12-13-76 Council Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

z. REGULAR MFETTNG DECEMBER 13, 1976 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING (CONTINUED) He said that after considerable discussion it was thought by the Council that there were so many needed amendments and revisions that a new ordinance should be filed. He said it takes time to draft good legislation and he commended the Council for their work, as well as the work of the Council's attorney. Ms. Kathy Cekanski, attorney for the Council, highlighted the difference between the two ordinances. She said the original ordinance indicated the "Recognized School" would require 200 hours in not less than three months for certification, while this proposed ordinance would require 1000 hours in not less than six months for certification. She said the original ordinance required a $100 fee to be submitted with the application and $50 refund if the license was not issued, while this required the $100 fee at the time of issuance of the license. She said the original ordinance indicated the license would be issued by the Board of Public Safety, while this one would have the City Controller issue the license upon the recom- mendation of the Board of Public Works, after publication and a public hearing. She said there was an appeal process incorporated in this ordinance. She indicated this proposed ordinance would require compliance with Chapter 21 of the Municipal Code in regard to zoning. She said the original ordinance indicated the hours of operation as 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., while this propose ordinance was 7a.m. to midnight. Mr. Dave Bjoraas, Dave's Gym and Health Center, indicated his establishment had been offering massage for fifteen years. He said now they were being penalize for the sex parlors. He wanted to know if he was going to be classified as a massage parlor and be charged $100, and would he be exempt on the hours of training since he has six years experien E but did not go to a school. Ms. Cekanski indicated there was a grandfather clause in the ordi- nance so he would be exempt from the hours of training. Mr. Bjoraas indicated he thought the ordinance was a good thing, but it did not protect people in his category. He said he would lik to have it clarified, and that the ordinance did not go-far enough. Council President Parent indicated the thrust of the ordinance is to protect the legitimate businesses. He explained the grandfather clause, and asked the Council attorney to explain this matter to Mr. Bjoraas. Ms. Cekanski indicated that Mr. Bjoraas would have to fill out an application, but he would be exempt from the education section as long as they have been carrying on for a period of three years. Mr. Brunner, City Attorney, indicated that the $100 fee was for research and investigation. Mr. Bjoraas, indicated he did not understand why he would be penalized by the $100 license fee. He said there should be a distinction between a gym and a massage parlor. Council Member Horvath attempted to explain to Mr. Bjoraas why the fee was necessary. Rev. Keith Bennett, Pastor of the First Brethren Church, commended the mayor and the Council for the action in regard to the massage parlor ordinance, as well as the adult book store ordinance. He said there had been deterioration in the southeast side since these establishments have come into that area. He sai they were in support of the Council's efforts. Mr. Richard Ludwick, President of PANA, spoke against the uncontrolled massage parlors due to the affect it would have on any neighborhood. He said PANA favored passage of this ordinance. Mrs. Louvenia Cain, 1207 W. Washington, said consideration should be given to this ordinance. Council Member Taylor indicated to Mr. Bjoraas that he thought this ordinance was set up to protect him. He said if this business was left out of the ordinance, the Council would be creating an obvious loophole. He said the fee was a relative small price to pay for the protection of legitimate businesses. Council Member Adams asked the fee for a pool hall license. Mr. Mullen indicated it was $20 per hall, per table. She indicated this would cause a hardship for certain legitimate business. She asked Ms. Cekans i if there would be any problem in amending the fee to $25 per establishment and $25 per technicia . Ms. Cekanski indicated that they have tried to professionalize activities such as this and she did not think a fee of $100 was prohibitive. Council Member Adams made a motion to change the fee for the proprietor of the establishment to $50 and a technician to $25. Council Member Kopczynski indicated he felt the license should be issued for the life of the business, and it should not be renewable every year. He said he did not think it was necessary to investigate these parlors every year. He said he thought legitimate business should be protected, and that he could not second the motion because it did not go far enough. Council President Parent in- dicated that the proposed ordinance addressed itself to protecting the legitimate massage parlors. He made a motion to reduce the fee from $100 to $50 for the license, seconded by Council Member Miller. Council Member Szymkowiak indicated that Dave's gym was an asset to the Community. Council Member Dombrowski called for the question. Council Member Adams asked Council President Parent if he would consider withdrawing his motion and amend the ordinance on page 4 under License Fee to read, the initial fee for an annual license to operate a massage establishment shall be $50 payable to the City Controller, at the time of issuance of said license, and the renewal shall be $10; on page 6, under Permit fee for the technician, the initial fee be changed to $50 and renewal be changed to $10. She said this would take care of the problem. Council President Parent indicated he did not want to change this amendment. The motion carried. Council Member Adams made a motion to amend the ordinance on page 4 to make an initial fee of $50 and renewal of $10, and on page 6, the fee for a technician be changed to $25 and $10 renewal, seconded by Council Member Kopczynski. The motion failed on a roll call vote of four ayes (Council Members Szymkowiak, Miller, Kopczynski and Adams) and five nays (Council Members Serge, Taylor, Dombrowski, Horvath and Parent). Council Member Taylor made a motion to recommend the ordinance to the Council favorably, as amended, seconded by Council Member Dombrowski. The motion carried, with Council Member Kopczynski opposing. ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE CITY CODE OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA, 1971, ALSO KNOWN AS ORDI- NANCE NO. 4990 -68, AS AMENDED, AND GENERALLY KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA. This being the time heretofore set for public hearing on the above ordinance, proponents and op- ponents were given an opportunity to be heard. Mr. Thomas Brunner, City Attorney, made the presentation for the ordinance. He said this ordinance was patterned after the ordinance passed in Detroit. He briefly described the Detroit ordinance, as opposed to the ordinance passed by Boston, and said he felt they had made the right choice by following the Detroit ordinance. He asked that the following amendments be made to the ordinance; in paragraph three change the word "fails" to "serves:; Section II, paragraph b should read as follows -In order to prevent the development of a blighted area, no building or premise may be used and no building may be erectec moved, structurally altered or enlarged, for any controlled use, if such building or premise is located within one thousand (1000) feet of any two (2) controlled uses, as such use is defined in Sections 21 -1 (15.1); Section II, paragraph (d) subparagraph (B) remove No. (1) and renumber remaining four.