Government

Point Beach Council Votes Down Early Bar Closing Ordinance

The council votes Tuesday night to undo the early bar closing ordinance passed in 2012

By Denise Di Stephan
Email the author
February 19, 2013

16 Comments

‹ Back to Article

new

Embed | Share

Jenkinson's, Point Pleasant Beach

Photos (1)

Photos

Credit Denise Di Stephan

Upload Photos and Videos

The Point Beach Council voted unanimously on Tuesday night to undo an early bar closing ordinance passed last year.

The vote during the council meeting at Borough Hall was adoption of an ordinance to repeal an ordinance adopted last year to require all bars and restaurants in Point Beach to stop serving alcohol by midnight.

Last year's ordinance rolling back the "last call" to midnight never went into effect because the state Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control issued a stay.

Regarding last year's early bar closing ordinance, Mayor Vincent Barrella said on Tuesday night, "When this was adopted last year, it was a lawful ordinance. I wish the state would show as much interest in us with Sandy as with things they shouldn't stick their nose into."

The ordinance adopted Tuesday night maintains the status quo of allowing the sale of alcohol except between the hours of 2 and 6 a.m. Council members who had supported the midnight "last call" had a change of heart in December, when Jenkinson's Boardwalk and the town came to an agreement that led to council agreeing to repeal last year's ordinance.

The agreement calls for Jenkinson's to drop all legal action against the early bar closing ordinance and against a parking plan that restricted overnight parking in District 4; for Jenkinson's to help pay for Sandy-related boardwalk repairs not covered by insurance or FEMA reimbursement; and for the town to repeal the early bar closing ordinance and to keep any revisions to last year's District 4 parking plan within certain boundaries.

Regarding the proposed parking plan for this summer, Councilman Andy Cortes said at the Feb. 5 meeting that he has concerns about the parking plan being expanded into District 3, which is a proposal favored by some council members.

Cortes said he had received a list of 97 local properties in District 3, found phone numbers for 60 of them and left messages on 24 numbers. He ultimately spoke to 19 residents in District 3. Five were for the parking plan, 10 were against it, four were undecided.

He said that regardless of what people's opinions were, all of them appreciated that one of the council members had called them to ask for their input.

"People said thanks for calling," he said.

He said he would rather see the parking plan kept the same as last year, with the possible exception of excluding Channel Drive.

"If it's the same as last year, it will be easier for people to remember," Cortes said.

Cortes had originally been against the parking plan, but then he and his running mate, Councilman Stephen Reid, had said during the campaign before the November general election that they had heard some good feedback from residents and might be in favor of it.

At the last council meeting when this was discussed, Reid said he could go along with a parking plan like last year's which was only in place in District 4, but that he did not favor expanding it into part of District 3.

Council members Kristine Tooker, Bret Gordon and Michael Corbally said they were in favor of expanding the parking plan into a section of District 3, but also agreed to make the restricted time period shorter. (For more details about the proposed parking plan for this summer, click here.)

A public hearing and adoption for the revised parking plan for this summer is scheduled for March 5.

Barrella has said he hopes Martell's Seabreeze/Tiki Bar will consider joining with Jenkinson's in dropping all litigation against the parking plan. An attorney for Martell's has said the lawsuit won't be dropped and Ed Brannagan, Martell's assistant general manager, said in a recent interview, "The parking plan killed our business."

Related Topics: 2 a.m., Bars, Council, Early Closing, Government, Mayor, Point Beach, Point Pleasant Beach, Vote, and midnight

Thanks. We'll email you the next time we update this story.

BEACH TAXPAYER

8:05 am on Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Once again Barrella can not keep his yapper shut and take the high road. He could not control himself and not take a shot at the state officials. And people wonder why this town is so divided? Vinny do us all a favor and sit there and breaks ties and keep your mouth shut.

Nick Carraway

8:30 am on Wednesday, February 20, 2013

I just read an article in the APP this morning about law suit that was filed by the former Saw Mill owner against Seaside Park. It seems like Seaside Park decided to use its authority to limit the business of the Saw Mill because it didn't like the clientele that the Saw Mill was attracting. Seaside Park decided to close the Saw Mill at midnight, too. The former owner of Seaside Park got $2.5 million as a result of the law suit. It looks like PPB may have really dodged a bullet by finally repealing their early bar closing ordinance.

Nick Carraway

8:35 am on Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Sorry. The above post should read "The former owner of the Saw Mill" (not Seaside Park)

A Resident

8:47 am on Thursday, February 21, 2013

I read that article as well. But I really believe there was a much better case on the Saw Mill's side than anything going on here in the Beach.

Spooner

12:13 pm on Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Nick Carraway: Pt Beach has left many marks on case law books regarding liquor rulings(Martells and A&P), the two most often cited cases...including the ABC Commissioners stay on the recent bar closing: citing The Great A&P Tea Company vs. Point Pleasant Beach.

Barrella Must Go

1:16 pm on Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Hey, does anyone know what Dave Cavagnaro's wise words of wisdom were for the Mayor and Council last night on this vote? I would imagine that he stood up as he always does, and asked the M&C NOT to vote down the early bar closing ordinance, right? After all, it WOULD be considered a "bribe" to drop the bar closing ordinance in exchange for $1 million, wouldn't it? That is....according to Mr. Cavagnaro's previous oral arguments and rants, right? Just sayin'. If anyone knows Mr. C's position would you please post. Thanks.

SoylentGreen

12:30 am on Thursday, February 21, 2013

Using the caps lock does not add any value to your comment.

Bonzo

9:59 am on Thursday, February 21, 2013

So happy he cracked open a cold one. Likes it in the can.

BIG MIKE

3:33 pm on Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Miss DiStephan

Thanks for the information but don't you think a more important issue is the fact a majority of this council voted to hire another full time police officer and gave Bob Dikun a promotion and raise to captain. These two actions costs the taxpayers about $100,000 when the dust settles factoring in salary, pension, health care, and longevity. All this while many of our residents can't afford to live in their homes anymore. Would you please write an article about this?

SoylentGreen

12:25 am on Thursday, February 21, 2013

Realistic number? Is that based on your expert opinion? And the new police officer will be for the schools. Are you really opposed to that? I'm sure some of the parents would have a different opinion.

A Resident

8:46 am on Thursday, February 21, 2013

The number of PPB police officers is still below what the state DCA report says should be on the force.

Nick Carraway

8:36 am on Thursday, February 21, 2013

SoylentGreen, you mention that the new police officer is supposed to be for the schools. Is there anything that guarantees that? In the past, the schools had a designated SRO because the position was funded by a grant. The grant guaranteed that the police officer would be assigned to perform certain duties within the school. Is this new police officer's salary also being funded by a State or Federal grant. I know there isn't an article on the police decisions yet, so maybe there will be one that will clear up some of these issues.

randi

10:26 am on Thursday, February 21, 2013

Police and Fire retirement is a bit tricky and not as simple as other public employees. Here are the highlights--MUST enroll before age 35. MAY retire after 20 years regardless of age. MUST retire at age 65 or, CAN work until age 68 if hired before 1987. Max payout is 70%. Highest average 3 years sets the table. Please note I never use the word "Shall."

Smitty

10:10 pm on Saturday, February 23, 2013

We don't need police in the schools...just another way to squeeze the residents out of money.

BIG MIKE

1:02 pm on Thursday, February 21, 2013

Soylent Green

Since you sound like your part of the pd and have "expert opinion " on what the new officer's placement will be then tell me this. Why do you think the parents won't mind? Why do we need an officer in the school? I know what your answer will be but I just want it in writing first so I can rebut after that.