What happened at the Liquor Board on March 13, 2014.

The establishment is at the former Banners bar in Locust Point. The Locust Point Civic Association supports the application. The applicants paid $45,000 for the license: $25,000 at settlement and $20,000 financed.

Ms. Jones testified that she plans to change the entire atmosphere of the bar, including checking IDs and beefing up security to attract an older crowd. Commissioner Smith asked, to follow up, how she intends to attract an older crowd, and Ms. Jones responded that she would change the food and the marketing.

There was a letter in the file from a neighbor, Thomas Krug, protesting the transfer of ownership because he doesn’t like the establishment’s loud karaoke. There was also a letter of support and MOU from the Mount Vernon Belvedere Association. Mr. Steve Johnson from MVBA was at the hearing and testified that the establishment has been very popular and that the licensees have been good neighbors so far. MVBA did request a few restrictions on the license, which are in the MOU.

Mr. Kodenski argued that the Voltage licensees were being treated unfairly and differently than other licensees in the past. He listed many other nightclubs in Baltimore’s history with far worse violations who were given small fines or suspensions of their licenses. He noted that Mr. Principio has a history in the business since 1976 and that he employs 90 people and pays his taxes. According to Kodenski, there are more arrests at Ravens Stadium than at Voltage.

Mr. Principio then had a chance to speak: here are some excerpts from his testimony:

“I’ve been working with officers for 40 years. All my friends are officers. There was an officer behind me, but when I saw a young man getting kicked on the ground, I maced the ground. The wind blew it back in my eyes. The officer was far behind me, I didn’t go over to him to mace him. It was totally an accident. I hardly ever use pepper spray, but I do if there is someone on the ground who is defenseless. I have had a police officer on my premises every minute since I’ve been open… Hammerjacks [Principio’s former, rather infamous, club] was way worse than this. This is the best behaved crowd I’ve had. At Hammerjacks, I had hundreds of lawsuits a year. Here, I haven’t been sued yet. I have big, intimidating guys on security. It’s run like a church. You can’t look left or right in there. In the parking lot, it’s one problem, you’re out. One incident, you get kicked out. There’s hell to pay. It’s a private parking lot. People come to my club to meet the opposite sex. That’s the dynamic. My bar sales are very little. It’s dance-driven, but it’s 800-900 people a night. I think the district was in shock about the size of the crowd. The shooting was an anomaly. Anything could have happened. Now I’ve added security. It’s like an airport. But the shooting was like a set-up, or someone smuggled the gun in. Police don’t do well in large crowds. They are intimidated by them. I can walk through a crowd and know instantly what’s going on. I’ve never been hurt. I don’t fuel the violence. There have been instances when the police are very violent. We are talking now about a few old-fashioned bar fights. Guys who didn’t meet a girl and blew off that energy. I had my own police who were trained at Hammerjacks, knew how to handle crowds, knew how to take control of the situation. When the [Baltimore City Police Department] took it over, it went to hell in a handbasket. … Compared to the number of people, there is not a lot of violence. There is a lot of energy. That energy upsets people. There has not been one fight inside since I opened.”

Mr. Principio told the Board that there had only been three fights in 14 months, serving 3,000 people a week. He spends $300,000 on security, which he estimates as 25% of his total budget. He’s installed alarms on exit doors to prevent people from smuggling in guns, like they did on December 2.

To watch the decision phase of this hearing, see the YouTube video:

Mr. Glick is a 50% member of the LLC and its managing partner. Ms. Anna Leventis is a 49% member, but is not an applicant for this license because she holds another liquor license in Baltimore City. Mr. Haskell is a 1% owner, and he lives nearby. Mr. Glick has a degree in hospitality management and ten years’ experience in the restaurant industry. Neither applicant has any plans to change the premises, except to introduce a light food menu. SBNA supports the transfer, under the restrictions outlined in the MOU.

Chairman Fogleman announced that he knows Mr. Hubbard personally as a bartender in an establishment that he frequents and asked both sides if they wanted him to recuse himself. Both sides said no.

Mr. Hubbard submitted a petition of residents in support of his application. He testified that he will hire 10-15 people and that he will try to hire from the community, if possible. He has worked in the restaurant business for 19 years.

Rule 3.12 charges: Liquor Board Inspector Jeffrey Ray testified that he responded to a 311 complaint on October 5 regarding loud music and people standing outside the establishment, calling out to and bothering passersby. When he arrived on October 5, he found the door propped open, loud music playing, and loitering outside as described in the complaint. Mr. Ray testified further that on October 11, however, the music was not too loud. The Commissioners dismissed the second violation of Rule 3.12. Going back to the first violation, upon questioning from Mr. Kodenski, on behalf of Ginger Cornejo and Ginger, Inc., Mr. Ray testified that he took noise readings with a decibel reader and that the reader showed over 50 decibels, both inside and outside of the establishment. Mr. Ray did not take a reading of the ambient noise level in the area. Mr. Ray then testified that there were two men and a woman smoking outside and hollering across the street, calling out to people walking by.

Rule 3.12 holdings: the Board found the licensee guilty of one count of violating Rule 3.12 on October 5, 2013 and assessed a fine of $500.

Community petition: Kodenski objected to the community petition, arguing that the community does not have the authority to call a hearing under Article 2B section 10-403. He also objected to the petition in that it was vague and nonspecific, because there are no specific dates. Lastly, he argued that the community group should have to provide proof that the people who signed the petition are from the precinct, as required by the statute. Witt provided proof of property ownership and voter registration for 13 of the signatories to the petition. The text of Article 2B section 10-403 states, in relevant part: “The … Board of License Commissioners for … Baltimore City… may on its own initiative or upon the written complaint of ten or more citizens, residents, real estate owners and voters of the precinct in which any licensed place of business is situated … after a hearing upon charges to be framed by the officer or Board, or upon the complaint, notice of which shall be given to the licensee at least ten days before the hearing, revoke or suspend any license issued under the provisions of this article.” The remaining commissioners chose to move forward with the hearing.

Ms. Witt first called Mr. Dan Tracy of the Canton Community Association to testify about CCA’s relationship to this case. Mr. Tracy testified that he had heard from two community members that the Mustang Inn was a problem establishment and that the CCA Board had voted to retain the assistance of the Community Law Center in resolving the problem. Mr. Kodenski cross-examined Mr. Tracy, asking whether he had heard complaints from anyone else except the two community members, and Mr. Tracy said that he had not.

Witt then showed a video provided by Mr. Mark Mellett, who lives in the rowhouse directly adjoining Mustang Inn. He testified about how he gathered the footage for the video from cameras mounted inside his office and how he put the video together. He informed the Board that the footage was gathered late last summer (sometime in August 2013) but that the footage is typical of the kind of nuisance that the Mustang Inn is on the block. Ms. Dawn Mellett then testified that she and her husband, Mark, experience the nuisance noise of Mustang Inn every single night of the week. Finally, Lieutenant Colburn testified briefly about his experience with investigating the bar for drug activity; however, that investigation largely took place before May of last year, so it was excluded.

Mr. Kodenski called some other community members to testify in favor of the bar, including some business owners from nearby blocks. He also submitted a petition of community members in favor of Mustang Inn, though many of the addresses in the petition were far from the bar. Finally, he called the licensee herself, who testified that she had lowered the jukebox volume and tried unsuccesfully to work with the Melletts on the noise and other issues, including loitering. Ms. Cornejo testified that she has had security personnel at the bar before, but that she could no longer afford to do so.