Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
COMMUNITY COMMENTARY:
Battle against restaurant is not warranted
By Derek L. Tabone
Having read several articles in the Glendale News-Press regarding my client, the Montrose Collection, and its principals, I do not believe that your readers have a complete explanation of the basis of the dispute.
There has been a restaurant in continuous operation in the same location since 1966. The facility was granted a conditional-use permit to serve alcohol in 1983. Over the years, there have been various owners operating different types of restaurants. In February 2002, the city issued a zoning-use certificate for the property, confirming its authorized use as a restaurant/banquet hall/bar. In other words, as of February 2002 the premises could be all restaurant, all banquet hall or anything in between.
The current owner acquired the restaurant in late 2004, at which time it was mainly a banquet hall.
In March 2005 the owner wrote to the city of Glendale, stating they were conducting a restaurant/bar/banquet hall business, and sought to learn what requirements might be imposed if the business took over and expanded into an existing, adjoining space.
The city wrote back, and in my client’s interpretation of the letter, stated that the only condition that might be imposed is a requirement for additional parking. In reliance upon that, which my clients felt was a written assurance, they proceeded to sign a lease for the adjoining space for 16 years, employ an architect, submit plans, obtain a building permit for the expansion and spend almost $1 million on the renovation.
The work was completed in April 2006, and a new zoning use certificate was issued. The business opened, and operated as it has before, as a restaurant/bar/banquet hall.
It was not the business that changed, but the city. A full-service restaurant is a permitted use in a C-1 zone. Essentially, and emphatically, Glendale does not want banquet halls opening in the city.
The city seized on the 2005 expansion, despite, from what I can see, having given the expansion its unconditional blessing not once, but twice: once when it replied to the letter from the owner, then when it approved the building permits and allowed the business to expend a large amount of money on the remodel without ever suggesting that the expansion might cost the business the right to host private parties.
The city has attacked the business every way imaginable. It has revoked the parking permit, which allows the business to open with a shortage of spaces.
Having failed to shut down the business, the city then filed criminal charges against the owners of the business and the owners of the building.
Proceeding criminally against business owners who purchase a 40-year-old, fully permitted establishment, spend almost $1 million in expanding and upgrading it, and complied with every code, rule, regulation and request in so doing is questionable, at best, and abusive at worst.
The city could have chosen to proceed with a civil abatement action, but instead chose to threaten my clients with prosecution, because the city apparently changed its mind on the desirability of that business.
What type of business has the city singled out for this treatment?
One that pollutes the environment, operates slum housing or offends common decency? No — one that serves food at private parties.
DEREK L. TABONE is a Sunland resident and an attorney representing Montrose Collection.
There has been a restaurant in continuous operation in the same location since 1966. The facility was granted a conditional-use permit to serve alcohol in 1983. Over the years, there have been various owners operating different types of restaurants. In February 2002, the city issued a zoning-use certificate for the property, confirming its authorized use as a restaurant/banquet hall/bar. In other words, as of February 2002 the premises could be all restaurant, all banquet hall or anything in between.
The current owner acquired the restaurant in late 2004, at which time it was mainly a banquet hall.
In March 2005 the owner wrote to the city of Glendale, stating they were conducting a restaurant/bar/banquet hall business, and sought to learn what requirements might be imposed if the business took over and expanded into an existing, adjoining space.
The city wrote back, and in my client’s interpretation of the letter, stated that the only condition that might be imposed is a requirement for additional parking. In reliance upon that, which my clients felt was a written assurance, they proceeded to sign a lease for the adjoining space for 16 years, employ an architect, submit plans, obtain a building permit for the expansion and spend almost $1 million on the renovation.
The work was completed in April 2006, and a new zoning use certificate was issued. The business opened, and operated as it has before, as a restaurant/bar/banquet hall.
It was not the business that changed, but the city. A full-service restaurant is a permitted use in a C-1 zone. Essentially, and emphatically, Glendale does not want banquet halls opening in the city.
The city seized on the 2005 expansion, despite, from what I can see, having given the expansion its unconditional blessing not once, but twice: once when it replied to the letter from the owner, then when it approved the building permits and allowed the business to expend a large amount of money on the remodel without ever suggesting that the expansion might cost the business the right to host private parties.
The city has attacked the business every way imaginable. It has revoked the parking permit, which allows the business to open with a shortage of spaces.
Having failed to shut down the business, the city then filed criminal charges against the owners of the business and the owners of the building.
Proceeding criminally against business owners who purchase a 40-year-old, fully permitted establishment, spend almost $1 million in expanding and upgrading it, and complied with every code, rule, regulation and request in so doing is questionable, at best, and abusive at worst.
The city could have chosen to proceed with a civil abatement action, but instead chose to threaten my clients with prosecution, because the city apparently changed its mind on the desirability of that business.
What type of business has the city singled out for this treatment?
One that pollutes the environment, operates slum housing or offends common decency? No — one that serves food at private parties.
DEREK L. TABONE is a Sunland resident and an attorney representing Montrose Collection.
Save/Share
 |
 |
|
| COMMUNITY COMMENTARY: Things are a bit 'mushy' on the dais |
POL POSITION: Ending gang violence is a high priority |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of glendalenewspress.com.
Submit a Comment
We encourage your feedback and dialog, all comments will be reviewed by our Web staff before appearing on the Web site.
Not registered yet?
RSS