What happened at the Liquor Board on October 3, 2013

Pandit has been working at Mughal Gardens for “a couple of months.”” The restaurant makes only around 10% of its income on alcohol sales (90% on food sales). There is no live entertainment, but there are outdoor tables. Mr. Pandit has not met with the community association.

Chairman Fogleman and Commissioner Smith asked Mr. Pandit a few questions about his young age and their concern with his limited experience in the food service business. Mr. Pandit responded that he is twenty-two years old and takes classes online and that he waited tables in high school. Mughal Gardens was previously owned by his uncles, and they had owned restaurants for around 10 years. Pandit stated that he had around eight years of restaurant experience, mostly in the form of being around his family’s restaurants.

Commissioner Jones expressed concern that growing up in proximity to a family restaurant and actually working in one are two different things. He asked more specifically about what the applicant had done in the restaurant.

The applicant responded that he had worked as a waiter for three years. Commissioner Smith noted that he had previously stated that he had eight years of experience, and Mr. Pandit had only accounted for three years. Mr. Pandit adjusted his total experience down to three years, but noted that “other family and friends have owned restaurants that [he has] been very close with.”

Chairman Fogleman checked the character witnesses and found some discrepancies between the voter rolls and the names listed. He began to ask the applicant to amend the application to solve those discrepancies, but after some conversing with Mr. Kodenski, Chairman Fogleman announced that “the Board finds that the requirements of Article 2B have bene satisfied.”

Commissioner Smith dissented from the decision. She explained that the Board is taxed with determining the fitness of the applicant, and Mr. Pandit’s only experience was vicariously through his family. She warned the applicant that a liquor license is a serious responsibility, and that the Board wants to make sure that the applicant follows all of the Board’s rules and regulations.

Mr. Jissri is a Baltimore City resident and has worked as a self-employed cab driver for fifteen years.

Chairman Fogleman checked the character witness information against Board of Elections and property ownership information.

Eric Levitt runs a successful commercial real estate business and owns many properties in Baltimore.

The licensees submitted an MOU and letter of support from the community association, the Federal Hill Neighborhood Association.

Mr. Kodenski offered a letter into evidence from the current licensee, Mr. Siegel, stating that he does not think that there are any community associations in the area to contact about the license transfer. He also mentioned that no community member has voiced any objections in response to the notice sign placed in front of the store.

Commissioner Smith mused that this address might be represented by the Hilltop Improvement Association. Mr. Kodenski responded that Mr. Siegel has been the licensee at the address since 1981 and that “he should know better than anybody else.”

A search for this address on Baltimore City’s CityView database and in Baltimore City’s Community Association Directory brought up twelve neighborhood groups, including: Reisterstown/Park Heights Southern Team, Park Heights Community Council, Cottage/Park Heights/Violet/Springhill/Ulman Avenues Non-Profit Association, JNNRL Neighborhood Association, Northwestern District Police-Community Relations Council, Pimlico Community Council, Development Corporation of Northwest Baltimore-(TDC), Northwest Zoning Committee, Garrison Restorative Action and Community Empowerment, Northwest Community Action Center, Fellowship Outreach Corporation, Inc., and Park Heights Renaissance, Inc.

Mr. Gomez purchased the real estate and the business together: the real property cost $30,000, and the business cost $45,000. Chairman Fogleman asked the applicant to amend his application to fill in question five, which asks for the costs of the real property and the terms of the financing.

Chairman Fogleman also stated that the Board had checked the State Department of Assessments and Taxation’s website to ensure that the LLC was in good standing, which is a step that the Board has not historically completed regularly.

Chairman Fogleman asked, “yes, but what about the other community association in Canton?” Mr. Kodenski replied that the other group did not respond.

Chairman Fogleman stated that the Board does not believe the law requires the applicants to obtain three character witness signatures for a request for live entertainment, but the Board does want to know whether the corporation is in good standing. Mr. Kodenski said that he would retrieve the information from SDAT and submit it to the Board the next day.

Chairman Fogleman noted that the file contained a letter from the CEO of the Greektown Community Development Corporation in support of the transfer of ownership. The Chairman also checked all the character witness names, who were all property owners and registered voters in Baltimore City. He added that “there is no LLC to consider at this point.”

The Fells Point Residents’ Association (FPRA) had negotiated and executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the licensee. FPRA also submitted a letter of support for their position from Councilman James Kraft.

The Fells Point Community Organization (FPCO), however, was present to oppose the transfer. FPCO had recently voted unanimously to oppose any new license transfers from outside of Fells Point into the neighborhood. FPCO believes that the Fells Point neighborhood is oversaturated with liquor licenses, and this oversaturation is becoming a problem for the neighborhood. (This particular license was being transferred from Curtis Bay.) FPCO also submitted a letter of support from Councilman Jim Kraft for their (mutually exclusive) position as well as an email in support from Maryland State Delegate Peter Hammen.

Joanne Masopust, FPCO President, called three Fells Point residents and FPCO members to testify about why they oppose any new liquor licenses in their neighborhood. FPCO would prefer more “traditional retail” over more liquor licenses. Masopust also pointed out that FPRA had voted “not to oppose” the liquor license transfer, whereas FPCO had voted to oppose. She argued that a vote “not to oppose” is not the same as a vote to support a liquor license transfer.

Mr. Kodenski pointed out that liquor establishments pay retail sales tax, so the distinction between liquor stores and “traditional retail” that Ms. Masopust was attempting to draw was not helpful.

Ms. Hughes explained that the September 5 vote was before the community had legal counsel and that there had been very few details provided to them.

Mr. Kodenski then admonished the Board that they “shouldn’t take last-minute letters.”