What happened at the Liquor Board on September 26, 2013

The licensees and the community jointly submitted a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Fells Point Residents’ Association (FPRA) and the Fells Point Community Organization (FPCO). Joanne Masopust was present from FPCO and Daniel Atzmon was the representative from FPRA.

Inspector Karen Brooks testified that she affixed the notice sign regarding the hearing to the front door of the building on August 12, 2013, and that the sign remained posted for the statutory period.

Mr. Prevas provided documents for the Board’s review, including (1) a $623,000 capital investment appraisal (2) a menu, and (3) a proposed floor plan. The licensees testified that the new establishment will be “inspired by Mexican cuisine” but “not traditional,” and that it’s an “upscale concept.”

Chairman Fogleman checked that the character witnesses were Baltimore City property owners and registered voters. He also stated that, according to information in the file, the LLC associated with the application was in good standing as of the day before the hearing. [The BLLC has not been in the habit of checking that a corporate entity is in good standing, and past Booze News posts will show that the corporate entities are very often not in good standing.]

At this time, Ms. Masopust approached the microphone and stated that she had photographic proof that the sign giving notice to the community of the hearing was not placed on the front door as Inspector Brooks had testified; rather, according to her, the sign was placed on a side door and was not visible from the main street or the promenade.

Chairman Fogleman asked, “Is it your contention that the community has not been notified about today’s hearing?” Ms. Masopust responded that she was merely pointing out that the sign was not posted where it should have been posted. Chairman Fogleman replied, “what do you want us to do about it?” Ms. Masopust answered that she just wanted to put it on the record.

Inspector Brooks returned to the microphone to add that she had her own set of photographs to show that the sign was placed on the front door of the establishment.

Mr. Mekbib testified that he was out of the country at the time and that he did not have the license on hand because he had not paid his real property tax yet.

Mr. Kodenski and Chairman Fogleman then discussed whether the licensees had “official final permission” for outdoor table service and whether they had picked up the license.

Agent Fitzgerald testified that, on July 19, he had received a phone call complaint regarding the outdoor tables. He arrived at the restaurant, saw bartenders serving alcohol outside and patrons sitting outside, without permission on their license to have outdoor tables. Fitzgerald told the restaurant staff to remove the tables, and they did. When he came back on July 20, the tables were out again, and Fitzgerald told them to remove the tables again. On July 21, he came back once again with a health inspector, who saw a man handling watermelon outside. The health inspector who accompanied Fitzgerald told the person with the watermelon to take it inside and to remove the tables.

Mr. Kodenski then cross-examined Agent Fitzgerald as to what he saw (sales of alcohol, outdoor bar, outdoor tables) and on which days. The licensees and their bartender testified that they were not serving alcohol outside at all, though it may have looked that way, since some patrons from adjoining restaurants were sitting at Chesapeake tables. Mr. Kodenski stated that, if anything illegal happened, it was a de minimis situation, that “just having tables outside is not a violation.” Mr. Kodenski then added, “we’re not talking about Girls Gone Wild here. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.”

Chairman Fogleman noted that there was a note in the file that the corporate charter had not been in good standing the previous year. The licensee explained that the business has a new CPA to take care of those matters. However, a search of the State Department of Assessments and Taxation website showed that the entity’s charter is currently not in good standing with the state; the Board did not mention this.

Chairman Fogleman pointed out that this was the second time in the same afternoon that a postponement had been made due to an “untimely illness.” However, the Chairman agreed to postpone the hearing for three weeks.

The BLLC agent testified that on March 3, 2013, he observed a side door that had been locked with two padlocks, and that no other exits were available to the patrons. This locked door was a public safety hazard.

Mr. Jackson explained that the workers at the establishment had locked the door too early as they were trying to close up for the night. The bar has had a problem with patrons leaving the bar with drinks in their hands, so they were trying to figure out a solution.

Commissioner Smith asked Mr. Jackson, “what are your plans to prevent drinks from going out the door?” He replied that he has installed an emergency exit alarm on the door, which will allow people to exit in case of emergency, but will keep drinks inside the bar.

Baltimore City Police Lieutenant Colburn testified that he entered the establishment (which has no permission from the Liquor Board to conduct live entertainment) and saw approximately twelve people dancing in pairs as couples and a DJ speaking into a microphone in Spanish. The lieutenant had made the restrictions on the license clear to the licensee during a visit to the establishment earlier in the month.

Mr. Kodenski then cross-examined Lieutenant Colburn, asking him if he understood what the DJ was saying in Spanish. Colburn did not. Kodenski then asked if the DJ could have been bringing a problem to everyone’s attention? Colburn replied that “the building did not evacuate.” Kodenski asked if there were any signs in the establishment that say that dancing is not permitted. Colburn said no. Finally, Kodenski asked whether Colburn knew whether the dancing was spontaneous; perhaps there was a celebration or birthday party that inspired patrons to dance? Colburn replied that he didn’t see any balloons on February 24.

The licensee testified that “he doesn’t encourage dancing, but he can’t stop people from dancing.”

Commissioner Jones asked, “why was the microphone there?”

The licensee then testified that the person who Lieutenant Colburn thought was a DJ was actually just a patron who was alerting the other patrons that there was glass from a broken bottle on the floor.

Mr. Kodenski added, in closing, apparently in reference to Hispanic people, that “they’re a lively people. When they hear music, they want to get up. It’s not ‘Dancing with the Stars.'”

Police testified that there had been numerous transactions in and out of the side door entrance to the bar. Police found around twenty $20 vials of crack cocaine, a “very little loose rock cocaine,” a “little bit of heroin,” and a bag of marijuana in the DJ booth. The state’s attorney dropped the cases against the DJs because there was not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the drugs belonged to the DJs.

Mr. Trintis testified that he has been a licensee since 1973 and that the area around the bar has decayed rapidly in recent years. He said that he tries to monitor what goes on in the bar and to work with the police department.

4.18: Guilty.

4.16: Guilty. The drug trafficking was somewhat open and notorious. The police recovered a large quantity in terms of units of drugs being stored in the DJ booth. The Board considers this to be a pretty serious situation and believes that the licensee either knew or should have known what was going on. Given the licensee’s forty year history at the location, the Board voted 2-1 to fine the licensee $500 for the violation. (Commissioner Smith thought that the charges are serious enough to warrant the suspension of the liquor license.) The Board does require “a high level of administration,” so Chairman Fogleman suggested that it may be time for the licensee to get out of the bar business if he is unable to supervise his employees.

Baltimore City Police Detective Greenhill read from his report: the mother of the licensee was behind the counter and plexiglass in the store. Detective Greenhill noticed that the liquor license was not displayed inside the store, and asked the licensee’s mother where the license was. She did not speak English well, so she called someone for help in dealing with the situation. She completed two alcohol transactions without the license on the premises. Mr. Oh, the licensee, arrived at the store approximately 15 minutes later with the license. Mr. Oh told the police that he needed to take the license with him for business reasons and that no one had explained to him the rules and regulations of the Liquor Board.

Chairman Fogleman asked the licensee why he took the license with him from the wall, and Mr. Oh replied that Sam’s Club required it in order to buy cigarettes in bulk.

Baltimore City Police Lieutenant Colburn testified that he was driving by the establishment and heard loud noises coming from the bar after 2:00am; he saw lots of people inside, drinking beer and making lots of noise.

Mr. Roop said that it wasn’t a regular occurrence and that one of the patrons was celebrating his 30th birthday. Mr. Roop testified that the bartender working at the time, who was not present at the hearing, told him that no one was drinking at 2:00am, that the patrons were just paying their tabs and leaving. Chairman Fogleman asked Lieutenant Colburn if the bartender was cooperative and polite, and Colburn said that he wasn’t, particularly.