A constituent comments on the Committee of Adjustment application by the Salsateria for a new Downtown location:
Dear Committee of Adjustment:
In light of the recommendations coming from Zoning and Planning, I would
like to submit the following in addition to my previous submission with regard to the Application # A-37/07 (the Salsateria)First of all, Zoning Services suggests that the Adjustment include a clause that would have alcohol sales stop at 1:00 AM. My understanding is that if the alcohol stops being sold at 1:00am, the patrons are allowed to stay until 2:00am. So I would like to point out to the committee that this means that this “restaurant” will be closing at 2:00am. Respectfully, I would suggest to the Committee members that they should ask that the establishment stop serving alcohol at midnight, which means that the patrons will have to leave at 1:00am.
All through the community debate about this application there has been a great deal of ambiguity about whether or not the proposed establishment will be a “restaurant” or a “nightclub/bar”. (Indeed, I have met members of the community who were very vociferous in their support of the Salsateria until it was pointed out to them that what was proposed was a bar, and not a restaurant. At that point, some became just as vociferous in their opposition.) I would respectfully submit the issue of the Adjustment should hinge on this issue and this issue alone. By way of background, I would submit that there are already far too many bars downtown. So if the Salsateria is to be a “bar”, then the burden seems to be on the owners to prove that it will not damage the downtown by adding to an already massive over-capacity.
If the establishment is to be a bar, then the simple laws of the marketplace dictate that the duty of the owners is to sell as much alcohol as possible, simply because that is how they are to make money. Moreover, as one of the owners explained to me, he seeks to create a venue where local bands will be able to play—in his words “like the Bamboo Club in Toronto”. Pardon me if this sounds remarkably like the sort of bars that Guelph already has in heaping over-abundance, like the Palace and Van Gogh’s Ear. To be punk and plain, I simply do not believe that any “bar” that is serving alcohol until 1:00am is going to not add to the existing problems downtown. The owners and their
supporters may disagree, but I would suggest that their objectivity is clouded by the former’s involvement and the friendship of the latter with the former.In contrast, I have also heard another story, namely that the proposed
establishment will be a “fine restaurant aimed at an older clientel”. If so, it strikes me that it would be the sort of place where the patrons would be long gone by 1:00am anyway. (After all, who goes out for a fine meal after 9:00pm at the latest? Are we talking about another “restaurant” where people eat chips while they guzzle beer?) Even if it is really a bar aimed at an older clientel, then I suspect that the crowd will be thinning by 1:00 am anyway. (Please remember that generations of English people became hopeless alcoholics when the pubs closed at 11:00pm and all the bars in Ontario had to stop serving alcohol at 1:00am until the recent “reform” by Mike Harris!)Now my understanding is that the definition of “restaurant” in Guelph comes down to it not serving alcohol after midnight. So the question for the Committee of Adjustment comes down to “Is the proposed establishment a bar or a restaurant?” I have no problem whatsoever with another restaurant being established at the area in question. (I would probably frequent it.)
Moreover, I would have no problem with the establishment of another bar
if it could be proved that it would not add to the number of bar stools downtown. I don’t know if the city has thought of doing this, but I would suggest that if the owners could somehow get the 190 bar stools they want to create out of the downtown somewhere else, then I would have no problem with them operating as a full-blown nightclub/bar.
Perhaps the city could create a system of “easements” the same way that
conservation easements are created to stop the destruction of natural areas. The idea is that some other landlord would sell-off the ability to have a bar in their building and write it into the lease. (This might be a way that the planning department could lower the number of bar stools downtown. They could progressively buy-off the excess seating capacity as individual bars change hands and refuse new bars licenses unless they are willing to buy easements from existing facilities. The city might be able to achieve some of this at relatively low cost by “greasing the wheels” for a bar to move somewhere else in the city away from the downtown.)So, my “wish list” would be the following:
Accept the zoning and planning recommendations with the following changes [namely: a restriction in the hours that alcohol is served, that the variance apply to the Salsateria only and not any possible future establishments, that the facility be limited to 190 bar stools, and that there be a 3 year “sunset clause” on the variance at which time the business will have to prove to the Committee that their business has been an asset to the community and not a liability. This was not in the original letter, but adds useful information for readers. WDH]
a: take the Salsateria on it’s word that it wants to open a restaurant for older clientel and cut off the alcohol at midnight.
b: if the Salsateria wishes to change from a restaurant to a nightclub, ask them to prove to the Committee that they have cut down the same number of bar stools somewhere else downtown and have therefore not added to the already far too many downtown. Indeed, write this into the variance and let them have it “in hand” for when they are able to meet this requirement. BH