 |
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
SPECIAL MEETING/LEINAD, INC.
JANUARY 14, 2014
PRESENT Chair Richard F. Kehoe, Vice Chair William P. Horan, Jr., Majority Leader Barbara-Ann Rossi, Minority Leader Esther B. Clarke, Councillors Marc I. Weinberg, Linda A. Russo, Ram Aberasturia, Patricia Harmon and Anita D. Morrison
ALSO Marcia A. Leclerc, Mayor
PRESENT Scott Chadwick, Corporation Counsel
Richard Gentile, Assistant Corporation Counsel
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Kehoe called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. He announced the exit locations in accordance with Connecticut General Statutes §29-381, after which the Council joined him in the pledge of allegiance.
Chair Kehoe explained that the Council had previously held a special meeting on January 6, 2014 to hear the appeal of Leinad, Inc. (d/b/a Kahoots) on a town decision relative to the application for the renewal of its permit under the town’s sexually oriented business ordinance. This meeting is held to render a decision on that appeal.
MOTION By Barbara Rossi
seconded by Anita Morrison
to adopt the following decision:
In the matter of Appeal of Leinad, Inc. d/b/a Kahoots’ from the Director of the Town of East Hartford Department of Inspections and Permits Return of its Application for Renewal of a Sexually Oriented Business License
Decision of the East Hartford Town Council
Draft
Procedure
Leinad, Inc. d/b/a Kahoots’ (“Leinad”) held a sexually oriented business license (the “License”) under Town of East Hartford Code of Ordinances sections 8-60 through 8-79, inclusive (the “Sexually Oriented Business Ordinances”). On November 22, 2013, Leinad filed an application to renew the License. On December 16, 2013, Milton Gregory Grew, the Director of the East Hartford Department of Inspections and Permits (“Town”) returned such application to Leinad indicating that the License had expired and that the renewal application had not been timely filed. Exhibit E. On December 19, 2013, Leinad filed an appeal of the Town’s action with the East Hartford Town Council. Exhibit F. On January, 6, 2014, the East Hartford Town
Council held a hearing on the appeal, at which time Leinad and the Town appeared and presented arguments and exhibits.
Findings of Fact
- Leinad held a License to operate a sexually oriented business at 639 Main Street, East Hartford, Connecticut, (the “Premises”). Exhibit C.
- By its Express terms, the License expired on October 7, 2013. Exhibit C.
- By admission of Leinad’s counsel, the sexually oriented business located at the Premises, and operated by Leinad, voluntarily ceased operations under the License on or before September 8, 2013.
- By admission of Leinad’s counsel, Leinad has not operated a sexually oriented business at the Premises since voluntarily ceasing operations as set forth in paragraph 3. above.
- Leinad submitted an application to the Town to renew its License on November 22, 2013. Exhibit D.
- The Sexually Oriented Business Ordinances, section 8-66, provides that a renewal application for a license to operate a sexually oriented business “shall be submitted to the Director of Inspections and Permits, or designate, at least thirty days before the expiration date of the license, but not more than ninety days.” Exhibit A.
- By admission of Leinad’s counsel, and based upon the facts set forth in paragraphs 2 and 5 above, Leinad did not file its renewal application within the specific time frames set out in the Sexually Oriented Business Ordinances.
Conclusions of Law and Discussion
The Sexually Oriented Business Ordinances establish a clear procedure for filing a renewal application for an existing license to operate a sexually oriented business. Exhibit A. Specifically, section 8-66, provides that any such renewal application shall be submitted “at least thirty days before the expiration date of the license, but not more than ninety days.” Exhibit A. Accordingly, under the plain language of the Sexually Oriented Business Ordinances, the renewal application for the License had to be submitted to the Town at least thirty days, but no more than ninety days, before October 7, 2013. The record clearly indicates that the application to renew the License was not submitted until November 22, 2013, which date was: (i) outside the time frame required under
section 8-66 of the Sexually Oriented Business Ordinances; and (ii) after the License had expired. Exhibit A, Exhibit C, Exhibit D and admission of Counsel for Leinad.
Counsel for Leinad argues that the provisions of a consent order issued on May 3, 2010 in the matter of Leinad, Inc. v. Town of East Hartford, Connecticut, Exhibit B, modifies the clear terms of the Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance, because the consent order provides that Leinad “shall be given thirty (30) days … to bring said application into compliance under section 8-65”. Exhibit B, Consent Order section 4(d). The renewal application in this appeal, however, was not denied for non-compliance with section 8-65. Instead, it was denied because it was not submitted in accordance with the specific submission time-frame set out in section 8-66 of the Sexually Oriented Business Ordinances. In fact, it was submitted weeks after the License expired. There is no way to file a timely
renewal application at this point unless there is an ability to rewind time.
Further, it is clear that section 4 of the Consent Order only serves to modify specific provisions of the Sexually Oriented Business Ordinances since the section begins with the statement “Except as set forth below, the Plaintiff, Leinad, shall be subject to the terms of the Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance.”Exhibit B. There is nothing in section 4 that modifies the renewal application provisions in section 8-66. In fact there is no mention of section 8-66 in section 4 of the Consent Order.
Finally, Leinad’s counsel makes a general argument that the spirit of the Consent Order and the Sexually Oriented Business Ordinances provide Leinad the ability to correct problems that are cited in a revocation of license or a denial of a license and, as such, similar flexibility should be granted to allow Leinad to correct its untimely renewal application.
As indicated above, the sections of the Consent Order referenced by Leinad’s counsel do not mention section 8-66. In addition, the plain language of section 8-66 does not contain the same language that appears in 8-65 (Licensing Procedure)or 8-67 (Suspension and Revocation) which language allows some limited flexibility to correct deficiencies We cannot add language to section 8-66, where none exists, simply because similar language appears in other sections of the Sexually Oriented Business Ordinances. We take note of State of Connecticut law regarding statutory construction which requires reliance on the text of the statute – “The meaning of a statute shall, in the first instance, be ascertained from the text of the statute itself and its relationship to other
statutes,” Conn. Gen. Stat. section 1-2z.
An interpretation of the plain and unambiguous language of 8-66 of the Sexually Oriented Business Ordinances which requires a specific time period to file a renewal, to include an unstated ability to file a ‘do-over’ application weeks after the License expired, is not consistent with the “Plain Meaning Rule” set out in Conn. Gen. Stat. section 1-2z.
If a Connecticut Court would not add language to a plain and unambiguous statute, this Town Council cannot add language to a plain and unambiguous ordinance.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the East Hartford Town Council holds that the action of the Director of Inspections and Permits denying Leinad’s application for renewal of its License because it was not timely filed is affirmed. Leinad’s appeal is dismissed.
MOTION By Linda Russo
seconded by Bill Horan
to amend the motion as follows:
For the reasons stated above, the East Hartford Town Council holds that the action of the Director of Inspections and Permits denying Leinad’s application for renewal of its License because it was not timely filed is sustained affirmed. Leinad’s appeal is dismissed.
Motion carried 9/0.
On call of the vote of the amended motion, motion carried 9/0.
Chair Kehoe thanked both Counsels – Scott Chadwick and Daniel Silver – for their professionalism in this matter. He also recognized the efforts of Rich Gentile, Assistant Corporation Counsel, for his guidance in this process.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION By Esther Clarke
seconded by Bill Horan
to adjourn (7:20 p.m.)
Motion carried 9/0.
Attest____________________________
Angela M. Attenello
Town Council Clerk
| |
