What happened at the Liquor Board on January 9, 2014.

Mr. Kodenski informed the Board that the two current licensees had abandoned their interest in the license (which is why the license is being purchased from the secured creditor, not the licensees). Chairman Fogleman responded that he had received a phone call several months ago on his cell phone from one of the licensees, who lives in California, stating that she was worried about losing her interest in the license. He asked Mr. Kodenski if the licensees knew that the transfer hearing for the license was happening that day, and Mr. Kodenski didn’t know the answer. He responded that the hearing was a matter of public record.

Mr. Kodenski continued in his description of the project, that it will be a “restaurant tavern type operation” and that “obviously, the licensee has spent some time in Vietnam.” He submitted petitions from the neighborhood in favor of the application. The establishment will serve 16 people at outside tables, 33 on the first floor and 45 on the second floor. The establishment will serve Asian fusion food.

Ms. Ha testified that she has had experience in the restaurant business in Germany and Vietnam. She has a master’s degree in management. She has agreed to the Canton Community Association’s standard guidelines for outdoor table service, and she accepts these guidelines as voluntary license restrictions.

Chairman Fogleman asked Mr. Kodenski, “and she doesn’t have a valid LLC why?” Mr. Kodenski responded that Ms. Ha is currently operating as a sole proprietorship. Ms. Ha noted that she intends to form an LLC, and Mr. Kodenski informed her that she would have to submit a new application and go through the process again if she does so.

The hours of the restaurant will be 4PM-2AM on weekdays and 11AM-2AM on weekends.

Mr. Coyle has 25 years’ experience in hotels and restaurants, and he will be present every day at the establishment. Mr. Mackey will be a secondary managing partner. Ms. Kennedy is the “Baltimore City resident” as required by Article 2B and will not be involved in the business.

Mr. Kodenski informed the Board that he had given his client, Ms. Glanville, a list of ten community associations to contact about the application, and none of them had responded to her. Upon further questioning, Ms. Glanville told the Board that she had sent out letters to the ten community associations on Friday, January 3, less than a week before the Thursday, January 9 hearing. There was a letter from Kevin Bernhard of the Highlandtown Community Association in the file, dated January 6, 2014, informing the Board that the HCA opposes the live entertainment and dancing portion of the application. You can view the letter here.

Former Baltimore City Liquor Board Inspector Donald Fitzgerald, now a security consultant, presented a security plan for the proposed establishment. You can read Mr. Fitzgerald’s security plan at this link. According to Mr. Fitzgerald, there will be three full-time security guards at the location at all times: two inside and one outside.

The Board expressed confusion at why the Glanvilles would need three full-time security guards at a family Caribbean restaurant. Mr. Fitzgerald explained that the plan was about being proactive rather than reactive and pointed out that Baltimore is a dangerous city. Commissioner Smith followed up with Mr. Fitzgerald, asking again why the Glanvilles would need so many full-time security guards in this particular neighborhood. She also asked whether Mr. Fitzgerald was aware of the sociological research that suggests that the presence of an armed guard might perpetuate crime, not deter it. Mr. Fitzgerald was not aware of this research. At the end of the explanation, Chairman Fogleman still expressed confusion about the necessity of three armed guards “in order for people to eat fish” and informed the applicants that this plan sounded more appropriate for a nightclub than for a family restaurant.

The applicant’s husband, Baltimore City Police Sergeant James Glanville testified that he has worked in the Western District for many years. As to the live entertainment plans, he testified that they might have spoken word presentations or something else that is different but in the best interest of the community. From the documents in the file, including the letter that Mr. Glanville sent to neighboring businesses, it looks as though the owners of the business are Mr. James Glanville and Mr. Michael Wood. Ms. Shannon Glanville informed the Board that Mr. James Glanville was not an applicant because he is an active-duty Baltimore police officer, and police officers are not allowed to hold liquor licenses. This requirement is not in Article 2B, according to a recent search, but it may be an internal Baltimore police policy.

Article 2B section 9-101(b) states that when a corporation applies for a license, the license shall be issued to three of the officers of that corporation, as individuals. In this case, the corporation did not exist at the time of the hearing, and there were only two applicants on the application, not three.

Chairman Fogleman noted, “Well, at least we’ve got a man who knows how to keep his LLC active and in good standing.”

Watch the hearing on YouTube:

Watch the hearing on YouTube:

The licensee has entered voluntarily into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Mount Vernon-Belvedere Community Association. Read the MOU here. The MOU has only three restrictions: (1) no sales of miniature liquors or half-pints of alcohol (2) no sales of single cans of beer and (3) no sales of fortified wines.

The applicants have signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Charles Village Civic Association, the Old Goucher Community Association, and the Charles North Community Association; the MOU was approved at the zoning board on November 12, 2013 and will also serve as voluntary license restrictions on the applicants’ liquor license. Sharon Guida, Chair of the Land Use Committee of the Charles Village Civic Association, went through the important provisions of the MOU on the record, including that the licensees will keep windows closed, will not rent out the space to others, will have a security plan, and will not provide live entertainment between the hours of 2AM and 5PM. Councilman Stokes submitted a letter in support of the application.

Ms. Ravanbakhjh has a prospective new licensee for this license; the Board should receive the transfer application in February or March of this year. The last hardship extension was granted on April 4, 2013, which is more than 180 days before December 3, 2013, when Mr. Kodenski submitted a hardship extension request. See the hardship extension request here. Mr. Kodenski told the Board that his clients had thought that a phone call to the Liquor Board to request a hardship extension would be sufficient, so they had called the Liquor Board within 180 days after April 4, 2013.

First of all, the secured creditor made no allegations of fact that would show that she has experienced undue hardship. Second, the licensee had received her allotted hardship extension on April 4, 2013, at which Chairman Fogleman granted one extension of 180 days. You can read the transcript of the decision from that hearing here. 180 days from April 4, 2013 was Tuesday, October 1, 2013. The license expired as a matter of law on October 1, 2013. Article 2B does not allow for more than one hardship extension, but even if it did, Mr. Kodenski’s request for a hardship extension was untimely.