What happened at the Liquor Board on July 18, 2013

The establishment will seat a minimum of 78 people, a maximum of 86. A floor plan was not submitted, but Al Barry, of AB Associates, who is serving as a consultant for the applicant, committed to getting a floor plan to the Liquor Board as soon as possible. Chairman Fogleman asked that the floor plan be submitted before the license is issued. The establishment will employ 8 – 10 people and its hours will be 4:00 pm – 1:30/2:00. There is City parking next door.

Live entertainment: The applicant stated that he was applying for live entertainment because he wants to have it available in case he wants it down the road. He envisions having 1-2 piece bands.

Citizen signatories: Chairman Fogleman went through the citizen signatories on the application and asked the applicant about each one, and if the applicant was “reasonably certain” that each one was a Baltimore City property owner and registered voter. Some of the names were illegible, so Chairman Fogleman asked the applicant to amend the application to make the names legible.

One of the applicants met and came to an agreement with Fells Prospect, which provided a letter of support for the project. The agreement specifies when the establishment will open in the morning, when it will turn off music (no music after midnight), and says that there will be no party promoters or valet parking and the applicant will discuss with Fells Prospect before requesting live entertainment. Chairman Fogleman ensured that the applicants understood that they were entering into voluntary restrictions on their license.

Juliette Richter, Chair of the Upper Fells Point Improvement Association’s Land Use Committee, testified that her association is concerned because the tavern is right across the street from Wolfe Street Academy, which has students ages 3 – 11. She said the principal isn’t “too enthused” about having a tavern across the street. On the other hand, if the establishment will have a de minimis impact on the neighborhood, the association does not have any opposition. Ms. Richter was aware of the agreement the applicants signed with Fells Prospect, which provided that the establishment windows and doors must be closed from 2 – 5 pm. Her association requested that those hours be expanded to 11 am – 5 pm, as the school children have recess during those times, and the tavern atmosphere could be deleterious to kids, especially with packaged goods being sold. She said that packaged goods should only be sold over the counter and in a brown paper bag. She also felt that outdoor table seating, which the applicants intend to request at a later date, would be inappropriate during school hours. She said her association does not want to restrict the licensees, but wants to ensure a de minimis impact on the nearby school and children. One of the applicants responded that the tavern’s windows do not see directly into the school, and he and his partner thought that what they put into the agreement was sufficient. Ms. Richter responded that this establishment is in the middle of her association’s boundaries and parents are concerned, as the licensed property is right across the street from the playground. She said she was making a very minor request.

Proximity to a school: Audit Finding 3 also found that the Liquor Board did not always complete a report documenting an establishment’s proximity to schools and churches. Md Code Art. 2B § 9-204.3 provides that “no new license, or removal of an existing license, shall be granted to sell alcoholic beverages in any building located within 300 feet of the nearest point of the buildings of a church or school, but the license of any person now holding a license for any building located within such distance of the building grounds of a church or school may be renewed or extended for the same building.” State law is not clear as to whether a transfer of a license to a new licensee is considered a “new license.” In this case, the Board did not renew or extend the license of a person currently holding a license (as allowed by law) – it approved a transfer of the license to a new person for a new establishment in a property directly across the street from and within 300 feet of a school (it is unclear whether this approval contravenes state law).

Corporate Standing: Audit Finding 3 states that “BLLC lacked documentation that certain State law and BLLC licensing requirements were met.” Specifically, 9 of 30 “judgmentally selected” licenses lacked the required documentation indicating that the licensed business was in good standing with the State Department of Assessments and Taxation (i.e. that the business has filed all required documents and is not delinquent with any State agency). The audit recommends that “staff verif[y] that applicants are in good standing with SDAT and include relevant documentation in the licensee files.” Soldi Fussa, LLC cannot be in good standing with the state because it does not exist.

Councilman Bill Henry’s testimony: Councilman Henry paraphrased the MOU and thanked the applicant for his cooperation, stating that this “has been a very, very good process” in terms of the licensee working with the community to minimize negative impacts of the establishment. Councilman Henry also said that Belvedere Improvement Association, within whose boundaries the current establishment resides, has been very happy with the applicant as a licensee. He explained that a number of points in the MOU were added not because of problems with the current location, but because the new location is next to Favorites, a bar that has a really bad reputation with the neighborhood. He explained that most of the neighbors who do not support the current application do not support it because they are unhappy with Favorites, and they don’t want more licensed establishments in the area. The community, the applicant, and the owner of Favorites did meet, and agreed that there would be four people outside working security whenever both establishments are open. The MOU specifies that the applicant will close at 1:30 am Wednesday through Saturday, will have two employees present during all hours of operation, will only sell packaged goods over the bar, and will not sell packaged goods after 10 pm. Councilman Henry asked that each of these MOU provisions be noted on the license. The applicant’s attorney and Chairman Fogleman confirmed that the applicant voluntarily entered the MOU, and Chairman Fogleman said that the MOU language Councilman Henry specified would go on the bottom of the license.

Additional letters: Chairman Fogleman stated that the Liquor Board had received letters of opposition from the Homeland Association and the Bellona Avenue Residents Association, a letter of support contingent upon the MOU restrictions from the Bellona Improvement Association, and a letter of support from York Road Partnership.

Chairman Fogleman went over the three citizen signatories of the application and asked the applicant if he was “reasonably certain” that each signatory was a registered voter and owned property in Baltimore City. One of the names was illegible, so Chairman Fogleman asked the applicant to amend the application.

Baltimore City Residency: Audit Finding 2 was that “BLLC frequently issued licenses without receiving all required documentation from licensees or applicants” and Audit Finding 3 was that “detailed testing of the licensing process disclosed that BLLC lacked documentation that certain State law and BLLC licensing requirements were met.” State law (Md Code Art. 2B § 10-103(4)(i)) requires that license applications contain “a statement that the applicant has been for two years next preceding the filing of the application a resident of the county or of the City of Baltimore in which the applicant proposes to operate under the license applied for.” In this case, the applicant is not a Baltimore City resident.

The applicants: The applicants are married. One of them has been managing Alewife for the past four years. Chairman Fogleman asked if Alewife has had any Liquor Board violations, and the applicant said no. The other applicant has a business degree. Both applicants will be working full-time at the establishment.

Chairman Fogleman went through the three citizen signatories with the applicants, asked how the applicants knew the signatories, and asked if the applicants were “reasonably certain” that each signatory is a registered voter and owns property in Baltimore City. Chairman Fogleman also said that the Liquor Board recently began an agreement with the Board of Elections in which the Board of Elections will send the Liquor Board voter information. [A later conversation with Liquor Board staff clarified that the Liquor Board is in the process of reaching this agreement.]

This was the fifth hearing scheduled on this issue. In November 2011, the Liquor Board approved a transfer from the current licensee to Ms. Lattimore (Three of the four citizen signatories on the September 2011 transfer application did not list an owned property in Baltimore City, and do not own their place of residence. This author was unable to verify the ownership of the fourth signatory’s residence.). In January 2013, 442 days after the transfer was approved, the Liquor Board sent a letter to Ms. Lattimore asking her to “appear for a conference with Executive Secretary Sam Daniels” at the Liquor Board’s office in February 2013. There is no record of the result of that conference in the file for the license. In February 2013, the Liquor Board sent a letter to the Ms. Lattimore asking her to appear for a public hearing in March 2013 because “there ha[d] been no progress concerning this transfer.” The applicant failed to appear at the public hearing. In May 2013, the Liquor Board sent another letter to Ms. Lattimore asking her to appear for a public hearing on June 13, 2013. This hearing was rescheduled for June 20, 2013, postponed until July 11, 2013, and then postponed again until July 18, 2013. On July 18, 2013, 623 days had passed since the Board approved the transfer. State law provides that a transfer must be completed within 180 days of approval, or 360 days maximum if a hardship extension is granted. The period in which the transfer must have been completed has ended. Therefore, the application is no longer legally pending, and must be resubmitted and discussed during a public hearing.

Finding 3 of the Audit states that “BLLC [the Liquor Board] lacked documentation that certain State law and BLLC licensing requirements were met.” In 11 out of 30 applications the auditors tested, the applications were not completely filled out. In this case, the September 2011 transfer application that the Board agreed is pending did not have three citizen signatures that met the requirements of Md Code Art. 2B § 10-104(d).

Expired transfer application: Audit finding 6 states that “BLLC [the Liquor Board] did not always ensure that license transfers were completed within 180 days of receiving Board approval as required by State law [Md Code Art. 2B § 10-503(d)]. [The auditors’] test of 10 license transfer that occurred during the 2011-2012 license year disclosed that 4 of these license transfers had not been completed within 180 days of receiving Board approval. These four license transfers were completed between 246 and 706 calendar days after the Board approved the transfer.” As of the date of this hearing, 623 days had passed since the Board approved the transfer, no hardship extension request had been filed, and no public hearing on a hardship extension for the transfer had been held. According to Liquor Board files, the pending application expired by operation of law at least 8 months ago.