What happened at the Liquor Board on July 21, 2016.

The commissioners asked about his floor plan, which did not seem to include any bathrooms or office space. The full plan did include those areas, but the copy that the commissioners had received was cut off.

Commissioner Moore asked for Mr. Staley’s plan to monitor the outdoor tables. Mr. Staley responded that he will hire additional staff to actively monitor the tables, to ensure that alcohol and food stays within the small area. He further testified that he has invested significant funds in renovating and improving the building, so he is very focused on hygiene and the presentation of the bar, including cleaning sidewalks and the street of trash. He maintains a quiet establishment, with no live music, since he is in a residential neighborhood.

Clarke testified about his restaurant business experience. He said that he opened his first venue when he was 21 years old and has been in the restaurant and entertainment business since then. He plans to employ at least forty people at this location.

Ms. Kris Taylor, of the Belvedere Improvement Association, testified that the organization is not in support of the business being able to stay open until 4am, which Mr. Clarke was requesting. She said that her neighbors were concerned that the business would draw people from other nearby bars who have to close at 2am, creating noise and other possible disturbances. The community association had asked Mr. Clarke to reconsider his request to stay open past 2am, and he refused. Ms. Taylor said that nearby Grand Cru closes at 10. Ryan’s Daughter stays open until 2am some nights.

Commissioner Matricciani noted that, at the previous Red Maple hearing, where Mr. Clarke was a licensee until very recently, there were references to problems with the surrounding neighbors. Clarke replied that he was the owner and operator of the Red Maple for fifteen years and was only asked to meet with the community association twice during that time. Any other concerns that people may have had were never brought to his attention. He did have one violation on his record, for serving an underage police cadet, which came with a $500 fine.

In response to Ms. Taylor’s suggestions, Clarke said that he was very opposed to the idea of closing at 2am. He pointed out that other businesses at this location had closed. He also said that the community’s concerns were overblown, because the nearest residence is a football field away. On the other hand, the Red Maple shared a wall with residential properties and did not have a problem with noise. Clarke said that it would be premature to shut down the option of being open late before he had been given a chance. Under further questioning from Commissioner Greenfield, Clarke pointed out that there are other locations that are open late or all night, including Sip and Bite in Canton, Never on Sunday in Mount Vernon. Greenfield responded that those examples were in very different neighborhoods from the Belvedere Square area. Clarke gave the example of another restaurant in Federal Hill, and Greenfield responded, “you’re making my point.”

Ms. Taylor pointed out that the York Road area near Belvedere Square had suffered from some bad licensees, including Gators and Craig’s/Favorites Pub. Since there is relatively little ambient noise along York Road and Northern Parkway in the middle of the night, the sound travels.

Under further questioning, Mr. Clarke insisted that he would not be promoting his business to college students but could be promoting it to people in the hospitality industry, who are getting off of work at other nearby locations that have to close earlier.

At this point, Commissioner Greenfield noted that there was a process issue with this application: Mr. Clarke had not requested to be open during extended hours, so it was not posted properly for that request. In addition, the state legislative district in which this address is located – the 43rd – may not even allow extended hours. Deputy Executive Secretary Tom Akras chimed in that late night hours require a separate application and approvals from city agencies, including the fire department and the department of housing and community development.

Violation of Rule 3.02: Cooperation – February 5, 2016 – At approximately 11:20 pm, the Baltimore City Police Department and BLLC conducted an investigation into the establishment. While conducting an investigation into an allegation of minors in possession of alcoholic beverages the owner Mr. Gerver was present and continuously told the Baltimore City Police both that he personally knew Ms. Murillo and Ms. Mendez-Banqas were 21 years of age. The investigation revealed both individuals to be under the age of 21.

Violation of Rule 4.10: False Statement – February 5, 2016 – At approximately 11:20 pm, the Baltimore City Police Department and BLLC conducted an investigation into the establishment. While conducting an investigation into an allegation of minors in possession of alcoholic beverages the owner Mr. Gerver was present and continuously told the Baltimore City Police both that he personally knew Ms. Murillo and Ms. Mendez-Banqas were 21 years of age. The investigation revealed both individuals to be under the age of 21.

Violation of Rule 3.12: General Welfare – February 5, 2016 – At approximately 11:20 pm, the Baltimore City Police Department and BLLC conducted an investigation into the establishment. While conducting an investigation into an allegation of minors in possession of alcoholic beverages inspectors began to ask individuals within the establishment for identification. More than half of the individuals in the establishment did not have their identifications on their person. Due to the inability to determine the age of so many of the patrons in the establishment, the bar was closed.

Liquor Board inspector John Chrissomallis corroborated Gatto’s testimony. He elaborated that the licensee insisted to the officers and inspectors that he knew the women personally, that they were close family friends of his, and that he knew that they were both over 21. Chrissomallis said that someone in the bar told him that the bartender told one of the girls to just tell the police that she was over 21. Since most of the people inside the bar did not have valid identification, the police closed the bar for the night.

The licensee then testified that one of the two women had, in the past, showed him her green card as identification, which said that she was over 21. She didn’t have her ID with her the day of the inspection, but he let her drink anyway, because he had already seen her ID on another occasion. The licensee complained that his patrons were afraid of all of the officers that came in the bar.

Chairman Matricciani noted that this licensee has one prior violation for selling alcohol to minors in 2014. He asked how it was possible that most of the patrons did not have any ID. The licensee responded that he knew all the patrons in the bar, and some of them are his relatives. Matricciani said, “I couldn’t tell you the age of half my relatives.” The licensee insisted that he knew all of his customers for years and he knew their ages.

Commissioner Moore agreed that it was strange that a crowded bar’s patrons would not have ID. She asked the licensee about his system to make sure that people who come to his bar are old enough to drink. The licensee responded that his patrons do have to show ID but only the first time that they come.

Mr. Maslan, attorney for the licensee, reiterated that his client runs the establishment to the best of his ability. He has a security system and an employee at the door who is supposed to ask for ID. The chairman asked, if your security system requires a check of ID at the door, but most people inside the bar don’t have ID, what kind of security system is that? Maslan replied, “they speak Spanish; they know each other. He knows his customers.”

Commissioner Moore asked whether there was any cooperation issue, including any interference with the investigation or evidence that he was trying to hide people. Chrissomallis responded that the licensee didn’t impede the investigation, but the agency listed a cooperation charge, because the patrons told the officers that the bartender told them all to say they’re over 21.

Violation of Rule 3.12: General Welfare – March 5, 2016 – At approximately 12:56 am, the Baltimore City Police Department, Baltimore Fire Department, Baltimore Housing Department, and BLLC (“officials”) conducted an investigation into the establishment. Upon attempting to perform a routine business check at the establishment, officials were refused entry to the establishment as both the front and rear doors were locked from the interior, thereby denying patrons the ability to exit the location in the case of an emergency. Upon gaining entry, officials informed Mr. Ozturk of the violation.

Violation of Article 2B § 12-108(d): Minor in Possession of Alcoholic Beverage March 5, 2016 – At approximately 12:56 am, the Baltimore City Police Department, Baltimore Fire Department, Baltimore Housing Department, and BLLC (“officials”) conducted an investigation into the establishment. Upon gaining entry to the establishment, officials observed numerous individuals with partially consumed alcoholic beverages in their possession. Officials then began to ask for the identifications of the individuals in the establishment. Officials were able to identify three (3) individuals under the age of 21, who had partially consumed alcoholic beverages in their possession. Mr. Ozturk was advised of the violation.

The fire department inspector then testified about the violations that he found. The establishment was allowing hookah using coals, which is not currently permitted. There were unsafe conditions in the kitchen. He cited the operator for the two locked doors, for failure to heed a lawful order, and for noncooperation.

The city zoning enforcement inspector testified that he had cited the establishment for indoor smoking and having an illegal hookah lounge. He corroborated Chrissomallis’s testimony that the inspectors were concerned for the safety of the patrons inside and were considering forcing open the doors when the employee finally complied.

Baltimore City Vice Unit Detective Abraham Gatto testified that he was very surprised at this incident. He has a good relationship with this licensee, who has been cooperative in the past. He identified every patron in the bar, and three of them were under 21. There were alcoholic drinks on the table where the underage people were sitting, but Gatto could not testify that the individuals had been drinking from those cups.

The licensee then testified that the kitchen was not preparing food at the time and that there were eleven people inside, not twenty-five. He always checks IDs, since he had a problem with serving minors two or three years ago. He said that the people who were inside the establishment were about to leave and “they were there to help me out.” Ozturk said that the doors were locked, because York Road is dangerous. There are shootings, and people get drunk in the parking lot. He said that the underage people inside were not drinking.

Commissioner Greenfield asked the licensee why it could have taken 35 minutes to enter the premises and why he walked away from the inspectors and officers. Ozturk responded that he did not know that they had been outside so long, and he was walking to his car to get the key for them to let them in. He did not know who they were.

Commissioner Moore asked whether Mr. Ozturk understood that, if there had been an emergency, people could have been trapped inside. He replied that he did.

Commissioner Moore was astounded by the lack of personal responsibility and was frightened that the individuals inside could have been harmed by the dangerous situation. She was concerned by the contempt that the licensee showed to the inspectors and officers. She said that she would prefer a higher fine of $2,000.

Commissioner Greenfield agreed with his fellow commissioners and suggested a $1,250 fine.