What happened at the Liquor Board on June 30, 2016.

Commissioner Greenfield applauded the owners for working with the community and listening to them. He asked the licensee whether she will have a security plan to deal with any additional traffic on live entertainment nights. Ms. Kim said that she would be working with the police on those nights. She said that the block where her business is located is commercial-only, not residential. Any noise made inside the building doesn’t disturb anyone living nearby. Commissioners Moore and Greenfield found this answer unsatisfactory and pressed the applicant on creating a security plan. Mr. Sink explained that the live entertainment issue will be a learning experience and that he and his wife are sensitive to the security issue.

Commissioner Moore was concerned by the absence of any written letter of support from individuals or organizations. The applicant did submit a petition, but Moore noted that many of the signatures look very similar. She emphasized that the issue of security is the licensee’s responsibility, not the Baltimore City Police Department’s. After more questioning from the commissioners, Kim and Sink explained that the entertainment company they had hired had promised to provide security.

Commissioner Moore was more ambivalent. She said that the licensee had met the minimum requirement for approval, but she does have concerns. She was surprised that there was no opposition present, and she was concerned about the execution of the licensee’s plans.

Chairman Matricciani also voted to approve the application, with the admonition that the licensee would have to monitor the situation closely to make sure they don’t end up back before the Board with violations.

The business will not change with the change in ownership, said Hurdle. Ms. Patel is the current owner’s daughter, and the current owner will be retaining an interest in the entity. Hurdle explained that it was a mistake and that the character witness has known Ms. Patel since 1999. The license contains a pre-existing restriction, which forbids the establishment from selling fortified wines or singles. Hurdle argued that this restriction, which some previous licensee presumably agreed to, would put the business at a disadvantage. Mr. Douglas Paige noted that the application does not request the removal of the restriction, so the licensee would have to apply for that in the future; it cannot be removed at this hearing, since no notice was given to the community.

Ms. Patel testified that she works at the business currently, with her brother, Monday through Friday, 6am to 9am. She currently has another job, but she will switch to running the store full time when it is transferred.

Commissioner Moore asked whether the store sells other goods, including food, besides alcohol. Ms. Patel replied that it does. Moore asked whether minors are allowed to go into the area in which alcohol is sold. The applicant replied that they would have to come with their parents. Moore responded that there might be an issue with having minors in the store at all.

The 2013 and 2016 Legislative Audits of the Baltimore City Liquor Board both found significant deficiencies in the inspection process. The Board did not, in either audit, have comprehensive written policies and procedures to guide inspections, which led to inadequate and uneven enforcement. This can help explain why inspectors probably noticed that there was live entertainment at this establishment for years, without permission, and did not write any citations. Uneven and inadequate expectations harm community members and licensees.

Commissioner Moore said that she was “utterly confused” about why the applicant was before the Board, since they don’t plan to operate the business but rather just hold onto the license for another business. Hurdle explained that the current licensee at the Red Maple, Mr. Leonard Clark, has to transfer the license out of his name, because he has an application in for another license at Belvedere Square. Hurdle explained that the applicant, Ms. Stander, will just babysit the license for a few months and then transfer it to Sangria.

Commissioner Moore then asked the applicant to tell the Board about herself. She testified that she is 31, has lived in Baltimore for over five years, and is a registered voter. She does not have alcohol management experience, but she will not be serving alcohol when the license is transferred to her. She works for the property management company that runs the building.

Commissioner Greenfield asked why Mr. Clark didn’t transfer his license straight to Sangria. Hurdle explained that the lease agreement with Sangria was only finalized very recently and this arrangement had to do with the deadlines in the sale of the business and license.

At that point, the licensee admitted to the violation. Fogleman explained that the doors were locked in order to keep customers from getting into the bar without being carded. The Chairman noted that we’ve all heard of stories where patrons are trapped inside for lack of adequate emergency exits, so it is a very serious concern. The licensee testified that he has changed his policies and procedures and plans to replace the doors.

Mr. Fogleman then, in mitigation, submitted an article that he had written for the City Paper about Max’s about their rankings and awards for serving great beer. The licensees have not been before the Board for a violation before. The attorney also submitted a Baltimore Sun article from 2008 showing that Michael Phelps, Olympian swimmer and Baltimore-area native, was turned away from Max’s when he did not have ID.

For the former Chairman to raise “decades of agency policy” as a shield against his client’s responsibility for violating the law is quite striking, considering all of the negative consequences of the agency’s policies laid out in the 2013 and 2016 audits. If anything, if this practice is new, that should work in its favor, given the history of the board.

Violation of Rule 4.05(b): Prohibited Hours – January 30,2016 – At approximately 1:25 am BLLC Inspector John Chrissomallis and Acting Assistant Chief Inspector Mark Fosler conducted an investigation into the establishment based on an anonymous complaint received about the establishment. Between approximately 1:25am and 2:10am, the BLLC representatives observed that the front entrance of the establishment had a lighted “open” sign and individuals entering and exiting the establishment. At approximately 2:10am, the BLLC representatives entered the establishment and observed that music was playing, 18 to 20 patrons were present, and at least 4 patrons were in possession of alcoholic beverages. At this time photographs were taken and BLLC staff notified the licensee, who was present, of the violation.

Mr. Harris, attorney for the licensee, pointed out that the inspectors did not testify about any incidents taking place on January 26. He also noted that the inspectors had not testified about any consumption of alcohol; rather, they had testified about the possession of alcohol. Harris pointed out that there was no “smell test” to determine the contents of the containers held by the patrons. He argued that it is not illegal to have an “open” sign or to play music or to have customers inside.

Deputy Executive Secretary Thomas Akras explained that he had noticed the error in the charging document and had re-served the licensee with the updated charges. The licensee testified that he was served twice, but he wasn’t specifically notified that there had been an error in the first notice.

Mr. Worku, the licensee, testified that the inspectors knew that he was closed, though the lights were on and he was behind the register. He said several times that he was closed, not open.

Chairman Matricciani denied the motion to dismiss, because he believed that the error in the charging document had been cured.

Commissioner Moore asked how many people were in the bar at the time of the incident. The licensee responded that there were about twenty in the bar at the time. Chairman Matricciani responded that this wasn’t the first time that the licensee had done this, since the anonymous complaint came in four days earlier. The licensee responded that he is running a new small business that is trying to bring diversity to the city. Most of his clients are African American, but he did not want to “play the race card.” The Chairman responded by saying that if the bar has to be closed by 2am, the licensee should start shutting things down a little earlier.

Commissioner Moore noted that sometimes there is a learning curve for new licensees and encouraged Mr. Worku to figure out when his business’s last call will be. Moore said that, if there are glasses on the bar in front of patrons, one can infer that people are drinking, and it doesn’t matter if there are four people drinking or forty: it’s a violation of the law. She noted that the licensee did cooperate with the inspectors, which she appreciated.

One of the staff members of the bar testified that the inspectors did come on a busy Saturday night, but the patrons were not disorderly. He said that the space is very large, but he believed that the door man had an accurate number on his clicker.

Violation of Rule 3.12: General Welfare – April 17, 2016 – At approximately 1:00AM, BLLC Inspector John Chrissomallis responded to a 311 complaint for loud noise at the establishment. Upon arrival at the location,Chrissomallis instructed staff to lower the volume of the music as it was “excessively loud.” Inspector Chrissomallis even request a Spanish speaking officer on duty to respond to the establishment so to ensure his instructions were communicated to staff accurately in Spanish. As staff at the establishment failed to tum the music down, Chrissomallis informed staff that the establishment would be violated.

Chief Inspector Mark Fosler testified that he, with other inspectors and police, responded to a 311 complaint about loud noise at El Oasis. When they arrived, they parked across the street, and the music coming from the club was loud enough to vibrate the cars they were sitting in. They spoke to the manager and told her to turn down the music. The manager spoke to the DJ, telling him to turn down the music, but the volume did not go down. The inspectors spoke to staff again, after noticing that the volume was not decreasing, but still no one turned down the music. They then cited the establishment for the noise violation.

Inspector John Chrissomallis testified that, the following day, he received another 311 complaint for the same location. He instructed the bar staff to reduce the music’s volume again. They did not turn it down. He then requested a Spanish-speaking police officer from the Southeast District, who explained to the manager in Spanish that the music was too loud and must be turned down, but it remained at the same volume.

Chairman Matricciani noted, for the record, that the licensee has a history of violations, fines, and suspensions.

A security guard from Mad River testified about their bar’s policies and procedures for closing time. He said that, if someone tries to leave with an open container, the security will ask them to either finish it inside or throw it away. He was present on the night in question and did not see anyone leave with a beverage.

Mr. Prevas concluded that, because the bar’s management did not know that the man was leaving with a beer, they were not “permitting” him to break the law.