Woodbury To Consider Drafting Downtown Beer Sales
Email Print
The Woodbury Board of Mayor and Aldermen will consider an ordinance Tuesday to allow restaurants on the Woodbury Town Square to sell and serve beer.

The Board will meet at 7 p.m. at City Hall.

Aldermen will also vote on an ordinance to permit the sale of beer on days on which elections are taking place.

Currently restaurants on the Square are prohibited by the existing town beer ordinance from serving beer to customers because they are within 300 feet of a place of public gathering, in this instance being the Cannon County Courthouse.

The proposed ordinance to be considered Tuesday regarding downtown beer sales would amend the current ordinance as follows:

"That any restaurant on the square that was operating as a restaurant on or before August 4, 2009 and they are closer than 300 feet of any hospital, school, church or other place of public gathering shall be permitted to apply and receive a license for the sell of beer so long as they qualify under the remaining requirements of the beer regulations and applications of this Ordinance.  Any restaurant business on the square shall apply for a beer license on or before January 6, 2012.  The square is defined as the location between Water Street, Cannon Street, Main Street, and Tatum Street immediately around the Cannon County Courthouse."

Following is the complete agenda for Tuesday's meeting:

TOWN OF WOODBURY
BOARD OF MAYOR AND ALDERMEN
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY
DECEMBER 7, 2010
7:00 PM

AGENDA

• Call to order by Mayor

• Roll Call

• Approve minutes of the November 2, 2010 meeting

• Public Hearing regarding Ordinance No. 434, an ordinance amending the street acceptance and construction standard code for the Town of Woodbury by adding a Section 16-407 (Procedure for street acceptance by the Public Works Director).  

• Consider adoption of Ordinance No. 434 on second and final reading.

• Public Hearing regarding Ordinance No. 435, an ordinance amending the street acceptance and construction standard code for the Town of Woodbury by changing Section 16-406.

• Consider adoption of Ordinance No. 435 on second and final reading.

• Consider adoption of Ordinance No. 436 on first reading, an ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 421 (regulating the sale, distribution for sale, and manufacturing of beer within the Town of Woodbury), by amending Section 8-210 to allow restaurants located on the public square to sell beer.

• Consider adoption of Ordinance No. 437 on first reading, an ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 421 (regulating the sale, distribution for sale, and manufacturing of beer within the Town of Woodbury), by amending Section 8-212 (2).

• Michael Reed would like to address the board regarding plans for the “Give Back Ranch”.

• Carolyn Motley of the Chamber of Commerce would like to address the board

• Other Business

• Reports from Mayor, Committees, and Department Heads.

• Adjourn.
Share:
Members Opinions:
December 03, 2010 at 8:34am
So maybe one could get a glass of Stag, Jax or Brothers with that slice of country ham and two biscuits at Joe's?

Hopefully, if and when the Alderpersons vote on this, none will be excommunicated by their church Elders.
December 03, 2010 at 10:42am
I don't know the wording of the current ordinance, but why the stipulation the resturant has to exist on or before August 4th, 2009? That strikes me as odd.
December 03, 2010 at 1:11pm
Considering that beer is one of the oldest man-made beverages it seems fitting that it should once again be available for responsible consumption.

I too, am confused by the limit of only resturants existing on or before August 4th, 2009. Why can't it simply work across the board for any and all? Sounds like an economic limitation which would benefit established places more than a new one. Why should this be? I also simply may not understand how the process works. Can someone explain?
December 03, 2010 at 1:54pm
I don't live in cannon county and don't mean to pry into local issues, but I consumed more alcohol before I was 21 than I have after. I am curious if anyone knows if alcohol consumption goes up or down when it is more tightly regulated.
December 03, 2010 at 9:16pm
Sadly, dailyreader, I think even if one wasn't verbally excommunicated, one would feel (I certainly would) silently so. That "tsk tsk" raising of the eyebrows, turning of the head, nodding of the head would still exist in the minds and attitudes of many church leaders. Unfortunately this trickles down to the people sitting in the church pew as well.

I suppose my point is, even if it were "politically ok," how many church members would actually order that Pabst? I may, but probably only if I had already had one before I walked in!
December 03, 2010 at 10:31pm
There was talk at one time that someone wanted to open a brewpub/pizzeria off of the square by the river. The limitation of only places open before 2009 would keep out new investment in downtown Woodbury.
December 04, 2010 at 7:46am
blooeyes you are correct.
December 04, 2010 at 12:18pm
So this plan seems to benefit and work for just a few specific food establishments ONLY on the Square!? Nowhere else?! ...And ONLY for those businesses already up and running?

Does this seem fair? Why not make this inclusive county wide?

I don't like the implications of an advantage for only places on the square. Seems economically un-capitalistic!

If I were another business just down the road I would not look at this proposal well.
December 04, 2010 at 1:05pm
Sounds to me like the proposed ordnance was written by the established restaurants owners.

Either you can or you cant, be fair to all.
[Delete]
December 04, 2010 at 2:42pm
"Does this seem fair? Why not make this inclusive county wide?"

Well, as I am sure you are aware, Woodbury ordinances can only cover what happens in Woodbury.

"I don't like the implications of an advantage for only places on the square. Seems economically un-capitalistic!"

The businesses on the square have been at a disadvantage because of their proximity to the courthouse. Businesses "just down the road" can already sell beer assuming they meet all of the other requirements.
December 05, 2010 at 2:46pm
"The businesses on the square have been at a disadvantage because of their proximity to the courthouse. Businesses "just down the road" can already sell beer assuming they meet all of the other requirements."

Why was this very critical information not in the story?

So in reality, this proposal simply allows for the businesses around the square to have the same opportunities related to beer sales as other establishments around the woodbury area?

I was unaware that there were limitations like that related to owning a business on the square near the court house. Are there rules disallowing such offerings near a court house?

Can this be explained further?

I am indeed aware that the ordinance only effects the Woodbury area. thank you.
[Delete]
December 05, 2010 at 6:24pm
"Why was this very critical information not in the story?"

It is in the story: "Currently restaurants on the Square are prohibited by the existing town beer ordinance from serving beer to customers because they are within 300 feet of a place of public gathering, in this instance being the Cannon County Courthouse."

"I was unaware that there were limitations like that related to owning a business on the square near the court house. Are there rules disallowing such offerings near a court house?"

Not the courthouse specifically, rather all places of public gathering (schools, churches, etc).
December 05, 2010 at 7:35pm
Very good. Now I am clear on this. No unusual conspiracy here! I hope everyone can see this is true.
December 06, 2010 at 10:28am
Jeff, Not totally clear to me, I understood the 300 feet rule (don't agree but understand). My earlier comment was based on why does the ordnance state "that was operating as a restaurant on or before Aug. 4, 2009...and shall apply before Jan. 6, 2012". Will new restaurants be allowed to sell beer? Will they have to pander the local politicians and apply for a variance or amend current ordinance? Will this deter future businesses? But mainly, why was this additional wording needed?

Stipulations are usually made to protect all or give advantages to a few and this one appears to be the later.

(I am sure Kevin meant "and they are not closer than 300" .)
[Delete]
December 06, 2010 at 11:15am
goober, those are indeed the key questions, and according to Mayor Patrick, they will be addressed at Tuesday's meeting.

Powered by Bondware
News Publishing Software

The browser you are using is outdated!

You may not be getting all you can out of your browsing experience
and may be open to security risks!

Consider upgrading to the latest version of your browser or choose on below: