What happened at the Liquor Board on January 28, 2016.

The application was also, seemingly, for a transfer of ownership, because the second applicant’s name is different from the current second licensee’s name, who’s listed as Surya Thebe in the materials provided by the agency on its website.

Ms. Joanne Masopust testified that FPCO did not entirely support the BD-7 transfer, because of their longstanding policy. She stated that there are at least 72 operational liquor establishments in her neighborhood, and the ones that are the most difficult are the BD-7s. Masopust said that her group would have wholeheartedly supported a restaurant license, but they believed that this version of the Board would not have listened to their opposition to the transfer. She expressed concern about the business plan, because, in her opinion, it is a bad time for new restaurants to be opening when established restaurants are having a hard time financially.

Ms. Sandra Sparks, president of Charles Village Civic Association, testified in support of the transfer under the conditions of the MOU. She told the Board about the restrictions on the hours of the business as well as the live entertainment. The licensees have agreed not to pass out any flyers or promotions for special events. Since the building is within the 25th Street urban renewal plan, the business and property owners would need the community’s support for any changes to the exterior of the building.

In this case, the licensees pointed out that they still need to get approval from BMZA to have outdoor table service. Therefore, this application to the Liquor Board and the hearing is premature. The Board has never consistently applied this provision of law since it was enacted in the summer of 2014.

In this case, there was outstanding zoning information that needed to be obtained from Zoning Enforcement or the BMZA (depending on whether or not live entertainment requires BMZA approval). The Board has never consistently applied this provision of law since it was enacted in the summer of 2014.

Ms. Sergeant did not submit a list of authorized persons for the LLC nor their financial interest in the business, as requested on page 2 of the application. She also may not be a Baltimore City taxpayer; SDAT shows the ownership of the building on which she claims to pay taxes belongs to an LLC.

Mr. Ali then testified that he has met with community leaders four or five times and will be meeting once a month to deal with issues that arise. Their main concern is loitering, and Ali promised them that he would take care of it. There is a bus stop in front of the building, which may contribute to the loitering issue.

Mr. Ali then said that he bought the store from Mr. Kim over one year ago with the intent of running a convenience store only; he has not sold alcohol since he bought the store. However, since there is no alcohol outlet in the area, people have been asking him to start selling alcohol again, which he intends to do after the transfer of ownership goes through. Commissioner Trotter asked him how long it has been since there was an alcohol sale in the business, and Mr. Ali said that it has been over a year and a half, since before he bought the business. Trotter asked whether the Liquor Board was ever notified that the business had stopped selling alcohol. Michelle Bailey-Hedgepeth said that Mr. Kim had submitted a request to reopen in August 2015 and in November 2015 submitted this application for a transfer. Mr. Kim was in Korea between August and November. Shin said that he had talked to the Liquor Board’s counsel, who suggested that they should submit the transfer application as soon as possible.

The commissioners did not ask for a more specific date for the cessation of alcoholic beverages sales, which is essentially the most important piece of information for them to have known during this hearing. However, using the July 28, 2014 approximate date, 180 days after that, on January 24, 2015, the license expired as a matter of law under Article 2B. It is of no consequence what the (former) licensee did in August or November of 2015. His license had already been expired for months. It is not acceptable for the commissioners to have been active board members for over seven months and not know what information is relevant in this kind of situation.