What happened at the Liquor Board on November 6, 2014.

Commissioner Moore asked, “who will be dispensing the alcohol?” Hecker responded, “the individual tenants within the marketplace.” Moore asked, “how’s that going to work?” The attorney responded that Mr. Caplan has not yet identified all of the entities that will be serving alcohol at Mount Vernon Marketplace, though they have received eight letters of intent. Moore mused that potentially all eight tenants could serve alcohol, then.

Commissioner Jones asked, “would this be an arena license?” Hecker replied that it would be a restaurant license, not an arena license. Commissioner Moore said that an arena license seems more applicable to this kind of situation. Hecker disagreed, saying that the Marketplace concept is more like a food court. She argued that there is nothing in the regulations that restricts a restaurant license to one entity doing the serving. Moore noted that, the previous week, the Board had approved a single restaurant for a vendor at Belvedere Square. She noted that Belvedere Square has also applied for an arena license, and she was confused about what the Board is being asked to do. Hecker responded that an arena license is for a much larger area than the Marketplace, with a minimum capacity of 1,000 people, and would “theoretically involve folks moving about outside with their drinks,” “Mardi Gras style.” Moore pointed out that each of the vendors could purchase their own Class B license. Hecker agreed, but said that having the landlord control the license gives an added measure of comfort to the community. Since Mr. Caplan is on the license, he has every incentive to make sure his tenants comply with the law. Hecker and Caplan offered to provide a list to the Board of the tenants selling alcohol under the license.

Mr. Steve Johnson, from Mount Vernon Belvedere Association (MVBA), testified that his organization had come to an agreement with the applicant. The agreement says that tenants are only allowed to serve alcohol under a contractual relationship with the management company, and it contains restrictions on the live entertainment that will be permitted. Mr. Tom Yeager, of Downtown Partnership, was also present in support of the project.

Ribadeneira was then asked to explain what he had done to soundproof his building since the prior hearing, a week earlier. The licensee testified that he took out four speakers that had been pointing at the wall he shares with his neighbors. He put some soundproofing on the stage and on the speakers. Ribadeneira said that he would like to do another sound test with the neighbors the next day. Chairman Ward said, “are you requesting a postponement again?” Ribadeneira said no, that he believes he has done everything in his power to soundproof his building.

Ms. Susan Hughes then cross-examined Ribadeneira. She asked him for permits and receipts for the work that he had done. Mr. Ribadeneira provided a copy of a check that he testified was paid to a contractor. Ribadeneira first said that the contractor “provided him with information,” then later testified that the contractor had also done the installation. Hughes asked if the housing inspectors had come back out to inspect after the work was done, and Ribadeneira said that housing doesn’t do that in this situation.

Chief Liquor Board Inspector Shelton Jones testified that he had visited the Latin Palace three times in the past week. The licensee has attempted to soundproof the wall, but when the inspectors did the sound test, the soundproofing was inadequate, according to Jones. The inspector pointed out that there are two dials – one on the volume switch and one on the master switch. When they turned up the music to a level five on each switch, the sound was way too loud. Jones was in the neighbor’s house during the test, and he saw the neighbors’ dishes vibrating and moving across the counter. Inspector Joann Martin corroborated this testimony.

Ms. Sunni Gilliam, the neighbor in question, testified that, since Mr. Ribadeneira installed the soundproofing, she has not observed any difference in the sound level coming through the wall. She said that, even with the volume set at 3, no one would be able to sleep in her home when the music is playing.

The licensee replied that when the building is empty, the sound seems louder and carries more. He reiterated that he had removed four speakers that were aimed at Ms. Gilliam’s home. The licensee’s daughter, Katie Ribadeneira Garcia, testified that they had gathered to do the sound test, but they got backtracked because of the issues with the fire department. She argued that they were not able to complete the sound test, and she asked for time to do another sound test.

Ward told Ribadeniera that the community members and inspectors are all saying that the sound is too high. Ribadeneira replied, “we need to operate. We’ve been desperately fighting this for three months.”

Commissioner Jones said that it looks to him as though Mr. Ribadeneira is not capable of correcting the problem. Jones said, “you either don’t have the ability [to soundproof the building] or you’re refusing to do it.” Jones said that he did not want to postpone the hearing again for another sound test. Commissioner Moore said, “as I see it, if I were to vote on the application today, I would have to say no. The requirements haven’t been met. The impact on your neighbor is so tremendously negative. There have been so many opportunities to get this corrected.” Moore pointed out that she follows the Latin Palace on Facebook, and she noted that whoever runs the page had posted remarks showing a “great level of contempt towards this Board” and a “real in-your-face attitude about what’s required” which she found “extremely disturbing.” She agreed with Commissioner Jones that Mr. Ribadeneira has utterly failed to do what is required. She told the licensee, “I believe that you want to come into compliance. You are a longstanding business in the Baltimore community. You have the potential. There is value in having Latin Palace exist.” But Moore said that she doesn’t know what the Board can do to get Latn Palace into compliance. She concluded, “I feel like we’re spending an inordinate amount of time, care and concern, but I don’t see that concern coming from you.”

The commissioners then voted on whether or not to postpone the case for another week so that the licensee can do another sound test with the neighbors. Ward and Jones voted no on the postponement request; Moore voted yes.

Ward explained to Ribadeneira that “the Board has bent over backwards for [him].” He told the licensee, “it’s not the Board’s job to figure out how to get into compliance with the law. The evidence is overwhelming that you’ve not finished your work of soundproofing. You’ve been given that opportunity.” Ward gave the licensee the option of withdrawing his request to lift the restrictions and to reapply later, when he has completed the soundproofing. The licensee and his daughter decided to take a few minutes to discuss the situation, and the case was put on hold.

The licensee decided, after asking for a postponement once more and being denied, to go forward with the hearing and not withdraw his request.

The inspectors and neighbor were called again and reiterated their former testimony. The licensee and his daughter reiterated their previous testimony that they would be willing to do further sound tests at different volumes. Ms. Hughes argued that the licensee hasn’t given the community any assurance that he would keep the volume any lower than it has been in the past.

Article 2B section 10-504(d)(4) states: “on a finding that undue hardship currently exists causing the closing or cessation of business operations, the Board may grant an extension of the life of the license for a time period not to exceed 360 days as defined in paragraphs (3) and (5) of this subsection.” The Board did not hear any evidence about any hardship at all, due or undue, and the Commissioners did not hear anything to suggest that such hardship caused the establisment to close. The Board is continuing a policy begun by previous Boards of approving “undue hardship” extensions with no explanation of any hardship at all.

The Board told Ms. Pennington that she needs to consult with an attorney to make sure that the license stays unexpired. Article 2B section 10-506(a) is the section of the code that addresses what happens when a licensee dies. This section contains requirements for the licensee’s estate, and gives the estate extra time (up to 18 months) to transfer the license to a new owner.

During the break after the hearing, the Commissioners realized that they had made a calculation error; Mr. Player had submitted his request to reopen 181 days after April 30, 2014. They went back on the record in the hearing and pointed out their mistake. Commissioner Moore asked, “when did you call the Liquor Board and speak with someone from the Liquor Board about the situation?” Mr. Player responded that he had called and spoken to a male clerk two weeks before he wrote his request to reopen.

Also, according to an SDAT search, the licensee’s supposed corporate entity does not exist.

2) Violation of Rule 4.19 – Storage: Inspector found second level was set up with tables and chairs, a pool table, D-J equipment and a fully stocked bar. The license states there is to be no bar on the second floor.

3) Violation of Rule 4.20 – Alterations: Inspector found second level was set up with tables and chairs, a pool table, D-J equipment and a fully stocked bar.

4) Violation of Rule 3.02 – Cooperation: In response to a 311 complaint, the inspector visited the establishment and found patrons consuming alcohol on the second level of the restaurant.

5) Violation of Rule 3.06 – Sanitation and Safety: Inspector observed the bar on the second floor of the establishment. the bar did not have a three compartment sink or proper disinefectant solution.

Kodenski argued, as to the remaining four charges, that they are a “misnomer.” He said that the license says that they can use the 2nd floor for business. He submitted the original application and applicants’ interview form from 2005, which he had in his files. He also submitted copies of the menu. He said that the licensees haven’t made any changes or alterations to the building, except for changing the flooring.

The licensees testified that the “bar” upstairs is a service station, not a bar. They said that waiters go behind the counter to get drinks for customers. The Silvas said that sometimes when the restaurant is short of staff, people order at the bar.

Liquor Board Inspector Karen Brooks then testified that she had done a routine inspection on June 3, 2014 at 2:00pm. She saw tables set up for service, pool tables, DJ equipment, and a fully stocked bar. Kodenski pointed out that there was no DJ using the equipment, and Brooks agreed. When she checked the liquor license, she saw that it said that there could be no bar on the second floor. Mr. Kodenski pointed out that, in all the previous inspections, no inspector had ever had an issue with the setup of the establishment. Brooks agreed that previous inspection reports showed that everything was fine. She submitted a photograph of the bar for the Commissioners to consider. Brooks emphasized that the bar was not just a service station. Patrons were sitting at the bar on stools and being served at the bar, not at tables. She said that she charged the licensees with a violation of Rule 4.20 because there was a bar on the second floor, and “somehow the bar got there.” She also testified that there was no food being served, just alcohol, though the license is for a restaurant.

Inspector Joann Martin then testified about the charges on October 14, 2014. Martin said that she looked in the file and saw the previous violations that Brooks had noted. When Martin inspected the property, she found the bar still there, with people sitting at it on stools.

The licensees testified that when the inspectors gave them notice of these violations, they spoke with their attorney. The commissioners asked whether they had made any attempt to correct the violations, and the licensees said that they had only spoken with their attorney. They did not call the Liquor Board.

Mr. Kodenski then called Joanne Masopust, President of Fells Point Community Organization (FPCO) to testify in the licensees’ favor. She testified that the establishment has always been a restaurant, that she had no knowledge about any alterations, and that she had never been inside. She did say that the restaurant has never caused problems in the community.

Commissioner Jones said that he found it disturbing that the licensees showed a total disregard for the inspectors and did not follow the instructions of either one. Commissioner Moore agreed. She added that the Board has gotten in the habit of finding violations but then excusing them. Moore said that there can be no use of the bar until their license is properly amended. She said that her feelings were very much informed by the Board’s previous issues with Latin Palace. She reitereated that the Board is “out of that business of ignoring violations.”

2) Violation of Rule 3.12 – Public Welfare: Liquor Board Agent observed patrons loitering at the establishment on July 17, 24, 31, and August 5 and 19, all in 2014.

Liquor Board Inspector Mark Fosler testified that he had attended a community meeting across the street at 1227 W. Pratt Street and community members had voiced concerns about excessive loitering and the sale and distribution of illegal drugs at the B & O Cafe. After hearing those concerns, Chief Inspector Shelton Jones and Fosler inspected the establishment and found that the exit door was secured with a lock. There was one unisex bathroom with no soap, no paper towels, and no toilet paper. The bathroom did not appear or smell sanitary. It was also oddly configured; there was a toilet and a urinal with no stall around either one. There were many individuals loitering directly in front of the store. Some sat on the railing at the entrance. Since the front door was propped open, the persons loitering would have been visible to the operators. Fosler observed the loiterers for an hour and 45 minutes. Fosler explained that the licensee has been instructed to call the police when loitering occurs and to keep a journal of those calls. The inspectors did see a journal, but there were only a few logged calls since 2013. There is a drug treatment center nearby, in the next block or two, as well as a public housing building.

The commissioners asked Fosler to describe what the loiterers were doing there, and Fosler replied that the “activity that goes on is indicative of… Certainly people aren’t moving. People are exchanging… I don’t know what.” They’re “passing things from hand to hand.”

The licensee submitted photographs, showing that he had improved and restocked the bathroom since the inspector’s visit. He said that people could get out through the exit door, but they would have to turn a knob to let themselves out. Fosler replied that people should not have to turn a knob to exit through an emergency door.

The licensee looked shocked and confused when he realized that the Board had issued a 2-week suspension. He told the Board that his lawyer had told him that he could come to the hearing by himself and he hadn’t understood what had happened. He pleaded with the Board to lighten his punishment, saying, “I’m an old man.” Ward responded that the Board had already given him a light sentence, because these violations are very serious. Ward told him, “you’ve got to get rid of those stragglers on your corner.”

2) Violation of Rule 3.06 – Sanitation and Safety – Inspector found three compartment sink filthy and filled with personal items (fry pan, body wash, air freshener, and kitchen utensils.)

Liquor Board Inspector Karen Brooks testified that the tavern portion of the bar was not being used for on-premises consumption, as required by the BD-7 license. The facilities “were in deplorable condition,” according to Ms. Brooks. She found “dust, grime, food, and personal effects” on the bar area. Brooks testified that, in her opinion, the bar is “not being operated as a BD-7” tavern; rather, it is being operated as a Class A liquor store. When she entered the building, she said that the patrons told her that the licensee never lets them into the tavern portion of the building. At first, Mr. Oh told her that she could not go in the tavern portion, but then he changed his mind.

Mr. Oh then testified that he has owned the bar for 11 1/2 years. He told the Board that normally the tavern portion is open, but he had closed it briefly to make some repairs. He said that Ms. Brooks had told him that she would return to see if the tavern had opened, but she did not come back to check.

When he heard the punishment, Mr. Oh was very upset. He told the Board that he has been under a tax lien from the IRS, but he is now on a tax payment plan. He lost his home. He works 7 days a week, open to close. He is “struggling so much” and is extremely tired. He told the Board, “I feel like I’m in slavery.” He promised that the bar will be open in the future, every day. After hearing his plea, the Commissioners lowered his fine from $1,000 to $500, but kept the one-day suspension.