified Ordnances. (Filed 11-9-10; amended per appellant’s amended submission 2-8-11; no testimony taken.)
First postponement requested by the Councilman for additional review of the proposed project.
________________________________________________________________________
2010
10:30
Ward 19
Calendar No. 10-170:
17119 Lorain Avenue
Martin Keane
16 Notices
Patrick Campbell, owner, appeals for an expansion of an existing bar and restaurant use to include the basement and second floor, live entertainment and a dance studio/school in a Local Retail Business District; subject to the limitations of Section 343.01 live entertainment is not permitted and first allowed in a General Retail District and it abuts a Two-Family District contrary to Section 347.12(a)(1) and is not permitted within 500 feet of a residential district, nor is it allowed to be established within 500 feet of another such use by the limitations of Section 343.11(a)(2); and the expansion/addition of nonconforming use requires the Board of Zoning Appeals approval in accordance with the provisions of Section 359.01 of the Cleveland, Codified Ordinances. (Filed 9-10-10; no testimony taken.)
10:30
Ward 3
Calendar No. 10-84:
2032 West 25th Street
Joe Cimperman
11 Notices
Scott Drug Realty aka Aaron Leisman, owner, and Brian Kaufman, tenant, appeal to add entertainment use to an existing bar/tavern located on the ground floor of a three-story building on 32’ x 120’ parcel in a General Retail Business District; subject to the limitations of Section 347.12(a) the proposed use does not meet the required distance of 500 feet from a residence district; no on site accessory off-street parking is provided contrary to Section 349.04(e) that requires an off-street parking area in the amount of three times the gross floor area, and the expansion of a nonconforming use requires the Board of Zoning Appeals approval in accordance with Section 359.01 of the Cleveland Codified Ordinances. (Filed 5-17-10; no testimony taken.)
First postponement requested by the tenant appellant to address the neighbors concerns at a block club meeting.
10:30
Ward 3
Calendar No. 10-96:
2901-09 Detroit Avenue
Joe Cimperman
16 Notices
Richard Husarick, owner, appeals for expansions of a bar/restaurant use to include the basement and to establish entertainment/amusement use in a mixed use building located on a 64’ x 147’ parcel in a Semi-Industry District; subject to the limitations of Section 347.12(a)(1), a bar with entertainment/amusement use shall not be established within 500 feet of a residential district, a day care center, kindergarten, elementary or secondary school, public library, church, playground, public or nonprofit recreation center or community center; and provisions of Section 349.04(e) require an off-street parking area three times the gross floor area; with approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals required for the expansion of an existing nonconforming use, as stated in Section 359.01(a) of the Cleveland Codified Ordinances. (Filed 6-3-10; no testimony taken.)
First postponement requested by the Councilman and Ohio City Near West Development Corporation for the appellant to meet with the neighborhood block club.
10:30
Ward 3
Calendar No. 10-113:
819 Jefferson Avenue
Joe Cimperman
18 Notices
Thomas Bell, owner, and Amy Farry, tenant, appeal to establish use of a 24’ x 40’ outdoor patio at the rear of an existing tavern and to add live entertainment indoors; the proposed use and patio for the tavern subject to the limitations of Section 337.03 and not permitted in a Two-Family District; and the added live entertainment in the premises is partially located in a residential district, contrary to Section 347.12(a) and a distance requirement of a least 500 feet from a residential district. The provisions of Section 349.04 require an accessory off-street parking area equal to three times the floor space and none is provided; and the expansion of a nonconforming use requires the Board of Zoning Appeals approval in accordance with Section 359.01 of the Cleveland Codified Ordinances. (Filed 6-28-10; no testimony taken.)
First postponement requested by the Ward 3 Area Coordinator and the Councilman for the appellant to attend a Neighborhood Economic Development Meeting.
9:30
Ward 15
Calendar No. 10-25:
6410-14 Lorain Avenue
Matthew Zone
10 Notices
Sue Papadopoulos, owner, and Greenwich Village Real Estate LLC appeal to establish use of an existing restaurant/bar to accommodate entertainment in a two-story mixed use building on an irregular shaped parcel in s Local Retail Business District; subject to the limitations of Section 343.01 the proposed expansion of use is not permitted and first allowed in a General Retail Business District, provided that the place or building where the entertainment use is proposed is sufficiently sound-insulated to confine the noise to the premises and complies with the location regulations in Section 347.12(a)(1) that prohibit such use to be within 500 feet of a residential district, a day care, kindergarten, elementary or secondary school, public library, church playground, public or nonprofit recreation or community center; and 21 off-street parking spaces are required to meet the equivalent of a total parking area equal to three times the gross floor area, in accordance with the provisions in Section 349.04(c) of the Cleveland Codified Ordinances. (Filed 2-24-10)
10:30
Ward 15
Calendar No.10-5:
3837 Ridge Road
Matthew Zone
6 Notices
WHS Realty Services, Inc., owner, and Salim Hasrouni tenant, appeal to add entertainment/dance hall use to an existing tavern/restaurant on a irregular shaped parcel in a Semi-Industry District; subject to the limitations of Section 347.12(a)(1), the property abuts a B1 Two-Family District where the proposed use is not permitted within 500 feet of a residence district, and a 10 foot wide transition landscape strip is required where none is provided contrary to Sections 352.08-352.12 of the Cleveland Codified Ordinances.
(Filed 1-13-10; testimony taken.)
First postponement taken for the applicants to communicate with the neighboring property owners and residents for a consensus about the proposed added use for entertainment.
10:30
Ward 3
Calendar No. 09-218:
1616 West 25th Street
Joe Cimperman
14 Notices
Ojala Properties LLC, owner, and Wael Ayyad, tenant, appeal for expansion of an existing restaurant on a 132.02’ x 158.15’ parcel in a General Retail Business District from 84 seats to 150 seats and to include live entertainment, for which 27 off street parking spaces are proposed contrary to 37 that are required according to Section 349.04(e); and the provisions of Section 347.12(a)(1) state that no such use shall be established within 500 feet of a residential district, a day care center, kindergarten, elementary or secondary school, public library, church, playground, public or nonprofit recreation or community center; nor shall such use for live entertainment be established within 500 feet of another such use as stated in Section 347.12(a)(2) of the Cleveland Codified Ordinances. (Filed 10-13-09; testimony taken.)
Second postponement requested by the applicant for additional time to finalize improvements to the proposed plan.
10:30
Ward 3 /13
Calendar No. 09-248:
1859-65 West 25th Street
Joe Cimperman
15 Notices
Heil Building Inc., owner, and Cleveland Garage LLC, tenant, appeal to change from a bar/restaurant to a bar/restaurant with live entertainment the use in a two-story mixed use building located on a corner parcel in a General Retail Business District; subject to the limitations of Sections 347.12(a)(1)(2), amusement/entertainment uses, where permitted in a particular district, shall not be established within 500 feet of a residential district or another entertainment use, and the proposed use is within 500 feet of a residential district to the north and it abuts another entertainment use; and no parking is provided on the premises, contrary to Section 349.02(e) that requires an accessory off-street parking area equal to three times the gross floor area as stated in the Cleveland Codified Ordinances. (Filed 11-17-09; no testimony taken.)
First postponement requested by the applicant for additional community consensus about the plan.
_________________________________________________________________________
2009
9:30
Ward 16
Calendar No. 09-25:
6101-05 Memphis Avenue
Kevin Kelley
18 Notices
Somerset Investments LLC, owner, and Bill Dotsikas, appeal to change use for a portion of a one-story retail building from a tavern to a bar with entertainment, located on a corner parcel in a Local Retail Business District; subject to the limitations of Section 343.01(b) a bar with entertainment is not permitted but is first permitted in a General Retail Business District and only if it is 500 feet from a residential district, and the proposed use abuts a residence district; and contrary to Section 349.04(e) 21 parking spaces are shown, 2 of which are located within the required setback and reducing the legal proposed parking spaces to 19, and contrary to 36 that are required to be striped and showing handicap spaces and accessibility, with wheel and bumper guards provided for parking according to Section 349.07(b); and under the provisions of Section 347.08, a trash enclosure is required to screen a dumpster from the public street or lots designated for residential purpose; and under Section 352.07, a change of use requires compliance with the Landscaping and Screening section of the Zoning Code. A dumpster is not a permitted form of landscaping and a 6 foot wide frontage landscaped strip with a 50 percent year-round opacity is required where the parking lot abuts the streets and a transition landscaped strip in a width of 10 feet that provides 75 percent opacity year-round is required where the use abuts a One Family District to the rear, according to the provisions under Section 358.08 in the Cleveland Codified Ordinances.
(Filed 2-24-09)
9:30
Ward 18
Calendar No. 09-83:
11633 Clifton Boulevard
Jay Westbrook
10 Notices
Lee Solding Company, owner, appeals to establish use of an existing bar to accommodate a social club with live entertainment and to construct a roof deck with an enclosed bar located on the southwest corner of Clifton Boulevard and West 117th Street in a Local Retail Business District; subject to the limitations of Section 343.01, the proposed social club with live entertainment is not permitted but first allowed in a General Retail Business District, provided that such use is not within 500 feet of a Residence District; and the accessory off-street parking requirement for the roof deck/bar equal one for each employee, plus one for each 100 square feet of floor area devoted to patron use or one for each 4 seats based upon the maximum seating capacity, whichever is greater, according to the provisions in Section 349.04(f) of the Cleveland Codified Ordinances. (Filed 4-30-09)
__________________________________________________________________
2008
9:30
Ward 13
Calendar No. 08-119:
2800 Clinton Avenue
Joe Cimperman
11 Notices
Rock Salt, Inc., owner, and Marc Lynn, tenant, appeal to change and expand use by adding entertainment to an existing tavern/restaurant in a one-story building on a 28’ x 50’ corner parcel located in a Semi-Industry District on the northwest corner of Clinton Avenue and West 28th Street; subject to the limitations of Section 347.12(a), a tavern/restaurant with entertainment shall not be established within 500 feet of a residence district or a church and the proposed use is within 50 feet of a residence district and 400 feet of a church located at West 26th Street and Church Avenue; no accessory off-street parking is provided contrary to Section 349.04(e) that requires a parking area equal to one-third the gross floor area or 4,170 square feet for an accessory off-street parking area; and the expansion of a nonconforming use requires the Board of zoning Appeals approval according to the provisions of Section 359.01(a) of the Codified Ordinances. (Filed 6-10-08)
________________________________________________________________________
2007
9:30 Ward 14
Calendar No. 06-209: 2132 West 25th Street Joseph Santiago
13 Notices
United Properties, Chatham Entertainment, LLC and Daryl Ross, owner, and ZMDS Entertainment, Inc. and Davor Stevanovic, lessee, appeal to expand the use of an existing restaurant/bar with adding a dance club in a two-story masonry building, situated on a twenty-four foot by one hundred eleven foot parcel, located in a Semi-Industry District on the west side of West 25th Street at 2132 West 25th Street; the dance club being subject to the regulations for separation and Section 347.12(a)(1), no such use shall be established within five hundred feet of a residential district and the proposed use is within approximately one hundred and fifty feet of a Two-Family District; and under the provisions of Section 349.04(e), twenty-one accessory off-street parking spaces are required; and a six foot wide frontage landscaped strip, that provides for fifty percent year round opacity, is required along West 25th Street and along Chatham Avenue at the perimeter of a parking lot area, as stated in Section 352.11 of the Codified Ordinances. (Filed 10-3-06)
________________________________________________________________________
2006
9:30 Ward 12
Calendar No. 05-268: 7018 Union Avenue Anthony Brancatelli
20 Notices
Ransom McDowell, owner, appeals for a change of use from two dwellings units and a café to three dwelling units and a bar with live entertainment and recreation in a two-story masonry mixed use building, situated on a 40’ x 110’ corner parcel in a Semi-Industry District on the southwest corner of Union Avenue and East 71 st Street at 7018 Union Avenue; as proposed, the use is contrary to Sections 347.12(a)(1) and (2), that require it to be at least 500’ from a residential district, a day care, school, public library, church, playground, public or non-profit recreation center or community center; and it is approximately 200’ from the residence district across the street and 460’ from Union Elementary School; and it shall also be at least 500’ from another such use; there are no additional parking spaces provided where 4 additional spaces are required, according to Section 349.04(e) of the Codified Ordinances. (Filed 8-24-05)
From Keep Cleveland Rockin’:
True- This proposed law does update existing codes, and make licensing simpler.
True- Under current code, live music in venues with LOCAL RETAIL zoning is not legal without special considerations and permits.
False- The proposed law would not apply to “Nightclubs”. It most certainly would in some cases. The proposed ordinance defines very clearly what constitutes a “Nightclub”, and also states quite clearly that “Nightclubs are permitted in General Retail but not permitted in Local Retail”. At least two of the major live music venues in Cleveland that qualify as “Nightclubs” as defined by the ordinance are zoned “Local Retail”.
False- The idea that “Nightclubs” as defined by the ordinance is where most of the live music in the city emanates from. True, most of the touring national and regional bands, and shows of that nature are hosted almost exclusively in “Nightclubs”. But they are not the majority of live music. There are a great many local players in this city and the surrounding area who make their sole incomes almost exclusively in the corner bars and shopping strip bars. They would most certainly be affected.
Not false, but not really disclosing the whole truth- That bars could just get the new laws waived and continue with business as usual. It is absolutely true that bars and businesses affected adversely by this legislation could apply for, and quite possibly be granted what is called in the legislation “conditional use permits”. They are exactly what they sound like. Special permission to engage in other wise non-permissable activities, provided certain conditions are met. However, it is very concievable that for a great many businesses who would need them, the conditions could prove too costly or inconvenient, and it would just be easier for the venue to opt out of live entertainment. (Not to mention that CUPs could be denied for just about any reason).
Absolutely true- The ordinance does not seek to ban live music. I have never once said that it does. Just that if read and understood, it doesn’t take a lot to see how hard it could make it for a lot of places that choose to host live music to continue doing so.
What did you parents do to you when you were a child, Henry? Seriously. Resident member of City Council? Is that a self appointed position you gave yourself after calling them 500 times to harass them into creating these ridiculous laws? You’re no better than an old man throwing rocks at kids for walking on his grass. You seemingly delight in hurting other people’s businesses, Cleveland doesn’t need you. I’m sorry Tremont is becoming a successful and popular place where people spend their money locally and support the community, what a terrible thing. Get over yourself and move. Why are you spreading people’s business on a public forum? All you’re doing is helping to drive local businesses out of Cleveland, I’m amazed you can’t see that. I suspect you can and you don’t care, you just want to have a part in making laws with painfully high fines just so you can say you’ve done something useful with your life. And Anastasia, with all due respect, have you read the ordinance? It doesn’t seem like it and your insistence that there’s nothing to be concerned about in a 10 page proposal full of laws that; limit music in clubs, bars and restaurants, limit where these clubs can be built or existing ones can expand, dictate what can or cannot be near these establishments, laws that force these establishments to install expensive soundproofing even when it probably isn’t necessary just for starters is really disconcerting. All these proposals seem to me like things to be concerned about and to raise my voice in preventing them from becoming laws. This is the land of the free right? This proposal seems to stifle that freedom significantly.
All venues currently have to get variances if they want to have live music, so how would this proposed legislation be worse for musicians that the one that currently exists? This legislation allows more freedom for music in clubs, bars, restaurants, etc. It definitely is a huge step forward from the 1920s-era regulations that are in place now.
And frankly, a business owner who wants to open a bar or club next door to residences should expect to jump through some hoops before amplified music or outdoor speakers are allowed. Why should the patrons of that business, who maybe are there three hours a week at most, dictate the quality of life for the people who live there 24/7?
This proposed change is so overdue and needed and it has been reviewed and debated and questioned …worked and reworked by the committee for nearly a year.
Many compromises have been made to ensure businesses are not negatively affected, yet residents can still have some form of quality of life with in the city ( for the love of ROCK & Roll … People please… stop saying that if residents don’t like the noise or inconvenience , they should move from the city. Really? That’s your answer?)
Henry Senak, Director Brown and many others on the committee have spent many hours creating this proposed legislation …that by the way was voted on and approved by the planning commission.
I understand anyone who wants to question a “new or changed” ordnance, it only makes sense and honestly it pleases me that there is so much passion out there …instead of the apathy that is the usually the norm.
However it seems to me that the one important fact that is missing from all the propaganda opposing the changes to the ordnance is the fact that many, many of the bars and restaurants that are operating right now … are operating illegally.
I’ll concede 100%, that in many cases it is not the fault of the business owner. Most likely it is because the City of Clevealnd’s current system of licensing/ permits / variances and any other requirement for the city is totally outdated and often not even understood by the department issuing the permit or license.
This is why the changes need to be made, we need to level the playing field and expect all business to operate within the city charter. It’s not fair that some business do their due diligence …while others illegally fence off the city sidewalk or part of their parking lot and call it a “patio”. They expand their occupancy, without any regard for residents, or other business owners whom now may not have any parking because the illegal use.
This is not fair to a resident who previously had no issue with the small tavern …but now has a drunk, singing karaoke at two o’clock in the morning under there bedroom window?
I am tired of all the personal attacks on Henry Senyak, he has worked hard with many bars on the Westside helping them become compliant …even going as far as facilitating and helping them reach out to neighbors and form cooperation agreements that protect BOTH the residents and the business owner.
Mr. Senyak has always approached this with an open mind knowing that both residents and business owners needed consideration for the proposed change to work effectively.
Even though Mr. Senyak wants change and reform he has always viewed the issue as two sided and never once has he stated the same hardline opinion as ward 3 Councilman Joe Cimperman, who Said at the planning commission meeting that “he was opposed to ALL music and entrainment on patios.”
Please make sure that you have all your facts not just the ones that are convenient.
Scene, I’m disappointed that your take on this issue is as oversimplified and misleading as the uproar that was created in the most recent news cycle. The laws do need updating, but there are serious problems in the initial draft of the bill.
There are bars, restaurants and yes, even nightclubs, based on the legal definition of the term, in areas zoned ‘general retail districts’ that are not operating illegally under the outdated laws – do your homework and don’t assume everyone is operating in a local retail district.
This bill lumps general retail districts in with local districts and throws them both into the new ‘conditional use’ regime because the default position in the bill is that no amplified music is allowed unless the zoning board approves it first through a conditional use permit. The conditions outlined in the bill are all weighted in favor of making sure the applicant has no negative impact on any neighbor – none of the conditions require the zoning board to consider any positive impacts the applicant might have on the neighborhood, including job creation, increased tax revenue and the ability to attract more businesses and residents to the neighborhood.
There are absolutely no restrictions on the conditions the zoning board can impose (restrictions on hours, requirements to make unlimited investments in soundproofing), and there is nothing in the bill that allows for any appeals from or challenges to the zoning board’s decisions.
The bill creates new responsibilities (read financial liabilities) for activity outside of bars, restaurants and nightclubs, including providing security in parking lots and cleaning sidewalks in the middle of the night. The parking lot provisions make it much easier for people to sue bar owners for anything that happens in a parking lot – dented fenders, stolen cars, harassment from panhandlers – by codifying the owners responsibility for ensuring safety. Safety on the streets is the job of the police, not the business owners.
Business owners in some districts have taken the initiative to create business improvement districts by agreeing to pay more property taxes to fund safety and maintenance services beyond the services the city currently provides. These services are spread out throughout the district, with security during daytime and evening hours, and maintenance during the day. If bar and restaurant owners are forced to pay for dedicated security for their parking lots and are forced to pay maintenance crews to clean their sidewalks in the middle of the night, there is no incentive to participate in these new business improvement districts. By tailoring this bill to the offenses of the worst clubs and the most disagreeable neighbors, one of the many unintended side effects will be to punish the businesses and neighborhoods that don’t have the problems that drove this overhaul.
The bill also doubles the fees on all permits (and there are many permits licenses and fees the city and state impose). The defenders will say, “well it’s not really that much more money.” Well that’s what we hear when we get hit with the 8% admissions tax, the music licensing fees, sin taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes and property taxes (we don’t generally worry about income taxes, because after all of the taxes, fees and operating expenses, there is very little, if any profit left to tax).
The defenders of the bill also point to meetings that were held in some parts of the city in the run up to the drafting of the bill. If those meetings had been effectively communicated to all the relevant stakeholders, the defenders might have a point, but it is abundantly clear that many of the city’s stakeholders weren’t aware of those initial meetings.
The defenders of the bill might be stinging from the criticism of the first draft of the bill, but the truth is, the attention that’s been drawn to the bill has opened up the debate over the bill to a much broader set of stakeholders, and will hopefully lead to better bill that balances ALL of the stakeholders interests and concerns, not just the concerns of those who managed the process leading up to the first draft.
Seig Heil!
Vince Grzegorek writes “The problem stems from a clause in the bill that seemingly limits music in most businesses to unamplified acoustic tunes. What critics didn’t notice is that the new law would not apply to nightclubs — which are where most of Cleveland’s live music emanates from.”
Plenty of live music performed by local musicians emanates from businesses other than nightclubs. While I am pleased that the new law would not apply to nightclubs – it is unfortunate that the new language applies to restaurants, bars and taverns.
Here is the language: (a)Entertainment. In Local Retail Districts, entertainment provided in any restaurant, tavern or bar as well as an accessory use or activity in any business, shall be limited to unamplified acoustic musical instruments or other entertainment that produces noise levels no greater than that produced by unamplified acoustic musical instruments.
What is this law’s definition of ‘unamplified acoutical musical instruments’? Is it a John Dowland song accomanied by a hammered dulcimer or the brass in Tchaikovsky 4th Symphony? Decibel level is a proper choice to measure the loudness of sound – not the equipment that produces the sound.
The fact that there will be another attempt to draft proper legislation to address the concerns of all parties demonstrates to me the proposal can be better written.
I understand the intent is for consistent guidelines, however, if that means banning the equipment that musicians need to make a living in their place of work – then this is a poorly written law.
Leonard DiCosimo, President
Cleveland Federation of Musicians, Local 4
Mr. Grzegorek states: “What critics didn’t notice is that the new law would not apply to nightclubs…”
How or why are people reading that “Nightclubs” are “excluded” from the potential ban on amplfied music in Limited Retail (LR) zoning? Nightclubs are merely a subset of Bars, Taverns and Restaurants. (BTR) Therefore while every BTR is not a Nightclub, every Nightclub is either a B,T or R. See Section 325.511, and the related definitions. Section 343.01(b)(F) permits BTR to be located and operate in Local Retail, but makes it clear they must be subject to the entertainment restrictions in 343.15 (i.e., no amped music in LR without a variance or CUP). Section 343.01(b)(F), however, goes on to say, that “Nightclubs” are excluded from being permitted, in Local Retail. So at the start, this means that only BTRs that do not qualify as Nightclubs are even permitted to exist in LRs. Nightclubs, however, are expressly permitted under the proposed amendments to General Retail. Moreover, Section 343.15(a) prohibits all BTRs within LR (with no exclusion for nightclubs) from having more than acoustical music. Accordingly, by my reading, the ordinance first says Nightclubs are not even permitted in LR, and second, in no way I can find that it seeks to exclude Nightclubs from the acoustical limitation (if they are even allowed). Section 343.15 also states no Nightclub can be within 500 ft of a RD (although it does imply the right for a variance). Since Beachland is in a LD, and likely within 500 ft of a RD, I don’t see that its status as “Nightclub” is helping it. If fact, it seems, short of being able to get another variance, being “grandfathered” or getting a CUP, that such status is not a “good status” for it to have in a LR.
Based on this, I can’t understand why people are saying that “Nightclubs” are excluded from the acoustical restrictions, and that those of us “opposing” the ordinance “got it wrong.” If I did, I need more help reading through this, and hope any future draft will make this exclusion much more obvious. I accept the notion that the City does not wish to “ban” live music, and I’m sure it does not want to shut-down Beachland, Brothers, and other friendly existing nightclubs that currently operate in LR. I can’t say I don’t have concerns about how far some of the more proactive residence groups might like to take this, however, but I take the city at its word that that’s not its intent. Nevertheless, I find the current approach at best confusing, and at worse “scary.”
I agree with one of Mr. Senyak’s comments (see above): (i.e. that BZOA currently regularly grants variances for live music in LR). In my view that’s because there’s an overly restrictive law on the books that IMHO is arguably unconstitutional that effectively says no live music in an LR without a variance). It’s my contention the city has avoided these challenges by liberally, and “smartly” awarding variances. This new approach seeks to provide the city the ability to say NO to any amplified music (i.e. live, jukebox, radio, sound system, etc). Perhaps even the drafters have not meant to go that far, but as drafted, I believe it does. Please see definition of Music Amplification,” which will cover any music played through speakers, and only excludes a TV.
I just CANNOT endorse an ordinance that is structured with the intent of providing the City the power to “prohibit” playing live music or music through an amp, even if its intent is not to prohibit, but merely to control the volume. I can live with and appreciate the city having the power to regulate the amount of noise that can be heard from a BTR (including any nightclub), but would find it much more palatable if the city changed the focus of the regulation away from the source of the noise (i.e., music, live, DJ, acoustic, bar chatter). Instead, I would encourage for the focus to be on how much of it can be heard by, and create a nuisance for, nearby residences.
I can see why the city wants to consolidate the licensing of the laws, and the fees don’t “kill” me. It’s the “power” that it effectively would hold over the “granting” of the licenses that I find troubling.
I wonder how Scene would feel if the city put in a licensing scheme that required it to obtain a license to distribute its publication on the city streets and went on to say no such publications can be distributed in LR, unless you get a CUP from the city to do so. Even if Scene could accept the licensing requirement, I would hope it would be against the restriction against distributing its paper in LR. Furthermore, if the city said don’t worry, we don’t want to stop you from distributing your publication, but we don’t want too many stands, and there few papers we think too edgy for publication in LRs, I would hope you’d find that response dissatisfactory and it would rub you the wrong way.
Accordingly, I’d encourage Scene to have some empathy for the reaction that people have had over the actual words published in the City Record.
The fact of the matter is that I’m optimistic that the “Footloose” reaction has given people in our city government pause to think about the current draft, and the current approach.
I’m not against the city seeking to limit the amount of noise a BTR might generate. I am against any law that gives the city the POWER to PROHIBIT a BTR or EV from playing or offering live music, or offering music through an amplifier. The fact that there’s an existing law on the books today that on its face already provides the city that power, makes this proposal no more palatable.
At least as right now, I respectively disagree that people involved in the “Footloose” cause have either “over-reacted” or have gotten it “wrong.” To the contrary, I generally support their overall concern, and hope the city takes these concerns seriously as part of additionally scheduled meetings.
I’m hope Scene will take some time to listen and digest as well.