henry senyak: great explanation of "live entertainment " cleveland ordinance

Mr. DiCosimo, do you recognize and understand in is not permitted and currently unlawful to have any live entertainment within 95% of the City of Cleveland without getting a zoning variance?

Unless

Your at least in a general retail district or less restrictive industrial district and not within 500ft. of a residential district, church, school, similar use, etc. That's why at this point interested parties that achieved compliance had to go to the Zoning Board to get a variance to become legal.

Yes even unfortunately playing a piano or a cello at the Velvet Tango Room is unlawful. This is why there was broad based consensus on the appeal to allow any retail business to be allowed acoustical performances to resolve at least 75% of the non-compliance factors in the City with especially restaurants.

It needs to refer to a zoning variance number or state "live entertainment" printed on a Certificate of Occupancy that is current for the specific establishment.

Unfortunately many establishments don't have a Certificate of Occupancy, because they were permitted prior to 1988 as a restaurant and bar. The City has to make you request a new expansion of use application to add live entertainment, this triggers a real mess. Including in some instances triggering the operator to spend 10's of thousands on fire systems and sprinklers and of course the Zoning appeal process.

We spent years, I think once the hype is over, and a paragraph by paragraph explanation is understood many will understand this legalizes many venues to operate at. Unless the musicians and operators comes to grips with understanding the current existing very outdated code you will not understand the new code.

Review this link on what happens in Philadelphia. Matter of fact most cities would shut a operator down if they did not have a legal use or correct permits and licenses. The Cleveland police have the actual authority under both local and state liquor laws to do the same. No one wants this, I certainly don't. Less than 5% of the operators really are nuisances. But the expert attorney's in Cleveland get citations and violations tossed out. That why the law has to be equal, and unfortunately every establishment bothersome or not has to be legally compliant. The City becomes negligent to allow a non-compliant entertainment venue to stay in operation because it opens themselves to be added to legal action in case of a catastrophic event like Rhode Island's station Nightclub fire.

One such establishment has threatened legal action in Federal Court because, against the City and Councilman Cimperman and a local CDC stating the City selectively inspects their establishment. They have claimed to have videotaped inside many locations especially in Detroit Shoreway that they claim to be operating illegally with bands and DJ's. They also stated they have public records to back up the claim. Many CDC's like in Tremont and Ohio City are assisting businesses navigate the legal process and even had me assist. I had informed Councilman Zone close to two years ago about some places on Detroit and I offered to help make sure they are right. Just because someone has a Dance Hall bi-annual license/permit does not mean they are legally permitted via the current zoning regulations.

Also review the following about nightclub fire safety based on NIST in 2007 well after the Rhode Island Fire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Station_nightclub_fire [2]

One problem here is the politicians and bureaucrats will tell everyone yes, that's why there is now confusion.

I bet if the City hired professional consultants the law may read aesthetically cleaner but it would even be harsher on code compliance especially with life safety matters for business operations.

http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&btnG=Google+Search#hl=en&cp=9&gs_id=10&xhr=t&q=station+nightclub+fire&pf=p&sclient=psyab&site=webhp&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=station+n&aq=0&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=5880ab37c3379f66&biw=1253&bih=658 [3]

 

In a message dated 10/6/2011 5:34:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, HSENYAK [at] aol [dot] com writes:

With respect

Henry P. Senyak