What happened at the Liquor Board on October 17, 2013.

Liquor Board Agent Fosler testified that the establishment did operate as a legitimate BD7 until recently. Liquor Inspector Edward Owens was also present, representing Inspector Hyde. There was no posting in this case, because it’s not required for a hardship extension.

According to Chairman Fogleman, the licensees sent a September 13 letter to the Board asking for their first hardship extension. They no longer own the property.

Chairman Fogleman pointed out that this is Mr. Zorzit’s third request for an extension for both licenses under Article 2B section 10-504(d). He referenced the transcript in the file from March 2013 in which the Board granted a second hardship extension.

Mr. Harvey answered that it was his understanding that MD Code 2B section 10-504 was never intended to apply to a secured creditor. He did not elaborate on this claim or give any statutory or caselaw evidence for his argument.

Chairman Fogleman called the inspectors for the case to testify regarding the distances.

Inspector Martin testified that she was not sure what the address of the church was. She testified that she and Inspector John Howard had taken four measurements between the two buildings, which resulted in four very different numbers: (1)345 feet (2)341 feet (3)294 feet and (4)311 feet. The President of Citizens for a Better Brooklyn took a measurement as well, which came out to 301 feet. The inspector explained that there is a busy intersection between the prospective liquor establishment and the church building, so it was difficult to get a proper reading. Inspector Howard chimed in that he had to measure around parked cars, not in a particularly straight line.

Chairman Fogleman, confused, asked the inspectors, “isn’t the normal Liquor Board standard supposed to be point to point, as the crow flies?

Inspector Martin reiterated that there were cars in the way and a lot of traffic in the intersection. She pointed out that inspectors are not surveyors.

Chairman Fogleman ordered that the measurements be re-taken. He told the inspectors that, if traffic is a problem, they need to do the measurement early or late or work with law enforcement to close down the street.

Mr. Kodenski chimed in to say “I’m not going to tell you how they do it in Baltimore County… but I will. They laser it.” (E.g., they use a laser distance measurement tool.)

Mr. Kodenski submitted into evidence a list of nineteen names of people who were present in support of the transfer of the license. Ms. Hughes objected to the entrance of the list, on the basis that the people who were present in support of the license transfer lived in Baltimore County, not anywhere near the proposed liquor establishment. Chairman Fogleman noted that he was impressed that Ms. Hughes knew Baltimore so well that she could tell so easily and quickly where the addresses were, and Ms. Hughes responded that she has lived in Baltimore all of her life. The Board accepted the list into evidence over Ms. Hughes’ objection.

Agent Fitzgerald testified that on May 7, 2013, at 6:22pm, he entered the establishment and saw eight patrons sitting at bar. Five of the eight were drinking alcohol. The establishment could not produce a current liquor license. Agent Fitzgerald told the licensees that they would have to stop all sales immediately, but he allowed the patrons who were currently at the bar to finish their drinks. The licensees were very cooperative.

The licensee then testified that he was out of town and was not able to get back in town in a timely manner. He hadn’t gotten a notice from the BLLC that the licenses were ready to be picked up until maybe ten days beforehand. He added that running a small business by oneself is a struggle sometimes.

Ms. Carol McCoy, from a Morrell Park community association, submitted a letter from the community in support of the licensee.

Agent Howard testified that he received a 311 complaint about construction on the licensed premises. When he arrived, he saw construction being done on the front part of the cafe. He then called Mr. Cardinale and told him that he needed Liquor Board approval to do the work on the bar.

Mr. Maslan asked the Board not to take any action against the licensee, stating, “I don’t believe that this is a technical violation, since it’s not an expansion or a dramatic change in the way in which alcoholic beverages are served.”

The Board’s official policy is to require a postponement request at least 72 hours before the scheduled hearing date.