What happened at the Liquor Board on May 1, 2014.

Rather, Article 2B section 10-301(j)(4) is the relevant provision, which states: “Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, and except where extenuating circumstances exist, before a licensed premises in Baltimore City that has been closed for at least 3 consecutive months may be reopened: (i) The Board of Liquor License Commissioners shall hold a public hearing; and (ii) The licensee shall obtain approval from the Board of Liquor License Commissioners to reopen.”

Ms. Laverne Nicholson-Sykes, President of the Belvedere Improvement Association (BIA) was present with concerns about the establishment. She told the Board that she wanted a postponement because BIA had not been involved in negotiating the MOU. Councilman Bill Henry explained to the Board that BIA was not involved because BIA does not usually attend YRP meetings; further, Mr. Henry said that it’s YRP’s policy to let the community association that is closest to an establishment (presumably this is not BIA) decide the important terms of an MOU. He added that he didn’t think the Board should delay or postpone the hearing to allow BIA time to submit input and that there are no residential areas across the street or behind the property. Under questioning from Commissioner Smith, Ms. Nicholson-Sykes stated that BIA had some concerns about live entertainment, outdoor seating, and maximum capacity that were not addressed in the MOU with YRP. She admitted that the restaurant is not within BIA’s boundaries, but argued that it is adjacent to their community.

Commissioner Smith went off the record to give both sides time to discuss their differences and come to an understanding.

After two more hearings, the parties were called back up before the Board. The applicant submitted a petition with 50 signatures in support of the project. He will install appropriate lighting, keep the premises free of debris and trash, and will not sell single serve small bottles of alcohol. He promised to make sure that any music or live entertainment will be at a level that does not disturb residents. He submitted a capital investment breakdown with all of the improvements that he plans to make to the building.

Ms. Nicholson-Sykes renewed her objections to the lack of specificity of the MOU.

Ms. Witt raised the issue of the validity of the license, also as a preliminary matter. Commissioner Smith also dismissed this issue, advising the community group to request a validity hearing regarding the license if they have validity concerns.

The three applicants testified about their experience in the restaurant and alcohol service industry. They did not provide any details about their prospective business, even after being directly asked how their business would be unique among the other bars in the area.

The community submitted personal letters from residents, a petition with 100 signatures and a map showing the addresses of the petitioners in relation to Latin Quarters, letters from GGNA and Greektown CDC in opposition, and letters from community representatives, including City Councilman James Kraft, City Council President Jack Young, and the 46th district delegation of state representatives. The community also testified about the applicants’ failure to attend a special meeting which was convened specifically to discuss the bar or to explain why they did not attend. According to newly elected GGNA President James Pringle, instead of the licensees, who had promised to attend, their attorney, Abraham Hurdle, attended the meeting but did not have anything useful to report on behalf of his clients. Mr. Hurdle did not know what kind of license was being transferred, the hours or days of operation, whether the bar had been open recently, or what plans his clients had for their business. In addition, Mr. Hurdle advised the community (which did not have legal representation at the time) that they should not try to negotiate a “CLC MOU” because such an agreement would be too complicated and end the parties in court. Mr. Hurdle attempted to object to this testimony on the basis that it was hearsay, but Commissioner Smith overruled the objection, since the Board is allowed to consider hearsay, as an administrative body. Mr. Pringle testified that the proposed location has no parking lot and is located on a narrow one-way street with limited street parking.

The community also submitted maps of the numerous other licenses within two blocks of the proposed bar: one map was taken from the Liquor Board’s file and the other was made using OpenBaltimore data by James Pringle.

Finally, the community submitted an inspector’s report, a police report, and a 911 call log sheet that shows that Latin Quarters was illegally open for a week in February 2014. During that time, there was a serious street fight that began inside the illegally open bar: one man was very badly wounded by a blow to the head.

In closing, Mr. Hurdle argued that the Board shouldn’t consider all of the community’s evidence about public need and accomodation, since the bar has been in that location for a long time. He pointed out that, according to their testimony, the applicants have significant restaurant and alcohol management experience. He did not submit any letters or petitions in support of the project.

There was a letter in the file from the Highlandtown Community Association, stating that they had agreed not to protest the transfer of ownership under certain conditions, including: that the licensee would discourage loitering, that he would invest a significant amount of money in renovating the property, that outdoor seating would end by 10PM on weekdays and 11:30 on Fridays and Saturdays, and that he would limit the sale of alcohol in small containers. Mr. Singh agreed to all of these conditions as license restrictions.

The applicant had not had time to meet with the community association. Mr. Kodenski told the Board that Mr. Baker (the current licensee) told him that there is no community association in this area. A quick search on Baltimore’s Cityview website brings up eight potential community associations for this address: Brewer’s Hill Community Association, Highlandtown Community Association, Southeast Community Development Corporation, Highlandtown Arts and Entertainment District, Presidents Council of Southeast Baltimore, Eastern Community Action Center, Southeast Presidents Council, and the Southeastern District Police Community Relations Council.

At this point, Pastor Mark Parker, who is a member of the Highlandtown Community Association and the pastor of Breath of God Lutheran Church in Highlandtown, came up to the front of the room and was sworn in. He requested a postponement on behalf of HCA. He said that he was very familiar with the property and would love to speak with the applicant. Kodenski objected to this postponement request, pointing out that the Board’s new policy is for parties to request postponements 72 hours in advance of the hearing. Commissioners Smith and Jones denied the postponement request.

David Liebensperger, President of and attorney for the Patterson Park Neighborhood Association, objected to the postponement request. He stated that the PPNA had submitted a letter of opposition to the Board in February, months in advance of the hearing. On March 12, PPNA submitted a packet of multiple petitions opposing the transfer, as well as many community letters. He added that the applicant was at a PPNA community meeting and therefore knows about the community’s opposition. Thirteen people missed work to be present to oppose the transfer.

Mr. Kodenski said, “I tried to find out if there was a community group there, but I couldn’t.” A quick Cityview search showed eight potential community associations for this address, including: Gwynns Falls Trail Council, Operation Reachout-Southwest-(OROSW), Southern District Police-Community Relations Council, Southwest Sanitation Task Force, West Pratt Street Merchants Association, Communities Organized To Improve Life-(COIL), West Baltimore Coalition, and West Baltimore Strategic Alliance. Commissioner Jones told Mr. Kodenski to ask Baltimore Development Corporation (BDC), and Mr. Kodenski told Mr. Jones that “he’d done it in the past and he’d been led astray.” Commissioner Smith asked Mr. Kodenski which councilmanic district the address fell into, and Mr. Kodenski did not know. (The address is located in the 9th district, represented by William “Pete” Welch.) Commissioner Smith asked Mr. Kodenski to be in touch with the relevant councilperson’s office, as a courtesy.