What happened at the Liquor Board on October 31, 2013.

Chairman Fogleman asked, “what is the status of your corporate entity?” The licensee replied, “in good standing.” A quick check of the State Department of Assessments and Taxation showed that the corporation was not in good standing on the date of the hearing and is still not in good standing as of the posting date of this entry.

The licensee present at the hearing, Collin Scarlett, asked for a 180-day extension.

Chairman Fogleman looked through the photographs of the establishment submitted by the licensee and said that the place looks great and that it doesn’t look like the licensees need 180 days. The licensee replied, “I just want to be on the safe side.”

Chairman Fogleman asked, “How long do you need?” The licensee replied, “180 days.” The Chairman remarked, “we can’t keep it alive forever.”

Chairman Fogleman asked his staff whether there was any statutory requirement to post a sign when removing a licensee from a license. He added that he was 95% sure that there was no signage required.)

Chairman Fogleman asked Mr. Ambrose to tell the Board about his project. Mr. Ambrose replied that he is planning on doing some renovations to the property. He is going to keep the seating capacity, make improvements to the kitchen, upgrade bathrooms, and change the decor. This new space is smaller than Salt, and the prices will be lower ($8-20). The concept is a neighborhood restaurant serving small plates, focusing on fresh, seasonal, food.

Chairman Fogleman said, “I don’t think Salt has been before the Board in my memory, so you obviously know how to do alcohol management.”

The purchase price for the business was $262,500, including both the BD7 liquor license and the building.

Ms. Ambrose has a 50% interest in the new restaurant, but her responsibility is with Salt.

Regarding the outdoor table service request: the prior licensee did obtain BLLC approval for outdoor seating but didn’t see it through with the zoning board. Mr. Ambrose is interested in having outdoor tables, so he included the request in the application.

Chairman Fogleman read from a letter in the file from Terry Hickey of the Locust Point Civic Association. The association requested the Board to delay its decision until November 13, when Mr. Ambrose will meet with the community.

The Chairman checked the character witness information in the application as well as the LLC’s status with the state.

Mr. Kodenski asked Ms. Martin whether the building had a zoning permit to be used for a church. Ms. Martin replied that the building did not have a permit to be used as a church.

Mr. Kodenski submitted evidence that the building was authorized by the Baltimore City Zoning Administrator to be used as a flower and gift shop, not a church. He also submitted printouts from the website of the Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation (SDAT) which shows that the building is listed as a retail store. Mr. Kodenski then submitted SDAT printouts for other area churches that correctly listed the buildings as churches. Chairman Fogleman replied that the SDAT website may not provide dispositive evidence on whether something is a church or not. He added, “We have no authority over a place of worship; we only have authority over liquor licenses.” Kodenski responded, “you have the authority to determine whether it’s a valid church.”

Mr. Kodenski then submitted the SDAT information for the church entity. He pointed out that the principal place of business listed for the church was on East 28th Street, not at 100 E Patapsco Street. He also pointed out that the church corporate entity is not in good standing with the state. Kodenski added, “if it doesn’t walk like a duck and quack like a duck and if it doesn’t have a permit for a duck, it’s not a duck.”

Mr. Kodenski continued, noting that the pastor of the church did not appear at the hearing. (The pastor had was under no legal requirement to attend the hearing.) Kodenski said that the Board should apply the Missing Witness Rule against the pastor. The missing witness rule comes from an 1893 Supreme Court opinion, which states: “[I]f a party has it peculiarly within his power to produce witnesses whose testimony would elucidate the transaction, the fact that he does not do it creates the presumption that the testimony, if produced, would be unfavorable.” In other words, Mr. Kodenski argued that the fact that the pastor did not attend and testify at the hearing creates the presumption that the testimony he would have given would have been unfavorable to the community association. The Board did not respond to Mr. Kodenski’s assertion.

Ms. Hughes provided a copy of Article 2B section 9-204.3 to the Board for their review as they decided this matter. The Commissioners did not appear to have a copy of Article 2B at hand. She argued that “nowhere in the statute does it mention any requirement for what is designated or accepted as a church or a school.” Chairman Fogleman responded, “the test is whether the building is used principally for religious worship.” Ms. Hughes answered that “the church in this case falls within this definition.” Mr. Kodenski objected, pointing out that Ms. Hughes “shouldn’t be testifying on something that she doesn’t know.”

The Chairman asked, “So nothing happend after March 7?” (March 7, 2013 is the date that the request was granted by the Board.)

Mr. Kodenski answered that the licensee didn’t realize that he had to update his use and occupancy permit, because he had it as of right. He added, “it hasn’t been that long. He’s at the cusp!”

Chairman Fogleman asked, “what’s the big deal if you just withdraw your application and resubmit?” He noted that soon it will be five years since the original application was approved.