What happened at the Liquor Board on January 5, 2017.

Mr. Strange said that he had been trying to reach out to a Ms. Jackson, president of the Frankford community association, whom he contacted at the advice of the state delegate for the district and a representative from HARBEL Community Organization. Ms. Jackson was out of town and not able to attend the hearing or negotiate an MOU.

Commissioner Greenfield expressed concerns about the sanitation complaints raised by the community in writing and in photographs. Strange replied that there is a lot of trash around in community, but he is open to suggestions about how to deal with the problem.

Six community members then expressed concerns about the proposed establishment. One neighbor complained about shootings and violence that have increased over recent years. She also complained about trash everywhere around the property, and her husband testified that there was no place to put a dumpster on the property. They wondered whether the building structure itself was up to code and safe for customers. The neighbors also complained that John Zorzit, the secured creditor and seller of the license, keeps acquiring and selling liquor licenses even though he has a criminal record. Several community members testified about concerns with patrons blocking alleys and streets with their cars. The applicant replied to all of these concerns, stating that he will work with the community members to find solutions, including arranging for parking in nearby lots.

During a community member’s questioning, Mr. Strange said that he did not know a woman named Carolyn Jones very well. However, Commissioner Moore pointed out that Ms. Jones had signed the liquor license transfer application as a character witness on Mr. Strange’s behalf. After some further questioning, Mr. Strange said that he had known Ms. Jones in some capacity for nine years. Commissioner Moore agreed with the community member that the signatures on a petition in support of the project appeared to her layperson’s eye to be identical.

Commissioner Moore noted that the photographs submitted to the Board showing trash were “alarming” and cautioned Mr. Strange that he will need to educate himself on how to run his business properly. She reiterated that the neighbors’ concerns were serious.

Chairman Matricciani and Commissioner Moore both stated that this situation could use an agreement in writing. Mr. Hurdle replied that his client was open to the idea. Ms. Jackson is not really available to negotiate the MOU. The community members who testified at the hearing were not happy with this suggestion that Ms. Jackson be the main contact person, because they said that the boundaries of the associations in the area did not cover them. The three commissioners agreed to postpone the decision for this case until the neighbors and the applicant had tried to work out an agreement.

Commissioner Moore finished the hearing by asking when the bar closed. Mr. Hurdle did not know. Moore replied that the Board needs to know whether the license is valid or not before they can transfer it.

The former Executive Secretary sent a letter to the transferring licensee at this address in January 2015 stating that the licensee had not paid his license fee for the 2014-2015 license year, which was due by the end of March 2014. There seems to be no way that he could have legally operated his business with a valid liquor license between May 1, 2014 and the date of the letter, January 27, 2015, a period of 271 days. The letter tells the licensee: “[i]f it is your desire to ensure that the alcoholic beverages license once issued to your establishment is not terminated,” he should submit his license fee as soon as possible. First, a license is not “terminated” by the Board in this situation; rather, a license expires by operation of law if it is not used for a period of at least 180 days. There is no action by the Board that makes the license unusable, and there is nothing that the Board can do to revive the license if it is expired. Second, the executive secretary seems to understand that this license is already expired under the 180 day rule, since no hardship extension was applied for and 180 days had passed.

Mr. Hurdle’s statement that he did not know when the bar closed is also a red flag; presumably, when purchasing an asset, the purchaser’s due diligence shoudl include a determination of whether the asset actually exists or has expired.

The 18-year owner of the business testified that he has been running the bar as an Irish pub, with outdoor table service and live entertainment (DJ, Irish bands, karaoke) but not off-premises catering.

Mr. Dunlap explained that the concept for the expanded location will be a craft deli, hamburger place, and beer and wine bar; currently, there is nothing like it in Federal Hill, so he has to go outside the neighborhood to find it (Hampden, R. House, Belvedere Square). He said that the MOU contains restrictions negotiated with SBNA. There will be a brand new kitchen, with a renovation nearing half a million dollars, including HVAC. There will be sixty seats in a dining environment, with a bar on one side. They will have occasional acoustic music.

Several Federal Hill neighbors testified in opposition to the project. They complained that Mr. Dunlap has not been consistent in how he had explained his project to them at their community meeting. One neighbor argued that there is no need for the new restaurant, that the business will become a “megabar,” and that their primary source of revenue is alcohol, not food. If the request was for a restaurant, FHNA would not oppose it. In addition, they asked how it could be possible to run two businesses under one liquor license. The community members stated repeatedly that they are overwhelmed with bars that are ever-increasing in size and that the police cannot effectively control the crowds, especially at closing time.

A doctoral student from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health testified about the impact of alcohol outlets on violent crime in communities. Federal Hill is unusually oversaturated with alcohol outlets: one per 81 residents. After providing some estimated calculations of the costs of dealing with oversaturated communities, she concluded that the board should deny the expansion.

The executive director of the Downtown Baltimore Family Alliance then testified that she had been verbally accosted by a Bandito’s patron when she was with her young child. She also pointed out that if the goal is to serve food at a high end deli, the kitchen shouldn’t be closing several hours before the bar closes.

Mr. Prevas reiterated that the property has been consolidated and that the applicants have gone through negotiations with SBNA.

Commissioner Moore expressed concern about the community impact and increased bar stools. Chairman Matricciani also was concerned about the late night hours with no food sales. The applicant responded that they are paying a lot of money in rent, and if it’s not him expanding into the space, it will be someone else.

Commissioner Moore voted against the application because of the harm likely to be done to the community.

Commissioner Greenfield noted that the property had already been consolidated by zoning, so the Liquor Board can’t do anything about his opinion that it doesn’t make sense to have two different businesses under the same liquor license. The opponents can always call 311 and can always protest.

Commissioner Moore chimed in that just because a license is approve-able doesn’t mean that they should approve it.

The consolidation of the property has nothing to do with the Liquor Board’s responsibility to evaluate the application and make its decision based on the above factors.

Commissioner Greenfield noted that this explanation did not reflect what was in his letter requesting a hardship extension; Robert replied that his son will become a partner and will eventually buy the business from him. Mr. Silva said that he is a successful club owner and DJ for the past decade or more.

The board did not, in this hearing, make any findings of fact or conclusions of law, as required by basic administrative law principles. The relevant statute says that “[t]he Board may grant the extension if the Board finds after a hearing that existing hardship caused the closing or stopping of business operations.” There was nothing on the record at the hearing about what the hardship was and whether it caused the closing or stopping of business operations. Mr. Jackson testified that he’s been doing some renovations, but voluntary renovations may or may not be considered a “hardship” that “caused the closing or stopping of business operations.” Jackson’s letter told a different story of a frivolous lawsuit against his business; the Board did not ask any questions about that situation.

Mr. Peter Prevas, for his client, admitted the violation. Inspectors from the Liquor Board and Health Department testified briefly about the violations that they observed when they visited the bar as part of the inter-agency Social Task Force. The health inspector explained that particular establishments are inspected in the evenings as part of the Social Task Force when the health inspectors can’t get in during the day or when the police or other agencies receive complaints.

In mitigation, Prevas stated that his client had spent over $5000 in addressing the issues, he admitted the violation, and he was already closed for six days to get his kitchen up to the health code.

The commissioners noted that this particular establishment has a history of violations.

After more complaints from Mr. Prevas that his client had been singled out unfairly, Commissioner Moore noted that the agencies have made a special effort to work together on enforcement.

Violation of Rule 3.02: Cooperation – October 30, 2016 – At approximately 2:30 AM BLLC Chief Inspector Mark Fosler, Inspector John Howard, Inspector Andy Perez, Inspector Darryl Clark, and Inspector John Chrissomallis conducted a special investigation at the establishment. At approximately 2:40 AM, Inspector Chrissomallis attempted to gain entry to the establishment in an effort to make contact with Inspector John Howard who was inside writing a violation to the licensee for operating after hours. Inspector Chrissomallis approached the location and attempted to gain entry to the location, but was greeted by the licensee, Mr. Worku, and a security guard. Inspector Chrissomallis identified himself as an Inspector with the BLLC and showed his agency issued identification and badge and requested entry to the establishment. Mr. Worku acknowledged who Mr. Chrissomallis was and then proceeded to become belligerent. Mr. Worku cursed at Inspector Chrissomallis and repeatedly denied him entry to the establishment. Inspector Chrissomallis informed Mr. Worku about Mr. Howard’s presence within the establishment and the need to ensure that Mr. Howard’s safety and then repeated his request to gain entry. Mr. Worku again denied Inspector Chrissomallis entry. When Inspector Chrissomallis attempted to gain entry he was physically stopped by Mr. Worku. Inspector Chrissomallis contacted the Baltimore City Police Department’s Central District for support. It was at or about this time that Mr. Worku allowed Inspector Chrissomallis to gain entry.

Violation of Rule 2.13: Inspections – October 30, 2016 – At approximately 2:30 AM BLLC Chief Inspector Mark Fosler, Inspector John Howard, Inspector Andy Perez, Inspector Darryl Clark, and Inspector John Chrissomallis conducted a special investigation at the establishment. At approximately 2:40 AM, Inspector Chrissomallis attempted to gain entry to the establishment in an effort to make contact with Inspector John Howard who was inside writing a violation to the licensee for operating after hours. Inspector Chrissomallis approached the location and attempted to gain entry to the location, but was greeted by the licensee, Mr. Worku, and a security guard. Inspector Chrissomallis identified himself as an Inspector with the BLLC and showed his agency issued identification and badge and requested entry to the establishment. Mr. Worku acknowledged who Mr. Chrissomallis was and then proceeded to become belligerent. Mr. Worku cursed at Inspector Chrissomallis and repeatedly denied him entry to the establishment. Inspector Chrissomallis informed Mr. Worku about Mr. Howard’s presence within the establishment and the need to ensure that Mr. Howard’s safety and then repeated his request to gain entry. Mr. Worku again denied Inspector Chrissomallis entry. When Inspector Chrissomallis attempted to gain entry he was physically stopped by Mr. Worku. Inspector Chrissomallis contacted the Baltimore City Police Department’s Central District for support. It was at or about this time that Mr. Worku allowed Inspector Chrissomallis to gain entry.

Violation of Rule 3.12: General Welfare – October 30, 2016 – At approximately 2:30 AM BLLC Chief Inspector Mark Fosler, Inspector John Howard, Inspector Andy Perez, Inspector Darryl Clark, and Inspector John Chrissomallis conducted a special investigation at the establishment. At approximately 2:40 AM, Inspector Chrissomallis attempted to gain entry to the establishment in an effort to make contact with Inspector John Howard who was inside writing a violation to the licensee for operating after hours. Inspector Chrissomallis approached the location and attempted to gain entry to the location, but was greeted by the licensee, Mr. Worku, and a security guard. Inspector Chrissomallis identified himself as an Inspector with the BLLC and showed his agency issued identification and badge and requested entry to the establishment. Mr. Worku acknowledged who Mr. Chrissomallis was and then proceeded to become belligerent. Mr. Worku cursed at Inspector Chrissomallis and repeatedly denied him entry to the establishment. Inspector Chrissomallis informed Mr. Worku about Mr. Howard’s presence within the establishment and the need to ensure that Mr. Howard’s safety and then repeated his request to gain entry. Mr. Worku again denied Inspector Chrissomallis entry. When Inspector Chrissomallis attempted to gain entry he was physically stopped by Mr. Worku. Inspector Chrissomallis contacted the Baltimore City Police Department’s Central District for support. It was at or about this time that Mr. Worku allowed Inspector Chrissomallis to gain entry.

Inspector John Chrissomallis testified that he received a call from Chief Inspector Mark Fosler that there were two undercover inspectors at Jano and that the establishment was open well after the required closing time of 2:00am. Chrissomallis was asked to find the Liquor Board inspector who was inside writing up the after-hours violation report. When the inspector tried to go inside, he was met at a side door by the licensee; Chrissomallis said that Worku was intoxicated and aggravated, using curse words and other inflammatory racial language. Worku at one point put his hand on Chrissomallis’s chest to keep him from going inside the building.

The security guard on duty at Jano on the night in question then testified about what he witnessed. He said that there was no physical contact between Worku and the inspector and that they were trying to explain the situation calmly to Chrissomallis.