image description
The Licensing Board declined to take action against a Pittsfield bar for incidents that occurred in January.

Pittsfield Licensing Board: Thistle & Mirth Responded Appropriately to January Fight

By Brittany PolitoiBerkshires Staff
Print Story | Email Story

PITTSFIELD, Mass. — The Licensing Board has decided that a popular bar's response to a fight that resulted in injury was appropriate and does not warrant a suspension.

On Monday, the panel filed a show cause hearing for Thistle and Mirth's liquor license related to two disturbances that occurred on Jan. 7 and Jan. 13. It had been continued from February because of the board's objection to the heavily redacted police report.

The first incident was an argument that took place outside of the West Street restaurant and the second, which prompted a referral to the Licensing Board, involved a stabbing and a window being broken.

"The Jan. 7 incident was only brought forward as a possible pattern because the next incident happened a week later," Police Capt. Gary Traversa said.

It was concluded that the fight was not a result of overserving or overcapacity and that staff responded appropriately by calling the police and clearing the bar.

Shortly after 10:30 p.m. on Jan. 13, multiple officers were dispatched for a reported large fight inside of the bar. Upon arrival, staff was working to clear the venue after calling 911.

Through the redacted report, Chair Thomas Campoli observed that someone appeared to have suffered an abdominal injury from being stabbed with a knife. Traversa confirmed this, disclosing that the person received medical attention for it.

There are no criminal charges, as the victim could not provide usable information.

The fight was captured on video that was posted to social media as well as on surveillance footage from security cameras.

Campoli said the footage showed a "major altercation in the true sense of the word."

"There was a guy that was in a hoodie, hooded sweat shirt-type thing and I think some kind of work boots on and he was being very aggressive, punching people, and then there appeared to be some other punching and fighting going on in the bar," he said.

"So it wasn't just the two guys arguing about something."

Co-owners Joad Bowman and Austin Oliver reported that a group came in together and started the altercation shortly after arriving.

"I talked with a bunch of people. I wasn't there at the time but I watched the video within an hour and my understanding is there were a group of five or six or seven individuals who came in at the same time and those are the ones that, within 10 minutes of entering, started a fight," Bowman explained.


"It seemed like they came in in order to fight."

It was understood that the bar's window was broken from the outside because a person was angry about being thrown out after the fight. The individual is believed to be a person in the fighting group.

"I think what's significant here, at least in part, is that the issue wasn't that they were overserved. This wasn't a situation where people weren't hanging out at Thistle and Mirth drinking, were served too much to drink, and became aggressive," attorney Ethan Klepetar said.

"There was a number of people who came into the bar, do not drink or had very little to drink apparently with intent to start a fight, and as soon as that fight was started, the bartender Zachary Morris called the police and kicked them out."

The bar has security at the door, which has been increased, and surveillance monitoring. The owners also alarmed the back door so that customers cannot let other people in.

He pointed out that there have been no other incidents like this since Jan. 13 and said Thistle and Mirth has not been constantly coming before the board since opening 12 years ago.

"There is not a pattern and the reason there's not a pattern is because they take it really seriously," Klepetar urged.

"They know when you're serving alcohol that issues can happen. It can happen anywhere. It can certainly happen in Pittsfield and they take it very seriously. They took these incidents very seriously."

Board member Richard Stockwell proposed issuing a three-day suspension that will only go into effect if there is another incident in six months as an "insurance policy."

"It will keep management and employees on their toes," he said.

This was not supported by his colleagues. It was argued that the incident was not related to typical licensing issues such as overserving or overcapacity.

"I really think that you're doing your due diligence, keeping your establishments safe for those that want to go in and when they go in they're as safe as they can be," board member Kathy Amuso said.

Board member Dennis Powell pointed to the bar's consistent communication with the police, which was confirmed by Traversa.

"To me, I don't think it warrants any kind of suspension," he said. "Yeah, I realize something happened, someone was injured but it wasn't because of management, wasn't because they didn't have procedures in place."


Tags: license board,   

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Lanesborough Planning Deliberates Sign & STR Bylaws

By Breanna SteeleiBerkshires Staff

LANESBOROUGH, Mass. — The Planning Board is a step closer to finishing draft bylaws for short-term rentals (STR) and signage to be voted at the annual town meeting.

The planners took up the bylaws  after contentious interpretations by the town of the existing signage bylaw and over the lack of STR regulations. 

They started work on the drafts in February but some elements were tabled for this month's meeting, held last week. 

They first rewrote the parking at a rental to three or more rooms must have three spaces and two or fewer rooms having two spots.

The board debated on the definition section, which was tabled last month. After some deliberation, members decided to remove a requirement for all short-term rentals to prominently display signage containing the owners' name, property address, 24-hour contact information for the property manager, and legal occupancy limit of the building.

Member Joe Trybus argued that the enforcer, Building Commissioner Brian Duval, should be the contact and that owners shouldn't have their information out there for anyone to contact.

They also discussed the registration and inspection sections, rewording and adding some language to state: All operators of short-term rentals shall register with the town clerk, who shall maintain a registry of all approved STRs in the town of Lanesborough, and may set reasonable fees for maintenance of registry applications for registrations shall include the following, owner name and property address, local property management and contact information, copy of currently valid STR certificate of registration with Massachusetts Department of Revenue, copy of current valid certificate of inspection from the building commissioner.

Chair Courtney Dondi said she agreed the town should be the one to decide on the fees.

The members debated how they should write the ownership and entity limits. Trybus argued that non-owner occupied buildings would be limited to one STR in a residential zone while Leanne Yinger thought it should be based on units, not the building.

The board determined an owner-occupied property in a residential zone could rent all units on that property short-term, though there were  couple no votes on this.

It also finished the purpose and intent section stating: This section regulates short-term rentals, STRs of residential properties in a way that clarifies where these uses are allowed in Lanesborough and regulates them in a manner that retains the character and safety of neighborhoods and the community while preserving an important resource for the local tourism dependent business community. 

Members plan to review these new changes with the expectation of finalizing them on April 13.

The board had also discussed signage bylaws at the last meeting and completed language on the sizes and limits.

There will be one banner per business that must be attached to the building. The total banner area must not exceed 25 percent of the street-facing façade. 

Open, closed, and  menu signs will be explicitly allowed as part of normal business signage and businesses can only have one sandwich board (A-frame) sign. These will be a max of 36 inches high and a max 12 square foot of the total area.

One feather flag would be allowed per business with a maximum size of 12-feet high and 3-feet wide. Inflatable tube men will not be allowed.

View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories