Dennis Koehler, Attorney for MojitosThe Palm Beach Post article
The Story-
- Owner buys a property about 8 or 9 years ago that has always been a bar for 70 years here in
- He is well aware of the
- He begins to stay opened until 3 or 4 in the morning and because he breaks our laws, makes money on the after hours crowd
- He now decides that he wants a waiver to stay opened until 5am and knows if granted that this instantly makes his property more valuable and legally he can operate during extended hours
- He then comes to the P&Z with attorney and asks for a distance waiver saying it has nothing to do with being a nightclub; it is all about a distance waiver.
- The churches all speak out against extended hours and this becoming a nightclub instead of remaining a bar
- The neighborhood is against it becoming a nightclub
- The bar people are all for it and 500 patrons sign a petition to keep it opened until
- The bar is within 900 feet of 3 churches, one school and a library
- The owner now comes before the Commission with attorney, expert witnesses and court reporter in order to get it a nightlub. Petitions from patrons are entered into evidence. It now is all about becoming a nightclub, not a distance waiver.
- Once again, the room is packed with citizens.
- In a 3 to 2 vote, and the Commission taking Planning and Zoning's advice, the owner is again turned down.
9 comments:
I hope the place burns down.
Great positive thinking. Lake Worth needs another boarded up burned out building like we need more residents like you.
I did not realize the churches were open at 3 a.m.
I am amazed though that the church members or neighborhood residents never came out to speak out against the prositution and crack motels that line Federal Highway from Lucerne to 7th ave. north. I think that's strange don't you?
Hurray for the small victory! Our downtown area does not need a nightclub blaring music until 5am in our residents backyards. I am amazed at some of the comments posted on your blog Lynn. One thing is for sure...If ignorance had monetary value there would be a lot more wealthy people in Lake Worth! I continue to challenge all anonymous blog posters to own up to your comments and sign them...what is there to be afraid of?
"What is there to be afraid of"?
What, you've been living in a cave? It's not safe to use your true name on the internet. Funny, the fact that you wrote what you did makes your comment one of the most ignorant comments of all.
Yeah, but probably they should give an even higher monetary value for people busted on assault charges, right Mark A. Parrilla?
Don't understand that last comment at all. Mark, don't worry about this poster. He is probably an off shoot from the Jim Stafford blog where they believe that personally attacking people is not being divisive.
Well! :-)
That's no way to treat a guest!
I'm sorry that you're missing the point.
The point being that giving your real name on the internet can make a person vulnerable. That's why so many people do not do it, yet Mark challenges people to do it anyway.
I merely remarked on the assault charges to illustrate to Mark what I'm talking about. I know a lot about Mark. He's giving out too much information on the Internet about himself. People should not do that, so when we don't give our real names, don't "challenge" us to do so - it's a foolish thing to do.
I spend much time on this blog and that site and all over. I am an offshoot of nothing and I take no sides.
9:21 comment--It seems that Mark was "challenged" here. He is not hiding under anonymous. He has nothing to fear by taking responsibility for his beliefs.
If anyone feels that comfortable in what they are saying, there is no reason not to use his/her real ID. There will be posters from time to time that will challenge anything and everyone. By signing a post gives more credibility and it subdues the message somewhat from personally attacking someone with a different view. But we allow anonymous posting because some do not have an account where an ID can be generated or they want to stay in the shadows for whatever reason.
I really agree with above not on the lack of understanding and the reference to "monetary value" and what you meant.I will go back and re-read that.
The problem with Mojitos is the simple fact they want an exception to our Code. The P&Z and the Commission said "no." It is now up to them to try and take it further.
Post a Comment