What happened at the Liquor Board on December 12, 2013.

Bonnie Bessor, president of the Abell Improvement Association, testified about the process that AIA went through to negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Peabody Heights Brewery. AIA supports the Board’s granting of the application, subject to the restrictions in the MOU.

Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke also testified about the project. She has some concerns about zoning: the building is zoned for manufacturing use, so she believes that the applicants will have to go to zoning to get a conditional use to use the building partially as a tavern. She said that she and Mr. Barry would be in conversation about that issue.

Watch the hearing here:

Chairman Fogleman stated that the Board had received a letter from the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, which indicated that the Church reaffirms the position that it expressed in the October 10, 2013. Ms. Rivieri, a representative from the Greektown CDC, was present at the hearing and reaffirmed the position of that group, which was in opposition to the transfer application and to the live entertainment.

Mr. Kodenski concluded that, because the applicant had withdrawn the request for live entertainment, the only issue left for the Board to determine is the fitness of the applicant. He pointed out this address has had a license since 1967 and that the community members had submitted no testimony against the applicant herself.

Mr. Song was present at the hearing, unrepresented, and admitted that the incident happened. However, Mr. Song informed the Board that he had asked Cadet Jones for identification, but that a customer behind Mr. Jones had said, “he’s okay, he’s my brother.” So Mr. Song decided to sell the beer to Cadet Jones without looking at the identification.

Chairman Fogleman asked, “how long has this construction been going on?” Mr. Prevas answered that the license began in August 2013 and that he should be completed with the renovations in fewer than thirty days.

Chairman Fogleman told the licensee that his application was approved a year and a half ago for one quarter of the floor space that he is now asking the Board to approve. He added that Mr. Danielczyk has no alcohol management experience in Baltimore City (though he operated a bar in Towson for ten years). Silks’s capacity was 45, and Mr. Danielczyk’s new proposed capacity would be about 120 or so. He asked, “Would you agree with me that you’re asking us to approve, off the Square, one of the largest bars in Canton?”

Commissioner Jones added in that he was concerned with traffic flow and parking. He asked the licensee, “Do you think that this establishment would take away from the lifestyle of the community to the point where it’s not comfortable?”

Mr. Prevas, for his client, told the Board that the corner where the establishment is located is extremely wide and there’s angled parking. There’s an Ace Hardware nearby. It’s not like there’s wall to wall residences. Chairman Fogleman replied that Lakewood is nothing but homes except for the property we’re talking about.

Watch the hearing video on YouTube:

Request to reopen after being closed for more than 90 days: granted.

Expansion for the first floor: approved. Expansion for second floor: denied for now. Outdoor table service: also denied for now.

Mr. Fine, on behalf of his client, submitted three letters of personal reference on behalf of the applicant. Since Mr. Barnhill is not from Maryland, he was unable to get three character witnesses who own property and are registered to vote in Baltimore City. Mr. Fine also informed the Board that Mr. Barnhill has been deemed to be fit and proper as a manager of a casino by the Maryland Lottery and Gaming Commission.

There were many people there in support of the project, including Tom Yeager from Downtown Partnership, Ron Melton from Visit Baltimore, Kim Clark from Baltimore Development Corporation, and Ben Hyman from Pigtown Main Street. City Councilman Curran was present in support of the project as well, though it is not in his district.

Watch the hearing on YouTube:

Mr. Kodenski said to the Board, “in this particular case, the gentlemen are of Chinese extraction. As you can see they were born in Mexico, and I guess we can thank them for railroads, restaurants, and keeping our clothes clean.”

Commissioner Smith, seeing that the two applicants did not seem to understand English, asked Mr. Kodenski how they will be informed regarding the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Board when they seem to have a language barrier. Mr. Kodenski replied that they have a translator who will translate the rules for them. Commissioner Smith then asked one of the applicants about the required closing time of bars in Baltimore City, and he did not understand the question and couldn’t answer it. Commissioner Smith told Mr. Kodenski that there is a serious gap in understanding, and the two applicants have no prior experience with alcohol management. Mr. Kodenski replied that it’s the American way, and that if they don’t follow the rules, they’ll lose their investment.

Watch the video of this hearing:

The licensee denied the charge of a violation of Rule 4.18. Baltimore City Police Officer Brown testified that on August 24, 2013, at 12:50am, he did a routine business check at the establishment. There were sixteen to eighteen patrons dancing at the time, but the establishment’s liquor license does not allow live entertainment and dancing. There were about 100-120 people present, total.

Mr. Prevas told the Board that, given the clientele and nature of this establishment, it is very difficult to keep people from dancing. He mentioned that there is one more case of unauthorized live entertainment that the Board will be hearing soon, and that the licensee is doing his darndest to make sure that nobody dances. Mr. Prevas said that Baltimore City Police Lieutenant Colburn had made the suggestion that Playbook apply for live entertainment to be added to their license and that the licensee plans to do so.

In the first half of the hearing, Mr. Holzer, the attorney for the Remington Neighborhood Alliance, submitted a memorandum with several arguments against granting the license to the licensee.

Holzer pointed out that the applicant’s LLC entity was temporarily forfeited by the State of Maryland from October 1, 2012 to January 2013 due to its failure to file Personal Property Returns; according to RNA, this means that the application is void. Mr. Prevas countered that the forfeiture of an LLC is different than the forfeiture of a corporation under Maryland state law. Under the Maryland Corporate Code section 4A-920, a forfeited LLC still has the ability to perform its obligations, while a corporation does not. (Section 4A-920 states “The forfeiture of the right to do business in Maryland and the right to the use of the name of the limited liability company under this title does not impair the validity of a contract or act of the limited liability company entered into or done either before or after the forfeiture.”) The Board agreed with the applicant and dismissed the argument.

Mr. Holzer went on to argue that Mr. DeSouza, under Article 2B section 9-101(c) was required to be a registered voter at the time of his 2009 application for a liquor license, as required by Article 2B section 9-101(c). After Mr. DeSouza applied for his license, the Maryland state legislature amended section 9-101(c) to say “(ii) In Baltimore City, an authorized person of a limited liability company who holds an alcoholic beverages license for the use of the limited liability company that was granted on or before June 1, 2012, need not be a registered voter in Baltimore City.” Mr. Prevas countered that Mr. DeSouza is now a registered voter and provided proof of his registration; he added that it was Board policy for many years that if the applicant had a green card, the voter registration provision in the statute did not apply. The Board agreed with Mr. Prevas on this point, stating that the Board has long allowed applicants to amend applications up to the hearing date and that Mr. DeSouza is now a registered voter, which is sufficient for the Board.

Mr. Holzer also argued that Mr. DeSouza was not a taxpayer, as required by Article 2B, at the time of his 2009 application, because he did not own property in Baltimore City at that time. Mr. Prevas countered that Mr. DeSouza was, in fact, a taxpayer in 2009, because he paid the property taxes at 127 W 27th Street, which he was required to do under his commercial lease agreement. Prevas added that, since 2009, Mr. DeSouza has purchased a house in Baltimore City on which he pays taxes. The Board agreed with Mr. Prevas that Mr. DeSouza was a taxpayer under his commercial lease and is a taxpayer currently.

Mr. Holzer then contended that the amendment to the law was unconstitutional under the Maryland state constitution, because it is a “special law.” A special law is a law that applies only to a particular individual. Mr. Prevas responded that the amendment to section 9-101(c) was not a special law because it applied to the entire class of people who are not registered to vote, including resident aliens. The Board agreed with Mr. Prevas and dismissed the argument. Ms. Joan Floyd of the Remington Neighborhood Alliance attempted to submit testimony about the hearing that she had attended in Annapolis in which the legislators specifically mentioned 127 W 27th Street, but Mr. Prevas protested that her testimony was hearsay. The Board agreed with Mr. Prevas’s objection.

Watch the Board’s decision in this hearing: