WESTBROOK – The conflict between Westbrook and the owners of a new strip club intensified Wednesday when the lawyer for the club filed a lawsuit against the city.

The suit came just two days after the City Council’s Committee of the Whole began discussions on a proposed ordinance that would restrict nude dancing establishments in the city. The ordinance is in response to the opening of Dreamers Cabaret, the strip club that was closed a day after it opened, with the city citing code violations as the reason for the shutdown.

Thomas Hallett, the lawyer for Dreamers Cabaret, has intimated that there are more than code violations behind the city’s shutdown of the club. The suit he filed Wednesday, which also names Fire Inspector Charles Jarrett, asks the court to order the city to restore the club’s operating permit, allowing the business to reopen – “basically, putting them back in the status quo,” he said.

The lawsuit also seeks damages against the city, but Hallett declined to name a specific amount, saying only the amount was to be determined.

“When you shut down a club like this, it loses money,” Hallett said, explaining the decision to seek damages in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit is the latest response by Hallett to the city’s actions against the club. Last Thursday, he held a press conference  in which he accused the city of “bureaucratic harassment.” Hallett, standing in front of 84B Warren Ave., where the club opened on Sept. 17, contends the city granted the club legal permission to operate and is now using pretexts to stop it from doing so.

The city shut the club down on Sept. 18, citing code violations. But Hallett claimed the city used “pretextual reasons” to close the business because it belatedly realized it didn’t have any ordinance regulating nude dancing in the city.

At a hastily called meeting on Sept. 22, the City Council initiated the process of creating a nude entertainment ordinance for Westbrook and forwarded the ordinance, which is based on a similar ordinance from the city of Bangor, to the Committee of the Whole, which is made up of all seven city council members, for review.

Councilor John O’Hara, chairman of the Committee of the Whole, said after the meeting on Monday that as long as the club complied with the city’s ordinances, nothing would stop the club from opening in Westbrook.

“If they comply, I see no reason not to welcome them into town,” O’Hara said. “They have done their due diligence like  any other business would, and at that point in time, they are part of the Westbrook community.”

No members of the public spoke at the meeting on Monday, and when Mayor Colleen Hilton asked if there was anybody in the room representing the club, none of the four members of the public in attendance stepped forward.

Hallett said the fact that no one stepped forward to discuss the proposed ordinance or speak against the club operating in Westbrook at the committee meeting indicates to him that the people in Westbrook “are not concerned about this (club operating in the city).”

The committee took no action on the proposed ordinance Monday night, electing to hold the item for further discussion before referring the ordinance to the full council for action.

The ordinance, if passed by the council, would put limitations on nude entertainment businesses, such as limiting them to the industrial zone, banning alcohol from such establishments and requiring dancers to cover their genitals.

Westbrook City Attorney Bill Dale told the committee on Monday that an ordinance that bans nude dancing outright would likely be overturned in court because nude dancing is protected as part of  free speech rights under the First Amendment.

“This is not a prohibition on (nude dancing),” Dale said. “This is a regulation.”

Instead of banning nude dancing, Dale said, the ordinance will seek to regulate it in Westbrook. He said he used the Bangor ordinance as a model  for Westbrook’s because the Bangor ordinance has already been upheld in the Maine Supreme Court.

O’Hara agreed with the use of the Bangor ordinance as a model for Westbrook’s, saying the solution Bangor came up with to a similar situation would work in Westbrook just as well.

“I think it (the proposed ordinance) is designed to take this problem or situation and attack it in a different way than just trying to stop it outright,” O’Hara said. “If one community has had success with something that they have put into place, why do we have to reinvent the wheel? Let’s just take their existing ordinance and try to mirror it.”

The ordinance would be retroactive to Sept. 22, the day the council first took action on it, and the city says it would apply to Dreamers Cabaret, which has applied for city permits to re-open.

But, Hallett said the business would be exempt from the ordinance or “grandfathered” because it opened before the ordinance was considered. He said Dreamers Cabaret, owned by the Ferrante Group, of which Westbrook resident Lawrence Ferrante is president, is willing to go to court to defend what Hallett said are its First Amendment rights to offer nude entertainment.

Dale has said the business has no grandfathered rights because it was not a legal operation last week. The city shut down the club, saying it didn’t meet fire code requirements and that owner had done additional work after its occupancy permit was issued.

City Administrator Jerre Bryant said the city did not know that Ferrante intended to open a nude dancing establishment. Bryant said Ferrante verbally told the city’s code enforcement officer, Rick Gouzie, that he intended to open a pool hall/arcade type of business.

At his press conference last week, Hallett denied that his client made that representation. Hallett showed Ferrante’s occupancy permit on which it was written that the club would be an indoor recreational facility. Such facilities are allowed in the industrial zone in which the Warren Avenue club is located.

At the committee meeting on Monday, both Bryant and Gouzie said on more than one occasion that the city has never received any written information on what the club’s operations are supposed to entail.

“The code enforcement officer has not received a written proposal of what is to take place at this facility,” Bryant told the committee.

But according  to Hallett, because the city had no existing ordinances prohibiting nude dancing, the owners of Dreamers were under no obligation to tell the city about the plans for nude dancing at the club. “We had no obligation to make any representation one way or the other,” Hallett said. “You don’t have to reveal the nature of free speech.”

Hallett said the club plans to become a state licensed bottle club, to which patrons could bring alcohol. Westbrook police Capt. Tom Roth confirmed to the committee Monday night that the club has applied for a bottle club license and the application is currently under review.

However, under the proposed ordinance, any club offering nude dancing would not be allowed to have any alcohol on the premises, which would prevent Dreamers Cabaret from becoming a bottle club if the ordinance passes.

“No alcoholic beverages shall be sold, served or given away on the premises of any commercial establishment offering nude entertainment, whether for on-premises or off-premises consumption,” the proposed ordinance reads. “Further, operators of any such establishment shall not allow customers or patrons to bring or consume alcoholic beverages on the premises.”

Bryant has denied that the city is trying to harass the business, and said it is just enforcing Westbrook’s health and safety codes.

He said it is not clear whether a nude dancing establishment would qualify as a private indoor recreational facility under the city’s zoning ordinance. The code enforcement officer has yet to make that determination, Bryant said.

However, even if the club opened under that use, it still would be subject to the restrictions in the nude entertainment ordinance if the city passes it, Bryant said. Bryant was unavailable Wednesday morning to comment on the lawsuit.

The City Council also has asked the Planning Board to clarify what is meant by a private indoor recreational facility. That clarification, if adopted by the City Council as an ordinance amendment, also would be retroactive to Sept. 22.