What happened at the Liquor Board on June 26, 2014.

Mr. Clifford Silbiger, attorney for the community organizations and members, objected to the postponement request. He explained that the April 25, 2013 decision had been appealed to the Circuit Court; the Court is remanding the case to the Board, but the judge in question has not yet signed the order. As for the 2014 reconsideration, Mr. Silbiger argued that Mr. Neger doesn’t have to be present in order for the Board to rule on Mr. Silbiger’s motion. The only issue in question, according to his motion, is whether the so-called 200-foot rule should apply.

Judge Ward responded to Mr. Silbiger that he’s already won on the 200-foot rule. He told both parties that the licensee has the right to be present at the hearing. Ward added, “it’s all one case. If the Board acted illegally, it’s all part of the mix, and we’ll talk about it when it comes back.”

The case was re-called at 4:00pm, when the community representative and the applicant had arrived. The applicant objected to the community’s postponement request, because it was “late.” The applicant stated that he met with the land use committee of the community group but that they couldn’t reach an agreement on a few points, including the timing of deliveries and outdoor seating hours.

Judge Ward instructed the applicant to meet again with the group to work out an agreement and said that the hearing should be rescheduled for July 17.

For a description of what happened at the four-hour factfinding portion of this hearing, which was held on May 15, 2014, please see the Booze News post.

Mr. Kodenski argued that the current Board could not make a decision on the 35 N. Potomac St case, because the current Board, with two new Commissioners, has not heard the evidence presented. He told the Board that it would have to re-hear the entire case in order to make a decision.

Patrick Lundberg, Vice President of the Patterson Park Neighborhood Association, objected to the idea of re-hearing the case. Visibly frustrated, he reminded the Board that PPNA, with dozens of community members, had appeared on May 1, 2014, ready for their hearing. Mr. Kodenski had requested and was granted a last-minute postponement (read more here). The hearing had been rescheduled for May 15, and the community members had all appeared a second time to protest the transfer (read about the evidence presented at the second hearing here). Mr. Lundberg argued that it was too heavy a burden for the community to have to come back a third time and re-present all of the evidence.

Mr. Kevin Bernhard, board member of the Highlandtown Community Association, testified that Mr. Sierra’s original request to HCA was just to run a catering hall, for weddings, etc., but that the project had later ballooned into a much different business. Kodenski responded that the plan was always to run a catering hall, restaurant, bar and tavern, and to rent out private rooms. Bernhard further testified that HCA had asked Mr. Sierra to provide the organization with his business plan and a summary of his experience on May 21 and on June 16 and had received no response.

Judge Ward told Mr. Kodenski, “why don’t you ask your client why he never responded?” Kodenski replied that Mr. Sierra did not have to respond to the community, because the Board doesn’t require a business plan. Kodenski reiterated that Mr. Sierra “wasn’t asking for anything new that wasn’t there before.”

Mr. Kodenski, for his clients, objected to the reconsideration. He added that Mr. Landers is not a member of the community, to which Mr. Landers loudly objected.

Judge Ward noted, “it doesn’t seem that, if you two talked, you would be that far apart. … [The community is] a little worried that there is a license here that might explode. [They] want some limitations and guidelines … to make sure that whatever you do, you don’t upset the neighborhood.” Judge Ward pointed out that Mr. Kavanaugh, one of the licensees, lives in Reisterstown.

Ward asked Kavanaugh, “what is your opposition to guidelines” or restrictions on the license? Kavanaugh replied, “I don’t want them putting restrictions on operations. There’s never been a problem there. I don’t know why they’re pushing the issue.” Landers piped in that the club is talking about adding up to 200 new members, which will have a significant impact on the surrounding neighborhood, especially when the club has been inactive for more than a decade. Kodenski mentioned that the club will be bound by the Rules and Regulations of the Liquor Board.

Ward asked the licensees if they were willing or not willing to meet and work out the issues with the neighborhood. Kodenski said that his clients didn’t want any restrictions, which would create a “hybrid license.” Ward remarked that the neighborhood “might not be asking for much.” Kavanaugh replied that the licensees had already talked to them and reiterated that the (men only) club has been in existence for 100 years and at one point in history did have 200 members.

Judge Ward then said that the Board will make its decision and that both sides will be notified of it.

Judge Ward checked to make sure that the application for a hardship extension was filed within the first 180 days of being closed.

The Board granted the hardship extension, since it was filed in a timely manner; however, Judge Ward warned Mr. Hernandez that he would have only 180 days to open or sell or transfer the license. Mr. Hernandez asked what will happen if he cannot find a buyer within 180 days. Judge Ward responded that, in that case, the license will expire.

Judge Ward elaborated that the public policy of the City of Baltimore has been to reduce the number of licenses in the city. He said that this business of automatic hardship extensions is not going to keep going on. “People are going to have to stop shopping around. Open it, transfer it, sell it, or lose it.”

Ward then looked through the file before him, and said to Mr. Hernandez that the neighborhood has been complaining about loud music. Mr. Hernandez said that this is true, but that the Liquor Board inspectors had never found anything wrong. Hernandez offered that the community had also complained about fighting. Ward noted complaints in the file from a Baltimore City councilmember and the Patterson Park Neighborhood Association. Hernandez explained, “they’re just trying to put me out of business.”

Commissioner Moore chimed in to say, “you’ve gotten your extension. Move quickly to sell license and to move it to another location.”

Judge Ward asked, “you couldn’t work this out between you?” Ms. Masopust replied, “I would love to.” Judge Ward replied, “take a ten minute break, and come back when you have an agreement.” Commissioner Moore added that both sides should think of security in terms of the number of people inside.

The two sides came to an agreement regarding the security in the hallway and returned with a signed MOU. The Board then granted the live entertainment request, under the provisions of the voluntary agreement.

Judge Ward asked, “these are all partially residential neighborhoods, and after midnight, you want the right to have people outside drinking and talking?” Mr. Fine replied that the square where the restaurant is located is commercial.

Judge Ward asked about the restaurant’s operating hours. Mr. Fine replied that the establishment is open from 11am to 2am, but that they rarely have tables outside after 12am. Judge Ward asked whether the applicant could live with a midnight restriction on the outdoor tables, and she replied that midnight would be okay.

Commissioner Moore asked, “the community association doesn’t enforce those outdoor table service guidelines, do they?” Mr. Fine replied that it does not. Moore followed up that “closing at 9pm would just be horrible for you, wouldn’t it?” The applicant replied that it would. (The guidelines, as described by Mr. Fine, actually require a 10pm cutoff, not 9pm.)

Commissioner Jones asked, “did you discuss this with the community association?” Mr. Fine answered that he had informed CCA that they would contest the guidelines.

Commissioner Jones asked, “was the work done under a permit?” and Ms. Sierra replied that it had.

The applicants for the transfer of ownership did not appear at all at the hearing.

Judge Ward said, “I think the commissioners agree with me that we should deny the transfer.” He added, “What else do you want the Liquor Board to do?” Ward told Ms. Anderson-Dandy that she should be in contact with the Liquor Board and that she should request inspectors to come out to the establishment.

However, when the applicant appeared for his hearing, which was scheduled at 3:30pm, the Board re-called the case. The applicant, Lawrence Davidov, was represented by Mr. Frank Shaulis. Eric Costello was also present, for FHNA. The sticking point between the two groups was that FHNA requested a 50-50 food-alcohol sales ratio. Mr. Davidov was willing to agree to the ratio but wanted to report his annual food and alcohol sales to the community association; FHNA wanted Mr. Davidov to be required to report it to the Liquor Board.

Mr. Davidov went through some other issues that he and FHNA had had (that had been resolved): the organization had wanted him to agree to keep his floor plan, not to move his kitchens or to do anything to increase capacity. Mr. Davidov insisted, “It’s my business, and where I put my kitchens is my business.”

Judge Ward, after hearing these arguments a few times, said, “why don’t you stop talking about the kitchens? It’s not an issue.” He also reminded the applicant that a liquor license is a license, not a right, and that the Board may set limitations on the license.

Mr. Davidov explained that he had agreed to most of the restrictions in the agreement, but that he had backed out of the agreement after he hired a lawyer. Judge Ward said, “oh, so it’s all his fault” (referring to Mr. Shaulis). Mr. Davidov said that the license for which he’s applying does not require a certain food-alcohol ratio or any reporting. He said that he has petitions in support from neighbors and business owners, reiterating, “it’s my business. I’m the VP of the business association and active with charities. It’s just to the point where, it’s my business. I want control of my business.”

In response, Mr. Costello pointed out that there are thirty-four licenses with a capacity of 5,075 individuals within eight square blocks of the proposed establishment.

Mr. Peter Prevas requestd a postponement; he told the Board that he did not know that this matter was on the docket, because he “was brought in later on.” He “was unaware of community opposition.”

Judge Ward noted that there had been five letters of strong opposition in the file since June 9, so why should he get a postponement? Prevas replied that he would like the opportunity to meet with the community groups and to discuss their opposition.

The community leaders present were given the opportunity to object to the postponement, but did not object.

The applicants have met with community groups including the Fells Point Residents Association and a Little Italy community association. Ms. Hecker submitted a petition with 107 signatures in favor of the project. Commissioner Moore, looking through the petition, pointed out that about 35 of the signatories are members of the Rosenberg Martin Greenberg law firm. Hecker responded that they are potential customers, since the prospective business is near the firm’s offices. (The restaurant is one mile away from the Rosenberg Martin Greenberg offices.) Moore followed up to note that many more of the signatories listed 417 E. Fayette Street as their address, which is a city government building. Hecker explained, “we work closely with them,” and her staff had circulated a petition at the building while they were there. Moore replied, “it is not persuasive for me to have a petition signed by members of law firm” when they could get signatures from community residents. “For me, it lessens the application,” Moore said. Hecker replied, “I appreciate that.”

Judge Ward said to the applicants and their counsel, “it’s time to start trying to find [a Class B restaurant] license” to buy instead of applying for a new license. “It’s a violation of the public policy of the city of Baltimore to grant new licenses.” Ms. Hecker replied, “I don’t believe it is.” Judge Ward said that he testified back in the late 1960s about the issue to the City Council, which issued an official resolution that there are too many liquor licenses in Baltimore and that they should be reduced. He said, that licensees “buy a million dollars worth of interior decorations to save $50,000 on a license.” Ms. Hecker pointed out that the law does allow new Class B licenses. Judge Ward responded that the public policy against granting new licenses is also the law.

Executive Secretary Michelle Bailey-Hedgepeth informed Ward that the arena license is a special class of license that is only issued to large venues like Camden Yards and M&T Bank Stadium.

The applicant submitted a capital investment breakdown of $3.3 million for the property, which includes a flea market, bingo arena, and farmers’ market area. The property takes up a whole city block. The applicant also submitted letters of support from contiguous business owners, community members, and community organizations.