What happened at the Liquor Board on July 14, 2016.

Mr. Hoffman, from the Canton Community Association, testified that previous owners at this location were problematic and did not work well with the community. In the four years that Mr. Lascola has owned his business, he has worked with his neighbors patiently and compassionately.

Mr. Lascola testified that he’s committed to working with the community and listening to their concerns. He said that all of the surrounding businesses do have live entertainment, except one.

One nearby neighbor, Ms. Berman, testified on behalf of herself and her neighbors with children. She said that other bars on the square nearby do have live entertainment but that this bar is attached to a smaller residential side street with lots of young families. She said that, while Mr. Lascola has worked well with the community association, he hasn’t always worked with the nearby neighbors. She and her neighbors are very concerned about noise, and they are concerned about compliance with the MOU, since the business has not always complied with a previously signed MOU. She also said that CCA has not always been responsive to her block’s noise concerns.

Mr. Hoffman, of CCA, testified again that CCA has met with Mr. Lascola and the neighbors around eight times about the live entertainment issue. He said that he has mostly received positive feedback from the neighbors on the nearby blocks. The neighbor disagreed with that statement and said that CCA has changed the terms of the MOU without talking with her or her neighbors. When the Chairman pointed out that the Board does not have jurisdiction over the relationship between the community association and individual neighbors or blocks, the neighbor responded that she understood that, but that she was just putting her concern on the record for the Board’s consideration.

Commissioner Greenfield asked Mr. Lascola to have someone on shift that the neighbors could contact immediately when they have concerns. Lascola replied that he always has and will continue to make himself and his manager available for complaints and concerns.

Commissioner Moore asked the licensee, “in your own words, what is the hardship?” Mr. Chait replied that the hardship is that he’s trying to sell the liquor license, and they haven’t been able to do that. Mr. Douglas Paige, Acting Executive Secretary said that there is a transfer application in to transfer the license to 1801 E. Lombard Street. This application, which was filed in June 2016, has not been docketed, because the Board is waiting for approval from Zoning.

Gutierrez told the commissioners that he has been in the restaurant business for over 35 years. He’s owned Taco Fiesta for about 26 years and was one of the early pioneers in Harbor East.

Herbst told the commissioners that his reading of the statute is that the 180/360 days in the statute is tolled when the hardship extension request is submitted. The hardship extension request was filed on March 29. Commissioner Moore disagreed with Mr. Herbst’s suggestion that the Board could add on extra days beyond 360 days. Deputy Executive Secretary Thomas Akras agreed, saying that the extension could only go to October.

The Board did not state any factual or legal justification for their decision.

Violation of Art. 2B §13-101(e)(4)(ii): Failure to present Up-to-Date Valid Certificate ­ May 4, 2016 – At approximately 6:30PM, the Maryland State Comptroller’s office, through Agent Mike Calvert and Michael Cusimano, along with BLLC Chief Mark Fosler, Assistant Chief Tom Karanikolis, and Inspector Darryl Clark (“Officials”) conducted a joint investigation into the establishment. At this time Fosler requested Mr. Cotton to produce an up to date valid Alcohol Awareness Certification. Mr. Cotton was unable to provide a copy of an Alcohol Awareness Certification to Mr. Fosler.

In mitigation, Mr. Kodenski said that his clients “had a case of the shorts” so they bought from liquor stores rather than wholesalers in order to stay open and serve their customers. Since the inspection, they have made all of their purchases from wholesalers; Mr. Kodenski submitted invoices in order to show this. The licensee has also gone through the alcohol management training since the inspection. The licensees were cooperative with the inspectors, and Kodenski told the commissioners that they won’t see these licensees again.

Commissioner Moore commented that the percentage of alcohol illegally purchased, 75%, was substantial. She pointed out that problems arise when licensees aren’t present at their establishments.

The Board took a brief recess. When they returned, the Chairman noted that the licensees were not present, though they were properly served. Because they were not present, the hearing could not go forward, so it was postponed to a later date.

Mr. Kodenski, for the licensee, who was not present, moved to dismiss the violation, because the detective did not prove that the licensee had actually permitted the individual to go outside with a drink in his hand; there was no proof that the licensee knew anything about the incident. The motion was denied by the Chairman.

In mitigation, Mr. Kodenski said that the license will soon be transferred to the licensee’s granddaughter, that they have hired security five nights per week, and they have posted warning signs to their patrons. Kodenski said that his clients are on the right path.

Commissioner Moore agreed with Commissioner Greenfield’s sentiment. She told the individuals present that they are in complete control of what comes out of their bar. She agreed with the $250 fine suggested by the Chairman, because it was more in line with the Mad River case.

Chief Inspector Mark Fosler testified that on May 22, the Liquor Board received three complaints for loud music. When Fosler arrived, both doors of the business were open, and loud music was coming from the building. Fosler asked to speak to the manager; he told him to close the doors and to turn the music volume down.

Mr. Ramos testified that his manager did close the doors and turn the music down.

Chairman Matricciani noted that this establishment has a significant history of violations, fines and suspensions. Mr. Ramos explained that there are people in the neighborhood who make a lot of complaints, but he does his best. He said that there are a lot of people with problems in the area, but he tries to keep them out. He pointed out that the loud music was playing at 6pm, not 1am.

Commissioner Moore noted that La Rumba’s license was suspended for 60 days, so this violation occurred within a couple weeks of his reopening. She suggested that the problems that are leading to violations are persisting, not going away. Mr. Ramos replied that the inspectors and police visited his bar every week for three weeks. Commissioner Moore responded that his bar could be visited every single day if there are complaints; she said that the problem is not the frequency of inspections but the frequency of the problems that people are complaining about. Commissioner Moore asked whether the bar is air-conditioned. Mr. Ramos replied that there was a problem with the air conditioning at the time, but he has since fixed it.

Commissioner Greenfield agreed with his fellow commissioners that the history of violations at this business is troubling. He asked whether Mr. Ramos has reached out to the community association. Mr. Ramos replied that he has worked with the Hispanic business association and the Broadway business association.

Commissioner Moore asked Inspector Chrissomallis to testify briefly about the history of the inspections at this establishment. Chrissomallis testified that he did inspect the bar several times in 2016 for different reasons: some times for specific 311 complaints, other times with the Task Force that includes police and other city inspectors.

After Mr. Ramos complained that business has been bad after the 2015 unrest, the commissioners agreed to lower the suspension to five days from ten.

Mr. Kodenski, for the licensees, argued that Mr. Fosler did not produce any evidence that the patron bought the beer inside the establishment or that they allowed him to drink it outside, though Fosler had testified that he saw the patron walk out of the door of the establishment with the open beer in his hand. Chairman Matricciani denied Kodenski’s motion to dismiss, because the Board could make a reasonable inference that the beer was purchased inside.

The licensee’s daughter testified that, from her review of the security camera footage, a woman entered the bar with a can of beer already in her hand and took it back out with her. Fosler reiterated that he had seen a male patron, not a female patron, with an open container.

Baltimore City Police Detective Abraham Gatto then testified that there was a woman who came out after the male patron that Inspector Fosler testified about. Gatto had remained outside of the bar while the other officers and inspectors went inside.

Kodenski argued that his clients are doing the best they can and their patrons are taking advantage of them.

Chairman Matricciani noted that there was a violation for a sale to a minor at this location in 2014.

Commissioner Greenfield asked the licensee why there are so many 311 complaints for her establishment. He asked whether she could hire security or work with the community in a different way.