What happened at the Liquor Board on October 1, 2015.

Chairman Neil asked whether the licensee plans to rebuild. He responded that he does want to reopen, though it has been hard. He might try to move the license to a different area of the city.

Chairman Neil noted that the BMZA resolution allowing the live entertainment incorporated all of the provisions of the MOU when it was adopted in 2014. Mr. Pica said that the live entertainment permission was never granted by the Liquor Board. Neil responded that that was true, but the permissions were granted by the BMZA, and they made the permission conditional on the 2014 MOU, which the Board can’t supersede. Pica was unaware of this. He tried again to argue that the provisions that his client had agreed to the previous year were “unreasonable;” the commissioners replied that the BMZA had already approved the use and occupancy subject to those conditions. Pica then stated that, in that case, “we are stuck with the MOU.”

Joanne Masopust, president of the Fells Point Community Organization, then testified on behalf of her organization that she had negotiated, not imposed, the MOU. She said that Mr. Ribadeneira was very aware of the conditions on his license over the years, because they were printed directly on the license itself. She agreed that there were few or no complaints before the request to remove the restrictions, but community members had been living with a nuisance for years before they realized that they were able to complain about it. There was one neighbor in particular who had tried for years to work out a disagreement regarding the noise level at Latin Palace, and Mr. Ribadeneira had been extremely difficult to work with. She testified, on her own behalf, and on behalf of two other area organizations that they would agree to lift the restrictions on the license, provided that the MOU is incorporated as conditions on the liquor license. She said that she wanted the MOU to be attached to the license and kept on the premises at all times.

The commissioners were resistant to Ms. Masopust’s request that they make the restrictions in the MOU incorporated as conditions on the license. Chairman Neil said that if BMZA has already incorporated all of the elements of the MOU, which are now the conditions of the use and occupancy permit, why would the Liquor Board also need to attach the same conditions? Ms. Masopust replied that she was not aware of zoning inspectors who routinely check whether businesses are adhering to conditions or not; she said that, in her experience, it’s difficult to get the zoning administrator to enforce the law. To make enforcement easier, she argued that the conditions should be attached to the liquor license so that inspectors can enforce them.

Commissioner Trotter asked Ms. Masopust why there hadn’t been many complaints before 2013. Masopust responded that community members often didn’t think it was worth their time to report issues to the Liquor Board, because nothing was ever done. For thirteen years, the Liquor Board’s inspectors knew that Mr. Ribadeneira was violating the conditions of his license, and they did nothing about it. Chairman Neil replied that this new set of commissioners was just appointed on July 9 of this year, and “people need to give us a chance to do our job.” Later in the same hearing, after more discussion on the topic, and more resistance from commissioners, Ms. Masopust reiterated that it would be much easier, logistically, for Liquor Board inspectors to enforce the provisions of the agreement if they were referenced on the license and attached to it. Chairman Neil replied that the Liquor Board is not in “privity of contract” with the members of the agreement.

Mr. Pica proffered, on behalf of Mr. Bustamante, who was at one point a member of the Baltimore City Planning Commission and is now retired, that this is the only place that Mr. Bustamante can go to hear his culture’s Latin music. Mr. Bustamante, again, through Mr. Pica, stated that he never witnessed an event that would give rise to a Liquor Board complaint.

Commissioner Trotter said that he was inclined to grant the request. Commissioner Hafey agreed and said that it would be functionally the same thing to grant the live entertainment, subject to the use and occupancy permit and the conditions imposed by the BMZA. Commissioner Trotter told Ms. Masopust that it is the community’s responsibility to keep track of any violations of the law, because the agency’s inspectors are not there enforcing every day or checking every day. The community has to tell the Board if there are problems.

Violation of Rule 4.08: Employee- August 20, 2015- At approximately 11:55 pm, Inspector Karanikolis, Inspector Chrissomallis, and Agent Fosler visited the establishment to conduct a special investigation based on a 311 complaint alleging that a minor was selling alcohol. At this time, an Inspector entered the establishment and purchased an alcoholic beverage, a bottle of Heineken Beer, from an individual that appeared to be a young teen. After the purchase was consummated BLLC inspectors entered the establishment and were able to identify the individual who sold the beverage. After notifying the manager, BLLC inspectors confirmed that the individual who sold the alcoholic beverage was 14 years old. BLLC inspectors informed the owner, who was present and the father of the minor, that this was illegal and in violation of the Rules and Regulations of the BLLC.

Chairman Neil did not allow the inspectors to testify, because the licensees admitted the violations. However, the captions in the docket, drawn from the inspectors’ reports, appear to contradict the licensee’s explanation; the inspectors were called to that store because another person in the neighborhood had made a complaint through 311 that a minor was serving alcohol at the store. The licensee made it seem as though the boy’s parents had just stepped temporarily outside the store, but there was enough time for a neighbor to make a 311 call and for the inspectors to receive the complaint and drive to the store and be served alcohol by that same boy.

Violation of Rule 3.03(c): Employee Records- July 10,2015- At approximately 11:45 pm, Inspector Karanikolis and Agent Fosler visited the establishment to conduct a special investigation based on community complaints. While conducting their investigation, the inspectors asked for copies of the employee records of all personnel employed and working at the establishment The bartender/store manager could not provide inspectors with employee records as required by BLLC rules and regulations.

Violation of Rule 4.18: Illegal Conduct- July 18, 2015 -At approximately 11:55 pm, Inspector Karanikolis, Inspector Chrissomallis, and Agent Fosler visited the establishment to conduct a special investigation based on community complaints. Upon arriving at the establishment Inspectors observed patrons from the establishment consuming alcoholic beverages in open containers in front of the establishment.

Liquor Board Inspector Mark Fosler testified that, on July 10, at 11:30pm, he and Inspector Karanikolis had conducted an investigation of the bar, based on information they had received from community members about people loitering outside with open containers of alcohol. When they arrived, they saw a man exiting the establishment with an open can of Bud Ice in his hand. He then re-entered the establishment. When Fosler and Karanikolis questioned the patron, he said that he was regularly permitted to take open containers outside. The inspectors submitted some photographs of the man.

On July 18, the inspectors returned and saw lots of people walking in and out with open containers. Fosler did not talk to the licensee, but he did talk to the bartender about what the law requires.

Ms. Carol McCoy, president of Morrell Park Community Association, then testified that this bar has been a problem for the community. She noted that the property is often “trashed” and the owners do not act like good neighbors.

Kodenski, for his clients, admitted the 3.03(c) employee records charge but made a motion to dismiss the other two charges, arguing that nothing happened on the licensee’s premises that was illegal. Inspector Chrissomallis replied that he had seen a patron re-enter the business with an open container, which is illegal conduct. The commissioners denied Kodenski’s motion.

Regarding the employee records, Kodenski explained that they are locked in a safe, which the employees at the store at the time did not have access to. The records were locked in the safe, because they have sensitive identifying information in them, including Social Security numbers, dates of birth, etc. In mitigation of the other violations, Kodenski said that the licensee has a “tough time keeping control over the people.” He’s posted signs inside and out about not taking alcohol outside. One problem is the “no smoking rule,” according to Kodenski. People want to go outside and smoke, since they can’t smoke inside, but they can’t bring their drink with them. He added, while the commissioners were deliberating, that the Raven Stadium and Horseshoe Casino have the same issues.