What happened at the Liquor Board on May 8, 2014.

Commissioner Smith replied that the license is dead under Article 2B section 10-504 and that Mr. Kodenski could appeal to the Circuit Court if he believes the Board is in error.

After the Board had gone off the record, Mr. Kodenski complained to Commissioner Smith that letters had been submitted to the Board too late for him to review them. He noted that Baltimore County provides the counsel of record and the licensee with a copy of anything that comes into the file, and he asked the Board to consider doing the same in the future.

The Board revoked the license at Club Confetti in May 2013, after many community and police complaints about noise and other serious disturbances. Mr. Maslan argued, however, that the Board had, in other cases, un-revoked licenses in order to allow a secured creditor to sell the license to recoup his or her investment. He presented evidence that Mr. Salazar had a lien on the license and is in debt on the property at 1609 Bank Street. Mr. Salazar filed a security financing statement regarding his interest in the license, which Mr. Maslan provided a copy of to the Board. Maslan reminded the Board that they had allowed the secured creditor to keep a revoked license at Voltage and at a bar on Pulaski Street.

Mr. Maslan may have been referring to the license at 291 S. Pulaski Street, which had a transfer of ownership scheduled at the end of the 2:00 docket, below.

The Board refused to review Mr. Kodenski’s letters submitted in support of the licensee.

Turning to the protestants’ side, Commissioner Smith noted that she had not received a letter from the community before the hearing in opposition to the motion for reconsideration. Elizabeth Dolin, the community member who orchestrated the hearing for the residents at the protest of renewal on April 17, stated that she had not received notice of the reconsideration motion or hearing. When the Canton Community Association let her know that the suspension would be reconsidered on May 8, Ms. Dolin called the Liquor Board offices to ask them if she needed to do anything to respond, and the Board staff said no. Ms. Kristin Ernst was also present and said that she was notified by CCA on the Sunday before the hearing. Commissioner Smith told Ms. Dolin and Ms. Ernst that they had an “obligation to object to the reconsideration 72 hours in advance.” When Ms. Ernst raised the fact that Board staff had instructed her otherwise, Commissioner Smith replied, “they gave you bad information.” Because they failed to submit a letter 72 hours before the hearing, the community members were not permitted to argue their opposition to the reconsideration.

Kodenski asked, according to Article 2B section 10-402, that the licensee be allowed to pay a fine in lieu of his suspension. He also asked for a stay of the suspension.

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.”

The Lauraville Improvement Association had two representatives present at the hearing in opposition to the request to reopen: Jody Landers, former 3rd District City Councilman, and the President of LIA.

Mr. Hugh Kavanaugh testified on behalf of the club that he is a 35-year member and has been the treasurer for 10 years. The club has been at this location since 1966 and has been in existence for over 100 years. The club members are aging, and they need new members. They have meals together and watch football games. They have never had a complaint from the Liquor Board or the Police, Fire, or Health Departments or the Lauraville Improvement Association. Mr. Kavanaugh said that until the club members started to try to reopen the club, he had never even heard of the Lauraville Improvement Association (Mr. Kavanaugh lives in Baltimore County.). There are only four houses nearby and a graveyard next door, “so we’re not exactly waking anybody up.”

Mr. Landers asked Mr. Kavanaugh how long the license has been in disuse. Mr. Kavanaugh replied that it had been longer than a year. The club members have listed the property for sale. Mr. Landers asked, “When did you discover that the liquor license had expired?” Mr. Kodenski objected to the question, and Commissioner Smith sustained the objection.

Ms. Amelia Reitz testified about the Tuesday meeting with LIA: there were 28 people at the meeting, with very short notice. Three of the 28 were from LIA, the rest were business owners on Harford Rd. She said that the new members have been trying to get lists of specific concerns to understand where people were coming from in their opposition to the club reopening. Mr. Landry provided a list of specific restrictions that LIA was asking for, and the new members agreed to them. She had thought that LIA and the new members had come to an understanding regarding the license. Mr. Landers replied that Ms. Reitz is not a member of the club, a community member, or an officer of the club. He raised the question of how she can testify on behalf of an organization of which she is not a member. He pointed out that the club is currently exclusively a men’s club. He asked Ms. Reitz, “Are you currently a member of an officer?” She responded that she is a prospective member. He asked, “Has Mr. Kavanaugh authorized you to represent the group?” She replied that he has not. Mr. Landers said, “therein lies the crux of the problem.” Commissioner Smith asked, “Is that a question?” and Mr. Landers laughed, “it is a big question!”

City Councilman Curran testified next about the meeting held that week. He noted that there is an issue with parking and that the capacity is 145 people. He pointed out the enthusiasm of the business owners in the area. Mr. Landers asked, “were you aware that LIA wasn’t invited to bring community members to the meeting?” Councilman Curran repled that he was not aware.

In his closing statement, Mr. Landers reiterated that he opposes the request to reopen. The club is moribund, and the building is suffering from years of delayed maintenance and neglect. It’s been closed for a year. It’s been closed for a year. No one in the community is suffering (from the lack of the club), because the club had never had a connection to the community. The community never had a particular issue with the club, because it was a very remote operation of a lot of seniors: they didn’t have big events and there weren’t any wild parties going on. He pointed out that the club is undemocratic, since the charter specifies that only men can be members. He submitted the Form 990 filing for the club from 2012 (the Form 990 is the tax return for nonprofit organizations). He argued that the 990 shows the club’s shoddy recordkeeping and administration. The resident agent on record is David Doeller, who has been deceased since December 11, 2011. Mr. Kodenski, to clarify, asked Mr. Landers whether Mr. David Doeller is on the liquor license, and Mr. Landers replied that he was not.

Mr. Kodenski in his closing statement reiterated that this group has been there for a long time. As a courtesy, when the Board asked, they did agree to meet with LIA. The members have been requesting for months to reopen. He concluded, visibly frustrated, that “the Lauraville Improvement association is not the be-all and end-all of anything!”

Commissioner Jones reminded Mr. Cockey that the sidewalk must remain clear for pedestrian use. Mr. Cockey agreed.

Mr. Paul Devine, husband of licensee Angeline Devine, and the former full-time manager and operator of the business testified that, in fact, the Crab Pot had been closed since June 29, 2013. He had submitted a letter to the Board on April 11, 2014, requesting a 180-day hardship extension.

Commissioner Smith asked, “are you sure that you’ve been closed since June 29, 2013?

After a pause, Mr. Devine said that he was not sure. After another pause, he said, “I don’t want to put myself in jeopardy,” noting that the license is the only asset that he has and he needs the opportunity to sell it.

Commissioner Smith said, “Our own agent’s testimony is that location was closed on or about Dec 2013. We would like to give you an opportunity to clarify the record for us. We cannot have conflicting dates.”

After another very long pause, Mr. Devine replied, “I guess we’ll go with what the inspector said.”

Commissioner Smith asked, “can you tell us why you are in need of this hardship extension?” Mr. Devine replied that he and his wife have left their rented space because they were unable to pay the bills. He has an opportunity to sell the license to a place on Monroe Street, in the next few months.

Ms. Witt added that the community was originally concerned about this location re-opening; the establishment has a bit of a checkered past, including a homicide in 2012. However, the community association was very impressed with Mr. Hunter’s presentation to their group and therefore decided to support the transfer of ownership under the restrictions of the MOU. She added that the community is cautiously optimistic about the project. Mr. Hunter has agreed to do a few extra things to assist the community, such as pass out community newsletters and do trash cleanups throughout the neighborhood.

“In December 2012, the Liquor Board unanimously revoked this license, following a shooting at the establishment and a Liquor Board finding that the licensee was guilty of violating 2 provisions of state law and 6 Liquor Board rules. After a letter six days later from the licensee’s attorney (the same attorney who appeared at this hearing) asking that the Board “reconsider” its decision because his clients would “suffer irreparable financial harm and injury through the loss in value of the license,” it appears that the Board un-revoked the license. This author did not see any documentation of the Board’s decision on the reconsideration in the license file, but assumes that the Board reversed its decision, based on the fact that the license is still in existence.”