Allegations of ‘selectively enforcing? village ordinances surface

Ortonville- The owners of the Village Pub added a new deck/patio to their business last year. But the move has drawn controversy and accusations that the village council is ‘selectively enforcing? ordinances.
The Pub, 411 Mill St., was granted a building permit for the project under the agreement it would be for ‘occasional use only.? However, after owners Amy Guirey and Perry Rouse opened the deck nightly during warmer weather, the question became, ‘what is occasional use??
The village council had hoped Guirey and Rouse would apply for a variance, but the pair is concerned they would lose their grandfather clause, which allows them, as a regulated business, to be within a certain distance of a park. The Pub is adjacent to Crossman Park.
The grandfather clause does not permit them to expand their business, and the deck can be considered an expansion since it is likely exceeding ‘occasional use.?
‘The Pub cannot lose their existing legal non-conforming status,? says Building Director Tim Palulian. ‘But what they need to do is request a variance to be in compliance.They do not have a legal non-conforming status as far as outdoor serving. That outdoor serving as applied today is illegal.?
At the Jan. 28 council meeting, Councilmember Mary Kassuba requested an update on the Pub and what action the council was taking. Council President Ken Quisenberry said that the village attorney said the village would likely be successful in taking the matter to court over the definition of ‘occasional use,? however, it would cost a great amount of money and the possibility of defeat remained.
‘I believe we should not pursue it at this time,? Quisenberry said during the meeting. ‘We can always come back to it.?
Kassuba asked, ‘What do we do when the next business violates our ordinance? Are we selectively enforcing ordinances??
Quisenberry responded they would look at each business on a case-by-case basis and if she wanted to call it selective enforcement, he was fine with that.
‘The lawsuit boils down to occasional use,? he said. ‘No one has been on the deck since Septemberfest, and no one will likely be on it again until CreekFest. That qualifies for occasional use. It’s not worth it to spend potentially $50,000 in court…?
Kassuba said that by taking no action, the council is condoning the violation of an ordinance and the right thing to do would be to pursue getting them in compliance.
Quisenberry said the issue has been tabled indefinitely until they decide to pursue it.Guirey and Rouse had no comment at this time.

Comments are closed.