Even though Mojito's, now known as The Speakeasy Lounge at 129 N. Federal Highway, came before the Planning & Zoning Board as well as the Lake Worth City Commission and were denied nightclub status, a Judge says otherwise-- Mojito's IS a nightclub and it can stay opened until 5am.Because this establishment was allowed to stay opened past hours since 1947 and they violated our Ordinance for all those years, they are "grandfathered in" says the Court.
In the end, it didn't matter what the residents wanted, what the churches wanted or what our laws allowed-- a 2am closing time.
The City now has lost another law suit. And it all stems from past governments for 60 years looking the other way and not enforcing our Code. Even when you get a government in power that tries to do the right thing and enforce our Ordinances, it can't.
What a crock. Have another mojito.
if we had competent legal council we would not have lost this case.
ReplyDeleteI am a nut about rules, laws and ordinances. Being on a Condo Board, we deal with owners who want to break rules from time to time. When they do, we have to take quick action. If we do nothing, it sets a precedent and we no longer can make anyone in the future obey that rule because we allowed so and so to ignore it. The Courts have told us this.
ReplyDeleteSo, this is the same thing. The City finally took action after ignoring the situation for decades. They lost the case under the same principle in a way. All bars that can only stay opened until 2am must be periodically checked to ensure that they are following our laws. If not, we will lose those cases too.
We have too many bars in this city. Let's get a good clothing department store.
ReplyDeleteThis has nothing to do with the city failing to enforce. This is Land Use 101. If we had competent legal counsel, there never would have been a lawsuit. A drinking establishment has existed at that location since BEFORE there was any ordinance. So, when the ordinance was enacted, NINE YEARS AFTER a bar already existed at that site, the city couldn't make the pre-existing business comply with the new ordinance. The non- conforming use of that property is a covenant running with the land and passes from owner to owner. The city has zero power to change it.
ReplyDeleteTo the person who just tried to come over here with a personal attack against me for implying I am some sort of condo commando, we, by Florida Law, must enforce the Statutes, local ordinances and code, as well as our By-Laws.
ReplyDeleteI am not over here feeling all so powerful. People who live in condos WANT rules and regulations to be enforced. It is not the small number of people that you can count on one hand who hate all rules who really should be living somewhere else. Being on a Board and what I do is nothing more than a lot of work and constantly being on top of Florida law.
And speaking on rules, please follow comment policy on this blog.
I can tell you that this place did not always stay open past hours. That is a fact. New owners pushed the button.
ReplyDeleteTo the lawyer in the room, we agree here. It has always been a bar. Bars close at 2am, not 5am.
ReplyDeleteThe Planning and Zoning Board was incompetent too? There are always two sides to an argument. That is why you have two sides in a court of law and why law suits exist to begin with. One wins. One doesn't. On an appeal it can be totally different. So much for Land Use 101.
ReplyDeleteWes, was it you on the P&Z?
ReplyDeleteThe point is not whether you call it a bar or a nightclub. You could call it a purple monkey for all I care. Since 1947, that location has enjoyed no restriction on its operating hours. The 1956 ordinance did not, and could not change that. It is irrelevant for land use purposes what any prior owner did or did not do. Once the covenant attaches to the land, it attaches for any future owner for better or worse. Lynn, to put this in a condo context you can appreciate - if I buy a condo with a no pets restriction, but bring along my 140 lb Newfoundland because the seller told me the condo doesn't enforce the restriction, the condo can still make me get rid of my dog because the restriction is a covenant running with the land. The prior owner's failure to comply doesn't get me off the hook. (of course, the condo can't selectively enforce against me, but that's a chapter 718 analysis inapplicable to the bar/nightclub issue.)
ReplyDeleteI wish that were true but it is not the case these days. All an owner has to do is get a note from his doctor that he needs this pet to help him in his depression. It is happening with frequency throughout condo associations and we are powerless because of government and the ADA.
ReplyDeleteLynn, I know what you mean about the emotional support animal issue. In a perfect, less complicated world, my analogy would have been a good one. :-)
ReplyDeleteSo then, does this mean that because they were a bar before our ordinance was enacted that they don't have to abide by it? Is this the same concept that because some guy committed a murder before the death penalty was enacted that when caught and convicted for the crime, he only should get life? Not following the logic lawyer in the room.
ReplyDeletethat's true anon at 10am. People used to have some respect for our city. It has gone down hill over the past decade because of people not minding our laws and ordinances. Just look at all the slum and blight and the foreclosures. No one has any sense of responsibility anymore. Even the city is pulling fast ones.
ReplyDeleteIm sick of bars and others taking advantage and doing whatever they want. It is time that this all ends. Lake Worth, please enforce our laws. Get rid of all these code enforcement fines. Make these people pay or foreclose on the property. We in the neighborhoods are sick of living in a dump and people telling us that they are not going to pay attention to our laws. Up the license cost for nightclubs.
ReplyDeleteFrom Another Lawyer in the Room:
ReplyDeleteThe misconception you who think the City should have won this case is with the term "grandfathered." It does not mean that you broke the rules for so long that you can continue to do so. To the contrary, it means that you had a certain right under the law but when that law was changed to limit that right of new establishments, you still get to keep the right because you are "grandfathered." As the first lawyer in the room said - this is zoning law 101. If the law was that "I don't like bars so close them all down..." society and economy would completely break down. I might say I don't like my neighbor, so force him to move. I might say I don't like lawyers, so force them all to close their offices. Sorry folks, but we ALL have equal rights to private property ownership and use, which must be applied equally to all persons. This man owned a business that had a legal right and just becuase the ignorant P&Z Board and the ignorant Commission at the time and the ignorant City Attorney didn't like it, we wasted a few hundred grand of our tax payer money. A knowledgeable attorney would have told the Commission (ehhm, the City Manager who really calls the shots) that they are wrong and accept it. Mr. Muller has a right to operate his business, whether we like his choice of business or not. I know you all would want this theory applied to you as well if the tables were turned.
He should work within our laws. I don't know, just because you say so, that he can do what he pleases here--that it runs with his deed. The Post said that he was grandfathered in because he always closed much earlier in the morning. The exact quote is, "The bar is grandfathered in as a late-night establishment."
ReplyDeleteI have lived in a condo for decades and as a property owner, I am subject to all local laws and ordinances that HAVE CHANGED throughout the years. Just because I bought here before a certain Ordinance does not mean that I don't have to abide by it.
So, basically, I don't get this ruling at all.
Zoning law is complicated, but rest assured the Judge made the right decision under the law. The City Attorney should have known that and could have saved all the expense of litigation. And her quote to the Post was they are considering appealing. Another $100k down the drain.
ReplyDeleteThis is just more bullying in Lake Wroth by a business owner who wants to do as he pleases.
ReplyDeleteSave Our Neighborhood won in the Circuit Court in a law suit against the City. They appealed and won in the Appellate Court.
ReplyDeleteSo, you just never know here.
They knew our ordinance when they bought this place. This ruling is a bunch of shit. The City should appeal this dumb judge's ruling. Even if this place burned to the ground, if has to be rebuilt to present code. There is legal precedence for a city enforcing its code not only that, LW has home rule governing.
ReplyDeleteE. Exline
To E. Exline - Just because you don't like the decision doesn't make it $#!+. You are right that if it burned, it would have to be built to current code. But it didn't. If they closed it for any significant period of time, then they would similarly, have to comply with the current code. But they didn't. To call the Judge dumb shows you have no respect for someone who just might (well, most definitely) knows more about the law than you. Calling a Judge dumb is pretty immature. Seriously... that's the most intelligent argument you have? When did you go to law school or study zoning law?
ReplyDeleteThat was Ron Exline. He's entitled to his opinion and he did sign his name. Judges' decisions are turned on appeal every day. I would definitely say that when it comes to the law, there are a lot of decisions that I would call "dumb."
ReplyDeleteI'm not in favor of bars being open until 5 a.m. but I agree with the lawyer and the other lawyer, probably because I'm also a lawyer. The city wasn't going to win this one.
ReplyDeleteWhat I don't understand is why our city attorney is so inept, or perhaps we hired outside counsel and screwed up on that one as well. We keep losing lawsuit after lawsuit, running up litigation costs and the tax-payor is on the hook.