What happened at the Liquor Board on March 20, 2014.

The BLLC staff employee who normally checks all of the corporate entity information of all of the applicants before the hearings was out of the office. Therefore, the Board did not have the information about the corporate entities in the file. Chairman Fogleman asked Mr. Kodenski whether he had any evidence of the existence and good standing of Roshnisuri, LLC. Fogleman noted that the Board does have articles of organization in the file but not a certificate of good standing.

One of the applicants testified that he wanted to create a “place to have a drink that is comfortable and clean and not scary.”

Mr. Maslan added that the applicants are willing to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with any community groups, but the groups haven’t yet provided any terms to put in an MOU.

The Chairman asked the applicants to amend their application to include the purchase price of the “business” — the applicants had filled out their application without the assistance of counsel and had left the section blank because their business has already been running since 2011. Fogleman asked the applicant to include the purchase price of the liquor license, which was $35,000.

Mr. Prevas, on behalf of the applicants, explained to the Board that the hearing was a “re-do” of a previous license approval at the same location. On September 5, 2013, the Board had approved a license for this address under a different applicant name, Ms. Shannon Wood. Ms. Wood is currently a licensee at Wine Works, at 1340 Smith Avenue in Mount Washington. She had intended to transfer that license to someone else in order to add her name to this license, but she was unable to sell it. Therefore, the business had to find a new applicant and had to re-file and hold a new public hearing. Ms. Wood has had to divest herself of her ownership interest in the business at 911 W. 36th Street. The establishment plans to open in the next month.

The concept is essentially the same as in the first application. The applicants have agreed not to sell alcohol for carryout other than bottled wine and “craft beer.” Chairman Fogleman had added the “craft beer” category himself in September, even though the community letter had agreed to bottled wine but had not mentioned craft beer at all.

Violation of Rule 4.18 “No licensee shall commit or allow the commission on his premises of any act which shall be contrary to any federal, state or local statue, law or ordinance or against the public peace, safety, health, welfare, quiet or morals.” (Re: May 14, 2013, Liquor Board Inspector observed customers with alcoholic beverages when 2013 liquor license had not been picked up)

Mr. Hurdle submitted letters in support of the transfer, as well as 300+ signatures on a petition in support. Ms. Masopust pointed out that many of the signatories on the application do not live nearby; she made an asterisk next to all of the illegible signatures or signatories from outside of the neighborhood. He said that the applicants have met with different members of the community and have tried to reach out to community associations but have been unsuccessful. The applicants want to add five bar stool seats (and the additional day to sell alcohol that a BD7 license has). The applicants agree that if the transfer is approved, the current license will be moved outside of the Fells Point area. Mr. Hurdle called Ms. Birdie Mitchell, who lives nearby and has been a customer since 2006. She testified that she wants the establishment to be open 7 days per week because she would go there every day if it were open 7 days. Mr. Chad Tabor also testified very briefly in favor of the application.

Ms. Masopust asked the licensee about the floor plan of his store and whether it would conform to zoning requirements for a tavern and the Rules and Regulations of the BLLC. There was some confusion, because the applicant did not understand her questions due to a language barrier. He called a family member up to help translate between English and Nepali. The applicant replied that the floor plan just shows the current plan; once the applicants get the license, they will have someone come in and change the plan. Ms. Masopust followed up, “why isn’t the diagram in the file an accurate description of what you’re going to be providing?” The applicant replied that he didn’t know it would be an issue.

Ms. Masopust testified as a community leader that FPCO is neither anti-bar nor anti-alcohol. Rather, FPCO is concerned with an oversaturation of liquor licenses in the community. FPCO opposes any new class A or BD7 license coming into the neighborhood from outside the Fells Point area. There are currently 71 operational establishments within the Fells Point boundaries and 24 operational BD7 licenses.

Mr. Michael Snidal, Director of Community Engagement at the Citizens Planning and Housing Association, testified against BD7 tavern establishments that act like packaged goods stores. He argued that adding five bar stools would not make this a tavern, just a packaged goods store that is open seven days per week (instead of six days allowed to Class A liquor stores). He called these establishments “pseudo-taverns” and argued that they have a negative impact on communities.

Mr. Victor Corbin, President of the Fells Prospect Community Association, testified about an encounter that he had with Bristol Liquors on Halloween 2013. Passing by the store, he saw a large group of people congregating around Bristol Liquors. He texted Retired Police Major Davis to tell him that there were people drinking alcohol on the sidewalk. He also filed a 311 complaint, of which he submitted a copy.

Baltimore City Police Officer Lawrence (Larry) Fasano testified on behalf of the neighborhood about his experience after Victor Corbin’s Halloween text. Ed Davis directed him to follow up on the complaint, and he saw people “shoulder to shoulder, bumper to bumper” in a “very small, tight area.” 25 people. The police demanded that the establishment be shut down for the night to protect public safety. He saw people drinking freely out on the sidewalk in front of Bristol Liquors. Officer Fasano testified that he has had to remove people passed out in front of Bristol Liquors and has seen people with open containers. He said that they do serve inebriants sometimes and that he has brought it to their attention several times.

Samuel Daniels, consultant to the licensees and former Executive Director of the BLLC, asked the Board for a “summary dismissal based on due process and jeopardy.” Detective Akinwande had filled out the police report with two different dates: December 4 and 5. Mr. Daniels said that, “under due process, it’s impossible for us to deal with this fatal flaw.”

The Board did not agree. Chairman Fogleman said that they believe the detective’s testimony and that the report may have been produced the next morning. The minor flaw was not fatal, and Mr. Daniels did not even cross-examine the officer to determine whether he was mistaken.

Mr. Daniels continued with the cross-examination of officer. He’s been a police officer for seven years and a detective for five. Mr. Akinwande saw items on the bar that were not supposed to be there, such as a rice cooker. He was wearing blue jeans and a gray hoodie when he attempted to enter, without his vest or service weapon.

The licensee then testified that the detective hadn’t correctly answered questions about his own identification information (such as his birthday year), so Mr. Chae denied him access.

Mr. Daniels then tried to submit an internal BLLC policy guide for tavern compliance from April 2008. The policy included the right to deny entry to any person for any reason. Chairman Fogleman refused to accept the document as evidence, since it was not relevant.

The Board held that the licensee was guilty of one violation of Rule 5.03(a). The Chairman explained that there was no reason to disbelieve Detective Akinwande. The Board imposed a five-day suspension of the license, from May 1-5, because the Commissioners felt as though a fine was not a serious enough sanction for this offense.

Baltimore Police Detective Gatto testified first. He and his fellow officers had received complaints from community members in the area that local BD7 tavern establishments have not been allowing people into the bar sections of their establishments, as required by law. Detective Akinwande attempted to enter the bar area of the Royal Casino, and an employee stopped him and told him that the bar is closed today. When Detective Akinwande returned with fellow officers and confronted the employee, he apologized and told the officers that it was his fault, that he had made a mistake.

The licensees and their employee testified that Detective Akinwande had frightened their employee by his strange manner and clothing, that he had his hood on over his head, and that his clothing did not comply with the licensees’ dress code for their bar.

At this point in the hearing, Commissioner Jones recused himself, because his cousin used to work at the establishment.

The Board held that the licensees were guilty of one violation of Rule 5.03. The Board assessed a five-day suspension, May 1-5. The Board decided to take back two of the five days since the employees apologized.