What happened at the Liquor Board on July 17, 2014.

Commissioner Moore asked, “can it not be an indefinite postponement?” Mr. Hurdle explained that his client wants to amend his application and needs some time to do it. Judge Ward agreed with Commissioner Moore that the case should be set back in within 90 days.

Violation of Rule 3.03(a): “Licensees shall keep accurate records of all purchases of alcoholic beverages for a period of one year from the date of each purchase. Such records shall include the date of each purchase, the quantity purchased, and the name and address of each seller. Such records shall be open for inspection at all times by duly authorized representative of the Board (Re: On March 31, 2014, licensee was unable to provide records for purchases of 49 bottles of 3.75 ml of Hennessy Cognac)

Judge Ward was visibly frustrated that Mr. Maslan would be out of the country during his Liquor Board case, and he said, “in the future, I don’t want to postpone cases” for this reason.

Mr. Alan Mlinarchik from the Charles North Community Association testified in opposition to the renewal. He stated that the establishment had been a big problem for the community over the years. There was a triple shooting there in October 2011, and April 17, 2012 was the last promotion of any event at the address. Mlinarchik argued that, since there had been nearly 2 1/2 years since any activity had taken place at the establishment, the “license should expire.”

Ms. Blatterman testified that they “have been working religiously” and that they expect to be ready to open by the beginning of September. They asked for an extension of time until December 2014.

To quote from the previous post: when the statute says, “a transfer of any license SHALL be completed not more than 180 days” after the Board approves it, the Board has no authority to give hardship extensions past the 180 days. The opinion points out that “while the statute does not expressly state it as a consequence, it seems clear that if the transfer ‘shall be completed’ within 180 days, it cannot be completed after that date, indicating that the consequence is the lapsing of the authority for the transfer.”

Judge Ward asked why Mr. Makarovich had not finished the steps necessary to provide live entertainment. The licensee replied, “It’s been on the back burner and I haven’t been trying to complete it.” He testified that he is only intending to have karaoke one night per week.

Commissioner Moore pointed out that Mr. Makarovich had submitted his application for live entertainment on October 4, 2011, almost three years before. The Board reviewed his progress in 2013 and gave him an additional 60 days.

Mr. Joel Plitt, of Ruhf Plitt Architects and the architect for project, testified about the extensiveness of the project and the renovations. The application was filed with the Liquor Board in 2012; the licensees sought a variance from zoning to do an addition on the back of the building, they received approval from the Commission for Historical and Architectural Preservation (CHAP), and they met with community groups. Mr. Plitt testified that the buildings are architecturally significant, that they were built in the 1750s and have been well-maintained. There was a lot of remediation work that needed to be done in order to restore the building, including structural work as well as refinishing, replacing and repairing windows. The building has been continually used as a tavern for almost two hundred years.

Judge Ward asked about problems with BG&E, which were discussed in previous hearings. Mr. John Bergersen, project manager for the general contractor on the project, testified that BG&E required the applicants to resubmit their drawings and plans. Mr. Plitt said that the electrical system in Fells Point is different from other neighborhoods and that BG&E changed the rules for consolidating two buildings. The licensees’ engineers ended up designing three completely different systems to suit BG&E’s demands. Bergersen added that the electrical issues have been fixed, as of the previous Tuesday. They just need to finish a few last inspections and they’ll be done. They have been diligent in pursuing the project; no one had dropped the ball.

Ms. Joanne Masopust, community member and president of the Fells Point Community Organization then testified on the applicants’ behalf. She stated that, originally, FPCO was concerned about the project, because, after the expansion, the occupancy of the bar would almost double to be over 250 people, which is a large establishment in the Fells Point area. On behalf of her organization, she met with licensee for two hours and talked with him about her concerns. Her first concern was that the bar has a pretty low percentage of income from food sales, which she would like to see increase. She was impressed, however, that the manager currently has three security officers present on weekends and will add two more when the expanded building opens. They will use headsets to communicate between the two buildings. She added that the bar has been run in a responsible manner. They do not operate as a party but as a business. She also talked with neighbors, including the owner of a neighboring retail establishment, Beth Hawks, who owns a boutique called Zelda Zen. Hawks, according to Masopust, is a “refugee from what happened on Cross Street” in Federal Hill. She has recently relocated to Thames Street in Fells Point and speaks very highly of the licensee. Masopust remarked, “I don’t think she would have done that if what she was saying wasn’t true. She would have been the first one to tell me what a nightmare things had been if there were a nightmare.” The licensee has gone beyond what he was required to do and has kept all of the conditions in the Memorandum of Understanding that he signed with the Fells Point Residents’ Association (FPRA). She concluded by saying, “if he’s run a good operation at 1626, we should give him a chance to open at 1628.” She reminded the Board that she does have some concerns about the size of the place and suggested that perhaps the Board would want to review the place after a year or so.

After some confusion with finding the correct file, Judge Ward said to the current Executive Secretary, Michelle Bailey-Hedgepeth, “I hope in the future I’ll get these cases ahead of time so that I can review them.”

The Board’s attention then turned to the good standing of the corporate entity. Mr. Daniels reiterated, “that will be addressed today. The issue would reside with the resident agent, who is an attorney and who had not notified these gentlemen of the good standing notice. They weren’t aware until I spoke with them the other day.” Judge Ward responded, “you’re coming in here today out of sorts and not having complied, and also your taxes are not in good standing. I’m not receiving any testimony as to when all these things will not be corrected. You get a notice to come in; the issue is whether we should or shouldn’t grant an extension. You have all these other issues preventing you from telling us that everything is in order.” Mr. Daniels replied, “I know that the ceiling is being replaced as we speak. I was told before this hearing began that they were going to SDAT after this hearing.” Judge Ward asked “why didn’t you [go to SDAT] yesterday?” Daniels said, “that’s a good question.” Judge Ward asked Mr. Kirby, who was present at the hearing, whether he had the money to pay his back taxes, and Mr. Kirby replied that he did not.

Attempting to smooth over the issue, Mr. Daniels said, “we are colliding, probably to the good, between the old policies and the new policies of the Liquor Board.” Ward quickly cut in and said, “new policies?! Doing what you’re supposed to do?” Daniels explained, “in the past, licensees were not held to the same stringent standard as now.” Ward pushed back, saying that Mr. Kirby “hasn’t got the money to pay the taxes. I mean, I’m supposed to be convinced that something’s going to happen miraculously?” Daniels replied that the ceiling is currently being fixed. Ward pointed out that it hasn’t been approved or inspected by Baltimore City housing. Daniels agreed but noted that an inspection can be rescheduled within 24 hours. He said, “I would ask, since this is just outside the original six months, that they be afforded a small amount of time to complete their renovations. … Please, grant them a little courtesy here.”

Mr. Alan Mlinarchik, for the Charles Village Civic Association’s land use committee, testified that three community associations had negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the licensee, operators, and the property owner. The community associations support the extension to allow the licensees to finish their work on the building. He added that the establishment has taken over a position on the block that used to be dominated by prostitution, drug use and drug sales. They’ve given life to the corner.

After the hearing was over and the decision given, Commissioner Moore said to the licensee, Mr. Kirby: “I think people should come dressed respectful of the process. I don’t think it’s respectful to come dressed with holes in your t-shirt. I think it is extremely disrespectful of this body. I just have to say that. We deserve more.”

Judge Ward pointed out that the Old Town Mall has been a problem spot, with significant drug trafficking and crime, for many years in the city of Baltimore. The applicants have listed no assets in their application. The Courts explained that they have $20,000 worth of art as their only asset. They pay $1000 per month in rent, not including utilities.

Ward then noted that the state legislature has made an exception in the code for The Art Room. He asked, “tell us why you can be successful there when no one has been for 40-50 years.” Mr. Courts replied, “We are East Baltimore. Our members are products of Baltimore. I grew up through the school system. … We’ve been involved in the arts in Baltimore in 10 years; as a collective, for 100 years. We just want to do positive things for the community, sir.” Courts added that his organization will help beautify the area with outside events and murals.

Courts elaborated on his organization’s concept. He told the Board that most new nonprofits or startup business fail within a couple years, and the biggest issue is funding. Having a Class C license will aid the group in funding the programs and paying rent and utilities for the building. Commissioner Moore asked, “will you be serving beer, wine, and liquor every day?” Courts replied, no, that the liquor license is “for the lodge.” Mr. Eric Smith, for the applicants, elaborated that the group plans to run a nonprofit, members only nonprofit lodge, which would not be open to the general public. They already have 75 members.

Commissioner Jones noted that the Baltimore Development Corporation is currently working with merchants in that area and asked “have you guys contacted them yet?” Mr. Eric Smith replied that they had not contacted BDC and that there are no community associations in the area. Jones said, “I would suggest very strongly that you connect with the Baltimore Development Corporation. They have a vested interest in that area.” Jones asked, “where are your support letters from community folks?” The licensees did not have any letters from nearby residents. Ms. Bailey-Hedgepeth pulled out a letter of support from PNC Bank and The Art Room themselves, as well as one letter of support from a photographer associated with the grup.

Commissioner Moore said, “I’m just extremely unready to support the application. I still don’t understand how the license would be used.” Mr. Courts attempted again to explain the mission of the organization, and Moore responded, “the mission is much appreciated. I looked at your articles of incorporation [link to articles of incorporation here] and they don’t match up with what you say you want to do with the liquor license, so that’s adding to my confusion and discomfort.” Mr. Courts explained that the organization is currently under a fiscal sponsorship through an organization called “Camp, Inc;” they request their one-day event licenses through this organization. [An SDAT search for “Camp, Inc.” yielded only forfeited entities, though the name may be spelled differently and/or the organization could have a different corporate name.]

Jones agreed with Ward, adding “If you abuse it, you’ll see us again. That area needs a lot of help.”

Moore voted no. She was not clear on the mission of the organization or how they planned to use their liquor license. Their mission as stated in the hearing, according to Moore, was not consistent with the organization’s articles of incorporation. Moore also noted that there was no evidence presented of a public need or desire for a Class C license in that neighborhood, and she was concerned about the community impact of a license.

Commissioner Jones joked, “how far is it from my house?” Commissioner Moore quipped, “more than 300 feet.”

HARBEL and the Hamilton Business Association also submitted letters in support of the transfer.

Ms. Helen Vello, president of the Elwood Park Improvement Association for thirty-four years, was present to oppose the transfer. She and her group were unrepresented by counsel, but she was accompanied by Councilmember Warren Branch. Judge Ward asked Ms. Vello if she was of Czechoslovakian descent; she responded that she was not, and he explained that her neighborhood used to be all Czech, adding “we called them Bohemians in those days.” Ms. Vello continued with her testimony; she explained that her organization does not want any live entertainment in the area. Vello said, “our neighborhood has taken a hit. It’s something you could not imagine if you didn’t live there. We have an abundant amount of subsidized housing.” She said that the neighborhood used to be a community of “middle class working families” but that now the neighborhood has only 30% home ownership. She recounted problems with trash, rats, unsupervised juveniles, and drug dealers living in subsidized housing.

Judge Ward clarified, “are you opposed to just live entertainment or everything?” Vello replied, “all of it.” She testified that there are several other bars and liquor stores in the area. Ward pointed out that Mr. Harvey has asked for the opportunity to work out his client’s differences with the community organization, asking Vello, “are you interested in that?” She replied, “no, sir. We try to prevent problems before they start.”

Mr. Harby cross-examined Ms. Vello, asking “you’re saying that your entire community association agrees that this should remain a vacant building?” She replied, no, that if the applicant wants to run a restaurant, without a liquor license, that would be fine. Mr. Harby pointed out that the project will be a restaurant and lounge and asked “Is there any situation in which your association would allow my client to come and speak?” She said, “we’re against it; we can’t take any more problems in our neighborhood.” She also pointed out that there is no parking nearby. Harby then asked, “how many members are in your group?” Vello testified that the group has twenty members but that she did not have a list of them with her. She said that she had not had time to hold a meeting but that she had been in contact with all the members by phone.

City Councilmember Warren Branch testified on his own behalf and on behalf of his brother, state Delegate Talmadge Branch, who represents the area in Annapolis. He testified that it is a “troublesome area” with a lot of crime, including several homicides. The applicant had not reached out to Councilmember Branch’s office; his staff could have given her a list of all of the community associations that she could contact. Branch testified that he had had to call the police about fighting in the area. He said that the neighborhood doesn’t need another liquor license, and that his office is opposed to any additional establishments in the area.

Under questioning, Branch reiterated that his office supports the positions of the community associations. He said, “we respect the rights of the people who live in the community.” Mr. Harby pointed out that Ms. Vello had testified that there had not been a meeting. Commissioner Moore pointed out that the organization had been in touch by telephone, saying that it sounded to her as though there had been “ample conversation.”

The applicant then testified: she has worked for Baltimore City public schools as a speech and language pathologist. Her mother-in-law owns the building and she would like to open a sit-down restaurant lounge, selling African and Caribbean food. She does not have experience in alcohol management, but she has some experience in food sales. The property was a carryout called Soul Haven in 2001 and had not had a problem in the community. She said that she will be retiring from her position as a speech and language pathologist, so she would be able to focus on the business and would be there every day.

Violation of Rule 3.06: “Licensees shall operate their establishments at all times in accordance with the requirements of the Health Department of Baltimore City, the Building Code of Baltimore City and the rules and regulations of the Fire Department of Baltimore City” (Re: On March 4 and March 11, 2014 Inspector found establishment to be over the capacity limit determined by the Fire Department of Baltimore City)

Baltimore City Liquor Board Inspector Jeff Ray testified that on March 4, 2014, there was a very large crowd on both floors. Ray became alarmed at the number of people that he saw, which he thought would be detrimental to public welfare and safety. Ray talked to the manager, Barry Henderson, and informed him of Ray’s concerns. Ray estimated that there were at least 150 people upstairs, and the fire department had issued a capacity for the building of 90 people. Mr. Hurdle objected to Mr. Ray’s estimate of headcount, arguing that it was no more than a guess. Ray also testified that the patrons were dancing, though the establishment did not have permission for live entertainment. Judge Ward asked, “what kind of dancing? Ballroom dancing? Gyrating?” Inspector Ray replied, “regular dancing.” In 2013, the establishment had also been in trouble with the Board for dancing and for overcrowding: to read the Booze News report from that hearing, click here.

Inspector Ray said that he then called the police, who closed down the Tilted Pig for the evening. The management cooperated with Inspector Ray and the police.

Mr. Hurdle then cross-examined Inspector Ray about why he did not count the people in the establishment. He also asked whether Ray was mistaken about the dancing, asking “is it possible that people were getting up to stretch a little bit?” to which Ray replied, “no.” Hurdle also objected to Ray’s submission of his inspection report for that day, because it wasn’t in the file earlier in the week. He said to the Board that it feels as though the report was withheld by the agency. Ward overruled the objection.

Commissioner Jones then asked, “how many years have you worked at the LB?” Ray replied that he had worked there since 1984. He testified that he had worked with a task force that involved the health, fire, police and environmental control departments; overcrowding was one of the task force’s primary concerns. He testified that he has years of experience in determining whether or not an establishment is overcrowded.

Mr. Henderson, the Tilted Pig manager on the night in question, then testified about his experience. The Tilted Pig’s capacity is 127 total, including staff members. The bar was quite full, because patrons were sneaking people in. His employees do an accurate count of people coming in and out of the bar. When it came to Mr. Henderson’s attention that there may be overcrowding, he increased security. Since the evening in question, he said that there had been no other issues. [Community members did attempt to protest the renewal of the license for the Tilted Pig in April but were foiled by the so-called “200-foot rule.” To read the Booze News post for that hearing, click here.] He added that he knows that dancing is not allowed on the premises but stated that the Tilted Pig is a sports bar. “Occasionally, when people look at sports, and adrenaline gets flowing, they’re going to get up and move.”

Upon further questioning by the commissioners, Ray testified that, in his recollection, there were 75 people downstairs and 160-170 people upstairs.

In his concluding remarks, Hurdle argued that Ray had submitted “wildly ranging testimony.” He said that “testimony has varied throughout this hearing and is ever-increasing.” He pointed out again that the inspector did not take a head count.

Hurdle requested that the licensees be permitted to “do something for the community” because “they want to give back and assist the community in some way.”

Judge Ward told Mr. Hurdle that he was inclined to close the bar down. If they want to have dancing, they need to apply to the Board. This is the second time on the same violation: “Next time, nobody will be sympathetic.” Hurdle responded, “I have had some strong conversations with them about the establishment, and hopefully we’ll never be here again.”

Baltimore Police Detective L.C. Greenhill read from his report that on May 30, 2013, at 10:15pm, 18-year-old cadet Emily Neisser ordered a Coors Lite beer from bartender Bobby Jean Thayer. She paid for the beer using a marked $20 bill and received change. At no time did the bartender request proof of age.

The representative of the licensee admitted responsibility for the violation and apologized that it happened. He said that the police did a good job and were very polite. The bartender was let go.

Officer Reed noted that the criminal trial began the following day for all three suspects. Reed stated that they have been charged with assault, and their charges may have been upgraded to attempted homicide. Maryland Judiciary Casesearch for this case shows that the Valenzuelas have been charged with: attempted second degree murder, first degree assault, second degree assault, carrying a dangerous weapon openly with intent to injure, unlawful use of a handgun in the commission of a felony or crime of violence, and three conspiracy charges. Their scheduled trial has been postponed again and is currently scheduled for August 25, 2014.

Officer Reed said that he found a working metal detector wand sitting inside the building on one of the window ledges. The gun was retrieved outside the bar, thrown in a corner near a parking lot. There were two spent casings inside the bar, two live rounds in the chamber of the gun, and three more rounds in the magazine.

Mr. Eduardo Reyes, the licensee, was present, with his friend and translator, Mr. Ricardo Elias. Through Mr. Elias, Mr. Reyes testified that he lives in Dundalk, Maryland and has owned the bar since 2006. He said that he did know the Valenzuelas but that they were not regular customers. They come to the bar two or three times a week, but he does not know them personally and has never had trouble with them before. His security camera system had been down for a week before the incident, because his repairman was out of town. Mr. Reyes said that, from his understanding, the firearm was brought in by a woman. He only had male security guards, who were not allowed to search women, but now he has female security. Judge Ward was confused by this testimony and said that with a metal detector wand, it is not necessary to touch the patrons, so he was unclear why Mr. Reyes would need female security guards.

Mr. Kevin Bernhard, from the Highlandtown Community Association (HCA) testified about the history of the establishment. He said that there was another shooting inside the premises in July 2012, which was never heard by the Board. There was an assault on the door security guard in December 2013. The establishment also had a violation recently for keeping five-gallon propane tanks inside the building, and the Board will hold a hearing on that violation soon. There was a stabbing also on May 3, 2014, outside the bar. He asked, on behalf of HCA, for a revocation of the license.

Violation of Rule 4.17(b): “No licensee shall permit or suffer any person to appear in any act or other performance with breasts or the lower torso uncovered; not shall any licensee knowingly permit or suffer his premises to be used for the conduct, exhibition or performance of an obscene act or other performance” (Re: April 25, 2013, dancer exposed herself to undercover police officer)

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: April 25, 2013, dancer solicited undercover police officer for sexual intercourse; dancer exposed herself to undercover police officer)

Violation of Rule 4.17(a): “No licensee shall permit or suffer his premises to be used for the purpose of any sexual activity, nor shall any licensee permit or suffer any employee, patron or frequenter to solicit any person for prostitution or other immoral purposes.” (Re: November 11, 2013, dancer solicited police officer for sexual intercourse)

Mr. Kodenski asked the officer whether he had seen or talked to the licensee at any time. Jackson said no. Kodenski then asked if Jackson had given any money to Ms. Brickhouse, and he replied no, adding “after we conversated, she had to go up on stage and perform.” Kodenski also noted that the police report for the incident was not signed, and Jackson responded that he had signed his official copy.

Mr. Kodenski then said that the illegal act was never completed, that Jackson never gave Ms. Brickhouse any money, and that when Jackson left, Ms. Brickhouse remained at the club. Based on the testimony above, Kodenski made a motion to dismiss the charges. He read from Rule 4.17(b) that “no licensee shall permit or suffer his premises” to be used for illegal purposes. He pointed out that the language in the rule (“his premises”) was “sexist” but he also argued that the licensee “can’t permit or suffer your premises to be used if [he doesn’t] know about it.” Judge Ward denied his motion and replied that bar owners are responsible for their employees and the activities that occur inside the premises. He also told Kodenski that a criminal summons is equivalent to an arrest.

The licensee then testified that he has been the owner of the establishment since 1998. He had no knowledge of the event: no police officers or managers told him about it. The licensee has nine security cameras, and he would have checked them to corroborate the detective’s testimony, but the cameras are on a monthly loop and were taped over by the time he heard of the allegations. He testified that he does not allow or permit any person to solicit for prostitution at his establishment and he also said that he does not have a VIP or special room.

Commissioner Moore asked, “does Ms. Brickhouse still work for you?” The licensee replied no, that she had left about two or three weeks after the incident. He didn’t know why she left, stating “they come and they go.”

Kodenski renewed his motion to dismiss the charges, adding, “the shame of the matter is, if you’re on the street, how many times does a police officer let that person go? They lock them up on the spot. In this case, it’s a great disservice to the licensee, when they have cameras set up for that exact purpose. We can’t verify the testimony when you come in eight months later. The last person standing here is the licensee who has no knowledge.” Kodenski said that he could not recommend a punishment for the violation, because the licensee “has suffered enough to be here.”

Attorney for the licensees, Mr. David Silbiger, moved for dismissal of the charge, because there was no evidence presented that the licensees had purchased their wares from an unauthorized wholesaler. Rather, this was merely a single incident of a return of a bottle. The Board denied Silbiger’s motion.

Ms. Ok Kim then testified that the day in question was a slow day, and she didn’t want to give any trouble to the customer, so she exchanged the larger bottle for a smaller one without a receipt.

Mr. Kang, the licensee, represented himself before the Board. He asked his employee what happened, and they told him that one customer had come into the store asking for a refund on the bottle. He was making chaos in the store, and the employees had no choice but to give him the money back. He told the Board that the store in the previous case was only 100 feet from his store, so it was likely the same person.

Commissioner Moore asked, “was this bottle returned with a receipt or without a receipt?” Kang replied, “we usually don’t give out receipts unless [customers] ask for it.” Mr. Kang had heard that the Hennessy was missing at the time, but he had not warned or instructed his employees about it.

After the Judge Ward had given his opinion (that the licensee was guilty of a violation), Mr. Kang attempted to blame the violation on his employees’ lack of knowledge. Commissioner Jones interrupted Kang and said, “training. It’s called training.” Kang explained that sometimes people bang on the door and are disruptive. Jones instructed him to call 911.

Commissioner Moore agreed with Jones and Ward and suggested to Mr. Kang that he issue a new policy of no returns without a receipt. Mr. Kang immediately responded that he could never institute such a policy: “it would be chaos in Baltimore City.” He added that if employees call 911, the disruptive customers run out of the store and come back later. “It’s a pretty hectic environment,” he said, which is why he told his employees that if someone is causing a problem, they shouldn’t fight with them but should just give them their money back.