Moorestown restaurant denounces liquor restriction

The owners of an Italian eatery near Moorestown Mall are boiling mad over their inability to bid on a liquor license for immediate use in the formerly dry township.

Ending a nearly century-old tradition, the Moorestown Township Council expects to auction its first licenses next month, after voters approved the sale of alcohol in the mall's restaurants.

The owners of Al Dente, in a shopping center next door, could purchase a license for possible future use, but that would require a loosening of sales restrictions. And that, they say, is unfair.

The town is "going to give the mall restaurants an unfair edge, rather than have a level playing field between all the restaurants in a similar zone and in the same area," said Mitchell T. Grayson, Al Dente's lawyer. The dining establishment is "literally across the street," on Nixon Drive in the section of East Gate Shopping Center that is in Moorestown, he said.

Townsfolk, who did not want to change the small-town flavor of Main Street, resoundingly approved the sale of alcohol through November ballot questions that effectively limited those sales to the full-service restaurants expected to open at Moorestown Mall.

Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust, which owns the mall, proposed the two questions: one to allow liquor sales, and the other to restrict the licenses to restaurants at "an indoor shopping mall." There is only one indoor mall in the township.

Joseph Coradino, CEO of PREIT, promised the company would pay Moorestown $1 million each for four licenses. PREIT said Philadelphia chef Marc Vetri had expressed interest in opening a restaurant at the mall if liquor could be served. Since then, PREIT has said other restaurant contracts are in the works.

"It's financially important for that shopping center to survive," Mayor John Button said. PREIT had argued that liquor licenses would attract diners, who in turn would likely visit stores. The mall is the town's largest taxpayer.

The auction is planned for next month, according to Button. The council has not decided on a minimum bid or the number of licenses it will sell, he said.

Under state regulations, which take into account a municipality's population, Moorestown is eligible to sell six liquor licenses.

Grayson said Al Dente may bid on a license. He wrote a letter to the town in August warning that "any attempt to limit the availability of liquor licenses exclusively to full-service restaurants located at the Moorestown Mall, would be invalid and subject to challenge."

Al Dente is a casual, 150-seat restaurant that opened two years ago as a BYOB. Jeff Smith, an owner, did not return calls for comment.

The Township Council cannot undo the wording of the referendum questions, Button said. "We are prepared to go forward in carrying out the will of the people," he said.

The petitioners who requested the referendum were the ones who decided to limit the licenses to a particular location, according to the town's solicitor, Thomas J. Coleman. The results of the vote are binding, he said.

Coleman said that the council must abide by the restrictions for at least three years. After that, it is free to pass an ordinance allowing liquor sales elsewhere.

"I would not be surprised, if we auction off six [licenses], that people other than the mall might buy some of them, and hold them for a later date in the hope that a future council will change the law," Coleman said.

At a council meeting on Monday, Jeffrey R. Johnson, East Gate's lawyer, also objected to the exclusivity given to the mall. He said East Gate's corporate owner would like the opportunity to obtain a liquor license so that it could lure another restaurant tenant. Bertucci's and Don Pablo's, in the section of the shopping center that is in Mount Laurel, have licenses.

"It's a fundamental fairness question," Johnson said. He accused the township of "spot zoning."

The issue is yet another legal issue to arise since Moorestown decided to change its status to wet.

William E. Cox, a Philadelphia lawyer and Moorestown resident, unsuccessfully sued the town in September, saying the referendum was improper because voters had rejected a similar question in 2007. State regulations call for a five-year wait, but the town lawyers argued that the new wording was different.