3-2 council vote denies liquor license transfer
BY LARRY HLAVENKA JR.
Staff Writer

Howell

HOWELL - Some people may have welcomed a drink after enduring the three-hour hearing for the Hungry Quail's failed liquor license transfer.

And the denial might not have signaled "last call," either.

The Township Council voted 3-2 at its Oct. 17 meeting to deny the transfer of a liquor license to the Hungry Quail restaurant. The decision could lead to a legal challenge being filed by the person who sought the transfer.

The restaurant has been proposed to be placed in existing store fronts in the Quail Creek shopping center between Newton's Corner and Ramtown-Greenville roads in the Ramtown section of Howell.

Mayor Joseph DiBella and councilmen Juan Malave and Robert Walsh voted to deny the transfer. Deputy Mayor Peter Tobasco and Councilwoman Cynthia Schomaker voted in favor of the transfer.

The governing body, representatives of the establishment and residents all sparred during the lengthy hearing held in the municipal building.

Previously, at the council's Oct. 3 meeting, the original resolution to approve the transfer appeared on the council's agenda. Council members voted to carry the hearing, based on public input.

The matter dates back to May when Parker Partners, LP, attempted to gain approval to build an 11,000-square-foot addition to the Quail Creek shopping center for a restaurant/bar and other uses, but residents objected at a Planning Board meeting.

The possibility of the Hungry Quail being opened in the neighborhood prompted residents' concerns due to the proposed sale of alcohol and multiple land use issues.

Later, Dennis Dixon, proprietor of the restaurant, obtained 5,000 square feet of space inside the shopping center from three departed tenants and planned to house the restaurant in the existing store fronts.

Dixon originally obtained the liquor license from Stooges Tavern and Liquors, Route 9, and held the license in pocket status as Brookwood Bay Beverage Company.

He said his proposed restaurant would have an 1,100-square-foot packaged goods section and a 1,000- to 1,200-square-foot kitchen. He said the maximum occupancy would permit between 117 and 123 patrons, with 24 bar seats and a menu similar to popular chains.

Steve Weston, the president of the Allenwoods Homeowners Association, who fought the original application before the Planning Board, filed an objection to the liquor license transfer and that action required the public hearing to be held in front of the council.

That's where the Oct. 17 meeting picked up, with attorney John Giunco arguing on behalf of Dixon.

"There should be no basis for a public hearing," he said. "As of Oct. 11, [the Allenwoods Homeowners Association] has not filed returns" as a corporation.

Giunco said since the Allenwoods objection was the only one on file and since it did not have the legal grounds to object, the public hearing should have never been held.

Township Attorney Thomas Gannon said the council could object on its own, so it did not matter.

Moving along, Giunco said he objected to not being notified about the council's Oct. 10 meeting, where residents spoke both in support of and against the transfer. He said he was "concerned by comments made by the mayor and council."

DiBella assured Giunco that the council had not reached any conclusions that evening, but merely listened to the concerns of residents. He said the council could not control what the members of the public discuss.

Another issue dealt with the Elks Club in the nearby Ramtown Plaza. Since that civic group holds a liquor license, some people believed laws of proximity between similar licenses would doom the Hungry Quail's application.

However, Gannon said that since the types of licenses are different, proximity laws do not apply.

As the council sought information, the most debated topic proved to be the requirement of a site plan, which would send the applicant to the Planning Board for approval.

Township Planner Charles Newcomb said, "In a change of use, a site plan is required. This is a significantly different use," and he said he would require a site plan.

Giunco said he thought the transfer of the liquor license needed to be approved before any kind of site plan could even be considered.

"The Planning Board did approve [the shopping center] and that's why it was built," the attorney said.

DiBella did not see it that way.

"Is there a sports bar now?" he asked. "Is there an active restaurant there now? There's no one going there to watch a ballgame now. This is a much more active use than you have there now. I think we need a site plan so we can look at traffic. I think we're putting the cart before the horse. Let the Planning Board go through approval process. Once they go through that process, you have every right to a hearing."

Giunco restated his argument relative to the existing shopping center. "You have already established it, as well as your predecessors," he said. "The traffic issues were decided when a site plan was determined. I'm not in agreement with you on the change."

He said other issues such as signs and lighting would be determined by ordinance, so he did not see the need to go to the Planning Board.

Township Manager Thomas Czerniecki said the important thing to remember would be that the Hungry Quail would change the intensity of the shopping center's use, which qualifies a change of use.

Gannon tried to rule definitively.

"It is proposed to serve alcohol," he said. "The new use is met. This is certainly different than a yogurt shop or a bagel shop."

Giunco disagreed again.

"This is not rocket science, it is not magic," he said. "There is nothing unusual or peculiar. The control and regulations given to this council and license is very powerful."

Later, Czerniecki said, regardless of the council's decision, a site plan would be required, as per ordinance.

Giunco said his client "intends to comply with [the] ordinance, but we may not agree" that the applicant would need to provide a site plan.

Meanwhile, Dixon tried to enhance his own cause by detailing the project further. He discussed the packaged goods section, which had served as a point of dissension.

"We are very limited in law about how we can present our package goods," he said. "They will be displayed in wooden racks ... slotted cubbies. This is not your typical kind of liquor store operation."

He said track lighting would complement the racks - and called it a "wine cellar operation."

"There will be no jug wines or cheaper vodkas, these would be probably much more premium labels," he said.

Dixon estimated packaged goods would account for 30 percent of his sales.

Resident Lou Toscano said it did not matter to him how the liquor was displayed.

"We have been assured [of] new top-shelf liquor and cabinetry," he said. "I feel a lot better about this place. I'm joking. Those are red herrings."

Resident Kristen Pogrebneak, who addressed the council on the matter previously, said, "There whole issue is quality of life. Consider the concerns of our community and our safety issues."

She discussed what she perceived as an existing parking space deficiency, which she claimed would be exacerbated by a new restaurant.

Resident Shirley Vanni championed Dixon's cause, although she acknowledged having a personal and professional connection to the applicant.

"Why should our whole town suffer because a couple dozen people keep complaining?" she asked. "I know legally you have to do what is right, but the last thing is to spend taxpayers' money on a ... lawsuit."

After various motions to either approve, deny or carry the liquor license transfer all died before they were seconded by a council member, the governing body finally settled on a motion to approve the transfer with conditions.

The proposed conditions included that the restaurant's operating hours would be Monday through Thursday until 11 p.m. and not past 2 a.m. on weekends; live entertainment limited to one- or two-piece bands; no delivery or take-out, as to not affect exiting businesses; and no brunch service as long as an existing bagel store remains in operation in the same shopping center.

Walsh and Tobasco said they thought the restaurant would be a good idea - just not in this spot.

"This sounds like a great idea, but I'm wondering how I would vote if it was a freestanding building away from the children," Walsh said. "It sounds like it's needed in the area, but I don't know if it's in the right place."

He said he wanted a traffic study and said the plan could be a "home run" if done differently.

Tobasco one-upped Walsh, calling the idea a "grand slam" if it was done differently.

An emphatic Malave made more pointed comments about Dixon and the project.

"There's nowhere in Howell that I would like to see a facility like you have put up before," he told Dixon, referring to other establishments he said Dixon owns. There, Malave said, non-residents abuse property and trash the surrounding areas because they do not live in Howell or care about the town.

"I do believe this [proposed restaurant] is going to be nothing more than a sports bar for bikers," he said.

Anticipating a lawsuit which would try to gain approval for the restaurant, Malave pleaded with his fellow council members to "take on the legal fees, it's money well spent."

Tobasco said he voted for the approval for that reason - "the No. 1 issue is affordability. I have to say yes to save dollars."

Regardless, a majority of the council heeded Malave's call and ultimately denied the transfer of the liquor license.

Giunco did not return a telephone message made to his office, seeking to confirm the applicant's intent to file a lawsuit.