Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 1/18/2022
EASTHAMPTON – The Easthampton Licensing Board approved the creation of a special permit for outdoor live entertainment.
The decision was made at the board’s Jan. 12 meeting following the third and final public hearing regarding the implementation of this special permit, which would replace the special one-day license.
According to Lindsi Mailler, an Easthampton Licensing Board member, currently under the state Alcohol Beverage Control Commission (ABCC), there is a special one-day permitting that all local licensing authorities have to follow. That permitting process allows businesses with liquor licenses to have up to 30 special one-day permits off their premises.
She said it became a problem with people without liquor licenses having events with music which created noise complaints from residents in the vicinities of the outdoor music. Since the Licensing Board doesn’t have a noise ordinance, Mailler said they met in August to discuss what could be done to bridge the gap between community members, businesses and liquor licensees.
After consulting with ABCC and the city solicitor, she said that it was brought to her attention that the board could implement an application process that replaces the special one-day permit and makes it applicable not only to liquor licensees but for anyone seeking the permit.
Sam Dibble, the proprietor of New City Brewery in Easthampton, raised the concern that the application didn’t have fees on it. Mailler agreed that fees should be on there and suggested that the board keep the same fees that they already have for the special one-day permit. She said it would be $75 for-profit businesses, $50 for nonprofit businesses, $75 for all alcohol and $50 for beer and wine.
Licensing Board Chair Kelly Richey recommended the board approve the new special permit for outdoor live entertainment and said, “It has nothing to do with the annual entertainment permits that are already granted. We can always tweak the form a little bit.”
She said the board could gather further input by sending out a draft for the public to look at and give it a month between meetings. But, because it was the third public hearing, she added, “At this point, I think we need to keep moving forward.”
Dibble opposed voting on the permit and said, “This is a completely inappropriate way to go about doing outdoor entertainment licenses. And I guess I just have to register my strong objection to it. I believe that it’s still being totally rushed. It’s January – there’s no outdoor entertainment going on in the city. And yet, this application has far-reaching consequences for business owners like me, and there’s no reason to vote on it tonight.” He continued to say that if the board voted on it that evening, he believed it would be harder to “tweak it” later on.
He then raised the point that businesses moved entertainment outside because of COVID-19. After much deliberation, Richey acknowledged Dibble’s viewpoint and added, “but we have to have the viewpoint of the public and what the public has said about this one-day permit.”
Mailler stepped in as tensions rose and said, “We already have a special one-day in place, Sam, that you’ve been adhering to in your entirety of business. So nothing changes for you, essentially. I mean, I’m not seeing where anything is really impacting you. However, if you’re saying that there are impacts in your business, of course, we want to hear about that. I think a suggestion to the Board could also be that we have local businesses and licensees that are under Gov. Baker’s extension of premises right now until April 2022. So, I do think within reason that we are entering our third year of a pandemic, we should say that this won’t take effect until June 2022 because they are covered under the extension of having access to do their outdoor entertainment right now under that, and we don’t want to cause additional hardships or conflict with that.”
Addressing Dribble’s concerns of fees, Richey added, “It is within our purview to look at each application on its own basis, and like if you say you’re planning on having live entertainment every Friday and Saturday evenings, we might be able to critique your application to you more. We wouldn’t be collecting $100 every night that you’re doing that type of thing. So, I think every application has to be looked at on its own merits.”
After further discussions, the board voted to approve the creation of a live outdoor permit application. A draft of the application will be created and Mailler will send a copy to liquor licensees and to anyone in the public who requests it. They will then have 30 days to submit suggestions to the board. After 30 days, Mailler expects to submit the final application to the board for approval in March.
The board then addressed the public hearing continuation of the increase in licensing fees for alcohol and car dealerships to be in line with other local communities.
At their initial meeting in 2019 and their meeting in 2020, Mailler said they decided to continue it to 2021. In 2021 they decided to continue in 2022 with the suggestion to implement it in 2023.
Board member Stanley McCoy asked what the drive was behind the increase in fees was and Maialler explained, “We are the lowest fees in Massachusetts. So, this has to be in line with other cities and towns for revenue.” She said as of 2019, “We were some of the lowest fees in Massachusetts based on population. We are roughly $500 or lower than all surrounding cities and towns for liquor licenses and after doing research, “I don’t think it’s a good idea to go much further than a 10 percent increase at this time.”
McCoy responded, “I’m hesitant to increase anyone’s fees during a pandemic, popping up right now. I don’t see the point.”
The board also discussed the possibility of raising the licensing fees “across the board” except for breweries. However, they were unable to reach an agreement, and McCoy suggested to “table this for another year,” and Richey added that she thought they could bring it back up in November.
Commenting on the proposal was Easthampton resident Donna Cuipylo who said, “One of the things I was interested in was a wine license. So, I would object to any increase in fees.”
After her comments, the board made a motion to table the review of the licensing increase fee until November.
Sunset Motors owner Michael Peters also appeared before the Licensing Board, seeking a new Class II car dealership license, but there was a delay in getting his application on time for renewal. He said he missed the deadline because of some recent health issues. However, he stated that he is seeking renewal of his application and plans to continue buying and selling cars as they have done for 45 years.
The board said they read through the application and said “everything looked fine” except the copy wasn’t signed by Peters, and he agreed to get that taken care of immediately. From there, the board made a motion to approve a Class II dealership license for Sunset Motors.