What happened at the Liquor Board on September 1, 2016.

Mr. Daniel Halpern, one of the three licensees, testified that he owns and operates 45 TGI Friday’s locations, and 90% of them have some form of live entertainment permission. He has been working with Coppin State and the mall to address concerns.

Commissioner Moore asked the licensee for further details about his meetings with the police department and his use of off-duty officers as security. Mr. John Faison testified that there is an upcoming meeting scheduled with the police department, which will be the first meeting. A representative from TGI Friday’s will be attending the Major’s weekly meeting in that police district every Tuesday, going forward. Moore asked why police officers need to be visibly represented in a family restaurant. The licensees responded that they only need this security presence at night, between 8pm and closing. The police aren’t posted up at the door but are in areas around the premises to promote a feeling of safety.

Interestingly, the inspector’s report stated that the notice sign about the live entertainment application “was down for approximately 2 hours, because of disgruntled Ex-employee.”

Mr. Prevas proffered that he has not heard anything negative from the community, though he did not contact them, because it is a transfer of ownership only, not of location.

Commissioner Moore asked about Mr. Kitsopoulos’s previous liquor licenses. He explained that he has had other restaurants between 1965 and 2012 in other states and has never had a violation at any of those establishments.

Commissioner Moore asked whether the restaurant was open and operating between February, when the previous licensee was given permission to open, and July, when the application for the transfer of ownership was submitted. Hurdle replied that it was open and operating for at least part of that time. Moore asked about the ownership structure of the business. The applicant said that he leaves those details to his lawyers. Hurdle stepped in and said that the applicant owns 1% of the business and the rest is owned by another LLC. Mr. Mitchell does not have an ownership interest in the business.

In the MOU submitted, Commissioner Greenfield noted that the community was concerned with how to control deliveries during non-operating hours of the business. The applicants responded that they will be carefully instructing their food and alcohol delivery companies that they must stick to certain timelines to get deliveries. The community was concerned about deliveries blocking streets during school dropoff and pickup times, since the business is directly next to a school.

Commissioner Moore asked the applicants to explain how they will deal with outdoor table service. They responded that the tables will be very close to the building, and the license is only for beer and wine, not liquor. People will not be taking shots near the school. The business will open after school begins in the morning, so children will not be passing patrons drinking alcohol on their way to school.

After that transfer, it seems from the file as though the transfer was not completed until possibly July 1, 2015, nearly eleven months after the transfer was approved. Again, this would be in direct violation of the 180-day transfer rule; this transfer would have expired 180 days after the August 7 transfer approval. When, if at all, did the business open after this transfer date? Was it before December 28, 2015, which is when the license would have again expired under a different 180-day rule?

A community member’s affidavit submitted by the applicants says that she was inside the bar and ordered white wine (but was served red) on March 18, 2016. The applicants seem to think this is sufficient to show that the license is valid and unexpired. However, it is certainly possible and even likely from the documentation in the file, or lack thereof, that the license expired long before March 18; therefore, the bar may have been open illegally at the time she was struggling to get that glass of white wine. Just because the business’s door was unlocked, people were inside, and red, not white, wine was poured into glasses does not mean that the business was operating legally.

Turning for help to inspection reports, we are out of luck. There are zero inspectors’ reports in the online Liquor Board database for this address from the past three years. The documents that are located in the 32 N. Chester file belong to other establishments. This is an extremely common problem in the agency’s recordkeeping; papers are very often placed in the incorrect files.

Finally, the three renewal applications in the file from 2013, 2014, and 2015 all state that the business has been closed. The first two (2013 and 2014) state that the business closed in 2010. The third is difficult to read but may state that the business closed in July 2014.

Chairman Matricciani asked Mr. Maslan about a letter of opposition that the agency had received from some neighbors. Maslan explained that the establishment has been at this location for fifty or sixty years, but a retirement home was built nearby about five or six years ago. The people who signed the letter of opposition live in that retirement home and are not patrons of the establishment. Noting that the signatories expressed concerns about cleanliness and trash, the Chairman asked the applicants about their plan to deal with the complaints. Maslan replied that his clients will maintain the business in an orderly fashion. Ms. Irizamy added that she plans to work hard on the upkeep of the building and pressure-wash the sidewalks weekly. Commissioner Greenfield noted that the letter writers were also concerned about noise from live entertainment. Maslan said that the current owners have had live entertainment already, and it hasn’t been a problem and said that certainly his clients will be responsive to complaints about noise.

Commissioner Moore suggested that the applicants might want to think about the connotations of their name and maybe change it to something else.

Ms. Irizamy testified that she worked for other alcohol licensed establishments in Dundalk and Baltimore, doing bartending, waitressing, cleaning, and managing.

The chairman asked about the name of the business, Slim’s Liquors. “Who’s Slim?” he asked. “Well, not you, Mr. Kodenski,” he quipped.

Mr. Mister’s letter to the Board reads: “Please accept this letter as a request for a finding that a hardship extension of the license pursuant to Article 2B section 10-504(d) is not necessary, upon the Board approving the personal representative’s request for a certificate of permission for continuation of the business in the name of the executor (personal representative) for the benefit of the estate of the deceased licensee, pursuant to Article 2B section 10-506(a)(2), (3) and (4).”

In explaining his position, Mr. Mister called himself the “architect” of this provision in the code and explained that it was his intention to have certain situations that stop the running of the 180-day clock, and one of them was the filing of the personal representative after a licensee dies.

Mr. Mister is correct, according to Art. 2B and the Alcoholic Beverages Article: when a licensee dies, the license expires immediately. However, a personal representative may, under Alc. Bev. Art. section 4-803, request a certificate of permission to continue the business operations of the deceased licensee for a period of up to 18 months. The 180-day rule does not apply during this 180-day period. There was therefore no need to schedule this case for a hearing before the Board. The Board granted a hardship extension in this situation for a person who did not need or want one. The outcome is the same, since there is a contract for the sale of the business; however, it is concerning that the Board, with the exception of Commissioner Moore, did not take the opportunity to actually look at the code and the situation and apply one to the other and make a determination that makes sense under the Alcoholic Beverages Article. Instead, they told the attorney to speak with the Deputy Executive Secretary.

As an aside, lobbyists and advocates on all sides of all issues often do draft legislation for state representatives to consider, introduce, sponsor, and shepherd through Maryland’s 90-day legislative session. However, bill drafters do not have special insight into the meaning of those bills. Nor do their interpretations of those bills hold any special weight. Mr. Mister may call himself the “architect” of a piece of legislation, because he may have drafted a version of it, but his interpretation is not the same as legislative intent, which can help agencies and courts to interpret statutes.

Mr. Ivo Jamrosz, head of the Liquor Advisory Committee for the Federal Hill Neighborhood Assocation, testified that his organization has had several meetings with the applicant. The neighbors are very excited about Porters coming back to life. The applicants have agreed to sign an MOU containing restrictions that the previous owner had already agreed to. The MOU has not yet been signed by all parties, but they have all agreed to the substance of the restrictions.

Violation of Rule 4.05(a): Prohibited Hours – August 6, 2016 – At approximately 1:10AM members of the Baltimore City Police Department, which included Sgt. Chris Leisher, Det. Abraham Gatto, Det. L.C. Greenhill, and BLLC, which included Chief Inspector Mark Fosler and Andy Perez (“officials”) conducted a special investigation concerning allegations that the establishment was operating afterhours. Upon arrival, Officials attempted to enter the establishment through the front door. It was locked. An attempt was made to open the side door by officials, but it was quickly closed and locked from the interior. At this time, officials observed through a small window approximately 10 individuals, 2 of which had alcoholic beverages in front of them, within the establishment. Officials eventually were able to gain entry to the establishment where they were able to identify the operator of the establishment as Mr. German Dima. When asked why there were individuals within the establishment after hours, Mr. Dima stated that they all of the individuals were employees. When asked for employee records, Mr. Dima could not produce records that identified the patrons within the establishment as employees. At this time the bar was cleared of all patrons and the bar manager/operator was notified of the violation.

Violation of Rule 3.03(c): Records – August 6, 2016 – At approximately 1:10AM members of the Baltimore City Police Department. which included Sgt. Chris Leisher, Det. Abraham Gatto, Det. L.C. Greenhill, and BLLC, which included Chief Inspector Mark Fosler and Andy Perez (“officials”) conducted a special investigation concerning allegations that the establishment was operating afterhours. Upon entering the establishment the officials came into contact with the operator, Mr. German Dima. When asked why there were individuals within the establishment after hours, Mr. Dima stated that they all of the individuals were employees. When asked for employee records, Mr. Dima could not produce any employee records.

Violation of Rule 3.01: Ownership and Operation – August 6, 2016 – At approximately 1:10AM members of the Baltimore City Police Department, which included Sgt. Chris Leisher, Det. Abraham Gatto, Det. L.C. Greenhill, and BLLC, which included Chief Inspector Mark Fosler and Andy Perez (“officials”) conducted a special investigation concerning allegations that the establishment was operating afterhours. Upon entering the establishment the officials came into contact with the operator, Mr. German Dima. At that time, officials asked Mr. Dima if the licensees were available. Mr. Dima informed the officials that he had already paid “$65,000” for the liquor license. Officials explained to Mr. Dima that for a proper transfer to occur an application must be filed and the Board must approve of such a transfer. The Board further explained that on the licensee shall be the actual owner and operator of the licensed premises.

Commissioner Moore expressed concern that the licensees are attempting to transfer the license to the person who is most responsible for the violation. Kodenski responded that they are thinking of adding an applicant. Commissioner Greenfield also expressed concern about the potential applicant.