Good morning to everybody and thank you for being here.

We're going to start our September the fourth of twenty twenty-five nine AM Chattanooga Beer Board meeting.

A couple of notes of interest, please.

All meeting attendees must sign in on a designated sign in sheet.

Please now, please, sir.

We are abide by the sunshine law.

Any electronic devices must be turned off or muted so as not to disrupt the meeting.

And please state your name before you make any comments.

100 food 8 LLC beer number 1321 has been approved.

Riverside Collection LLC beer number 1352 has been approved.

Did we miss any?

All these are good moved.

Yes, all the uh number one food, number two, Riverside Collection, or both approved by regulatory.

All right.

So we'll move forward to new temporary beer permit applications, and we see there is none.

And we move to new beer applications.

Uh we have Shredder's LLC, beer 1357.

Uh we'll hear from Bertha on that one.

Okay.

Representing Shredder's L C doing business as Shredder's liar.

Brian Hennan, Lewis Armstead, and Chandler Hunt.

I make an application to engage in the sale of consumer beer at 3230 Brennan Road.

Mr.

Hannon has a beer permit for the coin op located at 733 East ML King Boulevard, suite 100.

The location is owned by Elaine Peters Gannon and his own C C.

All right.

Are you here?

All right.

You want to come to the thank you.

They are uh been held up by legal.

All right.

Yes, sir.

Which applicant are you going to have?

I'm Brian Hennan.

Brian.

Thank you, sir.

And is Mr.

Hunt here?

Mr.

Hunt is here.

Step up here for me.

You in.

I don't think you stood neither.

I'll only swear or calling the testimony you're about to give over the truth, the whole truth and nothing about Patricia Helpy God.

Thank you, sir.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Okay, so I saw the notes in the portal, but I just wanted to you know have you here and present to address the uh the issue on your background check.

Um was the sentence completed June 12th, yeah, the 10th through the 12th.

Of 2015.

2015, yes.

Okay, all right, and for the record, it's a violation of probation with the underlying um, I think it was an alcohol offense.

Under each possession, yes.

Okay.

Um, and as a result, it's outside of the 10 years, just outside of the 10 years.

So he's clear to um to be have a beer permit, but I just kind of wanted that on the record before I approved everything.

So all right, all right.

Uh Mr.

Henry, you want to tell us more about Shredder's LLC?

Absolutely.

Uh Shredder's Lear is gonna be primarily a used music retail store.

So we've taken over a former event space, and our plan is currently we have sort of a uh just a retail counter with a bunch of used music gear, strings, uh you know, guitars and all that stuff.

Um with the plan to do repairs as well.

Uh there's a small cafe we have going, some coffee and tea, along with some very simple food items, mostly pre-packaged for now.

And uh that's the gist of it.

So it's the same.

All right, and will you be selling alcohol also?

We'll be no alcohol.

Just beer for now, yes, sir.

All right.

All right, any questions for this board?

Operating hours, please.

Operating hours will be uh Monday.

I'm sorry, Tuesday through Saturday, 8 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

Okay.

Yes, everyone.

Uh what's the occupancy of this establishment?

Uh 99.

99.

I'm sorry.

Oh, it's 49.

Excuse me?

It's 49 on the uh health inspection report.

49, okay.

Um you understand that that requires that means that's whoever in there is buying or looking around or people working there.

You understand that it's a total number that you cannot oh we go absolutely, yes, sir.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else?

Of course it's on this board.

Can I get a motion?

Make a motion to approve beer permit 1357.

There's a motion on the floor.

Can I get a second?

It's been motion and second of that uh shredder's LLC, Shadow Salir, beer number 1357.

Uh can I get uh Christie?

Yes.

Brooke, yes, Veronica?

Yes, Ron.

Yes, Reggie?

Yes.

Betsy?

Yes.

Zach.

Yes.

And the chair votes yes.

All right.

Uh thank the board, yes.

Thank you.

All right.

Now uh we have Frank's and Tobies LLC, beard number 1358.

Are you here?

They've been approved by regulatory.

All right, so there's no action on that.

All right, we're moving.

Uh previous beer violations.

Uh last week we heard from uh hearing officer Trevor Etchley.

Uh and the recommendations you should have received those.

Uh we can put that on the floor for discussion.

And if not, we will accept uh the hearing officer's recommendation.

Uh the floor is now open for discussion or motion.

Ron Micromotion, we sustain uh hearing officers uh recommendation.

Okay, there's a motion on the floor.

It's been motion and second that we accept the hearing officer Trevor Essley uh report and recommendation that was heard on August 21st regarding exile of May.

Uh let's start with that.

Uh there should be discussion on the motion before take over.

Is there a discussion on this motion?

I don't agree.

My vote will be no.

All right, we haven't got that okay.

That followed yet, but we're coming around.

Do we meet?

I'm sorry.

After what discussion are we meeting?

Uh you can just say that you don't want to sustain uh the hearing officer's uh recommendation and then state why, and if you want to put something new on the table, you can do that as well.

I don't want to uh substain the hearing officer's recommendation.

There were three calls made in the same night.

Uh and they're also stated in the report about the beer license not being presented, and also it was stated that his occupancy is 49 people, and the officer put in the police report that was 150 to 200 people in the building.

None of that was brought about in the hearing.

Okay.

All right.

Any more discussions?

And if there's a recommendation of Ronica, you can uh make that also doing this.

My question would be and I was absent last meeting, but are is are those items detailed in the transcript in terms of the hearing or the transcript of the um report?

Because it was in the report that it was like over a hundred people there, hundred to two hundred people there, and they were not cited for uh their occupy.

I read the report and I didn't see that.

Do we know what number it is?

What we got in the email didn't have it in it, but when we came to the meeting on that the last meeting we had, it was an initial page added to it, and it was in there.

The officer said it was 150 to 200 people there.

Got it.

So I think that's right.

My thought on that is the hearing officer made his judgment off of what they were cited for.

Correct.

And I agree with you.

I really do.

There's a there's a problem there, but we're not getting to the root cause of the problem, and until we get to the root cause of the problem, we're gonna read better than this back before.

But he made his decision based off what the citation was for, and that's all he can do.

All right, Missy.

That was exactly what I was gonna say.

Is I don't think we can bring new additional information slash evidence based off of just exactly what Ron said.

What was presented last week was the case, and if there should have been additional citations, then additional citations can be made at some point, but I don't think that that's what we're here to judge on today.

If I'm sure we're just gonna ignore the fact that all that existed, I mean the hearing officer ignored it, obviously.

He uh I guess he was going by what was what the citation was, but there was other issues there, and even with even if I go back to the initial citation, it was three calls at one night to that same address, and it still didn't report what the citation was for, which was nobody called for the incident that happened inside the building.

You're correct.

I don't think anybody's arguing that fact.

George Calvin.

I do.

Uh just a point that I think can probably help clear this up.

The 150 to 200 people that were there.

Um that was stated, however, that was out in the parking lot.

That was not in the confines of the actual bar.

Um, I really don't think 200 people would fit in that bar.

It's too small.

Um, but the the amount of people that was there was all in the outside of their business.

So were that were the amount of people actually there?

Yes, 100%.

But they were not physically inside that bar, so that's why they weren't cited.

That's still discussion on the floor.

Anybody else was a question to the officer then?

Okay, let me come to Reggie, and then I'll come to you.

Okay.

If I'm not mistaken, I think one of those calls was for disorderly for the parking lot, and that was the reason.

But I don't know if it if they stated when with the disorder in the parking lot, the amount of people that were there.

I'm just well, that is that is correct as well.

The unfortunate part is the parking lot that we're referring to does not belong to the bar.

It is a separate privately owned parking lot.

Um so that's why the police were called to try to try to clear that lot out.

And that's and that's also where some of the uh misunderstandings come from in terms of the time frames of when these calls came in versus when this disorder occurred that wasn't reported to us immediately.

Um I think there was some confusion as to when the police were there, when they were in the parking lot because they had been called, uh, like you're saying, no less than three times, maybe even four or five for previous incidents earlier in the evening.

So I think we're going under the rouge that the police were there and we're thinking that uh that they already know about it, but they didn't know about that particular one, which is why they were cited.

All right, I'm going to Ryan.

I think a few might agree that there's a problem here, and it's got it's gotta stop.

And I don't know how I don't know little citations are gonna do it.

So somebody's got a you know, a building's got a you know, thing, health departments probably got up in in the hunt, uh regulatory beer uh uh board is and maybe zoning even.

So we gotta get our act together and figure out what we can do.

I would completely agree to that, and I would I would sit here and tell you that I've been out there personally no less than three to four times myself just to observe it.

I have talked to the people that own the uh parking lot and stuff next door.

I've told them about putting up no ordering signs, maybe even roping it off, you know, doing something to try to keep the crowd out, because that's actually what's happening.

People are gathering in that uh pay parking lot uh to conduct their personal business, they're not actually going into the bar because there's not enough room in the bar.

Um, and they're sitting out in the parking lot and playing their music and uh creating the noise violations, you know.

So um when the police are notified about that, or when officers on patrol see it, they come through and push it out just like they're supposed to.

Uh but without somebody calling them and telling them, you know, it's it's kind of hard pressed for us to be able to capture it every single time that it happens, if that makes any sense.

So it once again it still comes down to the due diligence of the bar owners when they see this stuff happening that they know it's their crowd that is that is drawing um their bars, the one that's drawing the crowd, they still need to be responsible enough to call the police and say, hey, this problem's occurring.

This is not our problem or not our our parking lot, but it is our bar that's drawing it, so it it just needs to be addressed.

Um so yes, I completely agree that something different needs to occur in that particular location as it relates to the crowd that's being being brought there.

Oh, it appears they should have been cited for operating a disorderly place.

Wouldn't that fall up under that?

It's possible.

Uh however, that's I think that's been done before in the past, and that one was dismissed.

But I think it was a no fate of no vote.

Christy, did you say who should be cited?

The bar because he I mean he testified that um it kind of falls on them to call and notify them because it's their crowd that's bringing in the disruption of disorder to the area.

So they're responsible for their crowd.

If your crowd is misbehaving on not your property, is that your responsibility legally through the beer code to report it?

You should for the record.

I agree.

The right thing to do.

But we have to discuss what would legally that's all we're allowed to vote on.

I don't remember seeing it.

It's been a while since I've read it.

And um reference to what Reggie said, uh Reggie, I'm looking on here, I don't see where there was a call for a disorder.

That was a call at 1255, 40 minutes later, a call at 135.

Hour and 20 minutes later, a call at 255.

None of them was for a disorder.

The third call at 255 is when they let the that third call know that there was a disorder inside the building.

So it was never reported.

Even with that being said, they already had three violations before this one.

And then we see here one of them didn't even get voted on, it was a failed vote.

So three previous violations, then this one come, and then we dismiss it.

So it was like we're just letting them do whatever.

They can just get in the way with whatever they do down at XL.

But the attorney did point out that because the police were already there, they didn't have to call.

They notified the police in person.

That that's in the beer code.

That's allowed.

It is.

So it's not gonna be on the call log because they were the call.

The car was already there.

Well, I mean, I it it's it cited anywhere that with proof what time the vi the altercation was.

Nobody didn't have a 255.

The cops were told and the beer code says if the cops are there and you tell them that's your legal obligation.

That's and they fulfilled it.

Again, I'm not saying that this all this disorderly is great, but this isn't opinion, this is what we're legally allowed to do.

And legally, we have to follow the guidelines of the beer code, and they did.

And to answer your question earlier about what's in the code about you know, crowds not on the property, um section 550 B, right?

I think that's 15.

Um it is a violation to allow their premises to be operated in a disorderly disorderly manner.

Their premises.

So if it's not on their premises, I mean it's it's not covered.

I mean, it's if it starts, but it's not right in the code.

Right.

But if it starts on another piece of property that's not connected to the business.

No, that makes sense.

And that's correct.

But they're on somebody else's property causing problems.

Right.

Well, and I really believe it's hard to tell where the premises is down there because there's no real walls and roofs to you know, for them to call this is what we got to m maintain here.

And I I I throw that out back to building because I think there's building requirements, it's gotta be totally out of hand down there.

But the current violation that's before I'm not I'm not arguing that.

I'm just saying there's a lot going on down there besides besides this not calling the phone, not calling the police.

It's it's other issues that are going on down there.

Because even to his point, even if the property owner comes there, if they can put up signs, they can put up a fence, they can put up a gate, they can put up all they want to.

That crowd is still gonna come down there because it's all is down there, and nobody's addressing it with their uh DM in their crowd.

And neither is the beer board.

The beer board is legally allowed to do.

It doesn't matter what we're interested in, it matters what we can do.

I think we're more than interested in it.

I mean, there's all kinds of hypotheticals we could talk about.

I mean, if it was my property, I'd call the police every day.

Sorry to bother you, but I would.

And then eventually people would stop coming.

But we that's not what we're here for.

We're here to talk about what the the attorney said, what the proof is, what the evidence is, what we're legally allowed to do.

Everything else has to go out the window.

Correct.

All right.

Uh there was a motion on the floor, but we own discussion, so we need to amend that motion if there is a recommendation.

Exactly.

It would be helpful for me.

So there was three incidences at 1255.

It was for loading loyalty.

Loitering in front of the establishment, which I don't think constitutes disorderly conduct.

Then at 135, there was a domestic call.

And then at 255, police responded to disrupt a large crowd, also loitering in front of the location.

When the police responded to the call 255, they were notified of an incident which had occurred inside the establishment with the manager had fallen down during some type of physical altercation.

So the question is that last physical altercation inside the premises.

How long before was the police officer present?

It doesn't sound like the police officer was present when that happened, but they notified the police officer when he arrived.

It says, and I apologize.

Mr.

Schwerk testified that at the time of the incident occurred, a police officer was still present outside from dealing with a domestic call at a proper approximately 135.

The manager went out and spoke with the police officer and told him what happened.

The police officer made a sweep of the restaurant and no further action was taken.

Also, it was the whole transcript of the entire hearing was emailed to us.

So we can we can refer that to refer that to.

So I think what Veronica is getting there is if the police officer was still there at 135 when they called.

Why was the police called again at 255?

Don't they not notify at 135 or the nobody from the building is calling the police.

People in the community are calling the police.

So if I'm in my apartment and I hear this mess down there, and I don't know, the cops are already down there handling it.

I mean, it's it showed us in the log, it's not the same person calling over and over again.

It's multiple people calling.

If you're saying that the uh public politics can be not the established the problems were outside, there was already police officer there according to the report and to the testimony.

There was already a police officer, they are dealing with something outside.

When the manager came over and said, Hey, while you're here, this happened inside.

And that's all they're legally required to do.

So I again, I'm not picking sides here, but I mean this we have to vote on whether or not to sustain or not sustain his order, and according to the legal professional and all the testimony, this is his recommendation.

We can we can sustain or not.

That's fine, but discussing this case has already been tried, it's already now we just have to talk about what to do about it, unless I'm incorrect.

I mean, we can't we we can make our I guess our own decision based on our feelings, but is that were we supposed to do that?

Are we gonna do that from now on?

Those are the those are the rules.

All right, Sergeant.

So if my memory serves me correct, just a point of clarification from what you were saying stating.

The at 255, um, when the police were called, um, it's my best recollection that someone from the bar did actually make that phone call because they decided they saw the crowd growing outside once again, and they knew it was gonna get out of hand when they when they closed down, so they went ahead and closed down.

They said I think in their terminology they closed the bar early, but it was to the tune of like five minutes.

Um but I mean five minutes is five minutes, so they closed down early, called the police, so the patrol officers could help push the crowd out and try to clear out the lot that way there wasn't anything further past the three o'clock mark.

Correct.

So it was my understanding that someone from the bar is the one who made that call at 255 to try to help disperse the crowd.

All right.

Any more discussions from this board?

Again, I want to be clear that uh Ron made a motion.

We can sustain keep that going, or we can amend that.

I will second the motion that we sustain the public hearing officer's recommendation.

It's been motioned, it's been second that we sustain uh the recommendation from hearing officer Trevor Etchler.

Uh Christie.

Uh uh vote, yes.

Taking the vote.

Yes.

Has the discussion been closed?

Well, when I didn't hear side, I heard silence, so I can't move it.

So yeah, okay.

No, you good we'll we'll rewind what they can.

I heard silence, so I kept moving.

Uh any more discussions.

So what are we vote no?

We're voting on sustaining uh Trevor Etsley, the officer hearing officer Trevor Esslade's recommendation.

Uh Ron said make a motion to sustain it.

It's been second by Zach.

I think it it also needs to be clear as to what that recommendation was.

Okay, yes, we can make that clear.

So if I think we can move to amend that motion to say what the recommendation was.

Okay.

I'm all okay.

Right.

You made a motion to suspend his recommendation.

But you didn't say what that recommendation was.

Oh, okay.

You can also move to amend the previous source.

Okay, I'll my motion is that we should have that page.

Yeah.

Uh this round.

Last right before, number four on that last page.

Okay, okay.

So we sustain hearing officers, Mr.

Atries report to dismiss this complaint.

Okay.

It's been motion uh by Ron that we uh accept the recommendation to dismiss this complaint.

Uh can I get a second?

It's been motion and second that we accept it.

Uh we're going for the vote.

Uh Christie.

So we're we're saying we're voting to dismiss it.

Is that what you're saying?

That is correct.

Okay.

Uh Brooke.

Yes.

Veronica?

No.

Ron.

Reggie.

No.

Better.

Yes.

Zach.

Yes.

All right.

And the chair votes yes.

And so there's five but no, five four.

Yeah.

And so it's five yes for uh three no's.

Uh so therefore uh this replay has been dismissed.

All right.

All right.

Next on our agenda.

Uh we have discussions.

Any discussion from this board before I open up for public comments.

Any discussion from this board before I open up for public comments.

All right.

Uh now we open up for public comments.

Anyone wish to address this board?

Yes, ma'am.

Can you have you been sworn in?

Also, I can't do it.

I mean, does it be one in the second?

First time.

Coalition.

Yes.

All right.

Good morning, everyone.

Um, Calandra Smith with Hamilton County Coalition.

Um, first, just want to say um again thank you to the board for everything that you guys do.

Um, and just remind you that those who are applying for beer only without a TABC to remind them that they need the training um within 60 days of getting their beer application approved.

Um, I didn't notify the first one that did, um, just so that we can continue to make sure we keep up with everyone's um training as we move forward.

Um, I also just this is just more of a comment as I was listening to um today's violation, um, and it makes me wonder about as we move forward with businesses who use other properties, um, sometimes unknowingly, sometimes knowingly, um, how the violations are gonna look.

So, as I was listening to when the call was made and all of those things, when it comes to disorderly, if something happens, I know with the training, when I train the employees and the managers, I speak with them about disorderly conduct happening inside of their establishment.

And if it's even is resolved, it doesn't matter.

You need to call 911.

You don't wait for police to come on the premises at a later time for something else to then report it.

Because what could happen is between the time of the disorder and you're thinking everything is good, because maybe you put them out or whatever's happened, things are brewing on the outside, and once they get out, things may happen on the outside.

So if you've already initiated that call when it initially happens with the disorder, police are more likely to either be headed that direction, you now have a report number to say no.

I called at 135.

I reported a disorder, and once they got outside of the premises, that disorder had already been reported.

So that kind of alleviates the gray area to me that's that's there right now.

Um so I do think it's important that they do attend trainings, that they do understand your ordinances and how they're written, and like you said, you're only going based on what it is written legally, what needs to be done.

But there's this gray area there when it comes to the parking, especially if a business has an occupacy for 200 people and there's no parking outside for 200 people on their property.

So how do you handle that?

So again, I just want us to kind of think about as we're moving forward what's that gonna look like because I don't see it changing unless the ordinances are written differently or how businesses are handling and making sure that they're training their employees on when to call 911.

And I always tell them, just call 911.

If you have a doubt, call 911.

Put it on record because when you come to this beer board, they need to hear that you knew immediately there was some type of disorder, and you wanted to make sure that that had been reported as a uh as a business that has a beer uh permit.

So I just kind of want to put that on record.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Thank you.

Anybody else wish to address this board?

All right.

Motion to adjourn.

Meeting adjourned.