What happened at the Liquor Board on December 18, 2014.

Schrecengost told the Board that the application before them was a transfer of ownership only (not of location). She noted that there were letters from community members and organizations both in opposition and in support of the transfer. The applicant has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Canton Community Association. She proferred that Mr. Lascola was a fit and proper person to hold a liquor license in Baltimore City and that he has not felony convictions. She said that he has invested a large sum of money in this business.

Chairman Ward noted that there are many complaints about the operation of the license in the file. Schrecengost replied that a transfer of ownership is solely about the fitness of the applicant, and that public need and desire has already been established (when the license was first established at this address). She said that her client has had extensive meetings with the neighbors and with the community organization and has signed an MOU to address any issues with the neighborhood. Mr. Lascola testified briefly and promised to address any neighborhood concerns.

Under questioning from community opponents and Commissioner Moore, Mr. Lascola explained that he has been managing the bar since May 2012. He said that when the community complained about the loud bass, he updated his sound system and directed his speakers away from the residential properties. Moore asked, “the ultimate quesiton for me is, if you’ve been the manager for two years and these problems have existed, why should the Board approve the transfer to you?” Mr. Lascola replied that he has been able more recently to open the lines of communication so that he can directly address neighbors’ concerns. Schrecengost stepped in to explain that Mr. Lascola has been constrained in addressing some concerns, because he was not the property owner. This transfer will make him the property owner and licensee, and he will then be able to expand the kitchen and make other updates.

Commissioner Jones was skeptical of this answer. He told Mr. Lascola that, though he may not have been the owner of the property, he could have asked the owner to deal with making improvements. Lascola replied that he was not directly made aware of the complaints and noted that the MOU requires that repairs will be taken care of within 120 days. Mr. Sean Flanagan, president of CCA, was present in support of the transfer.

Several neighbors testified that the current owner of the bar has been irresponsible, that they did not trust the applicant to be responsible in the future, and that the bar is a nuisance. They said that it has been very difficult to contact Mr. Lascola in the past, though they mostly agreed that communication had improved in recent months. One neighbor testified that Mr. Lascola had been to one meeting and had one email exchange but had ignored all other communication. She said that the staff of the establishment had been rude and called her obscene names when she tried to complain. The neighbors uniformly agreed that the current owner of the license should not be allowed to keep it, but they were unsure about whether Mr. Lascola would be an improvement.

Commissioner Moore took the opportunity to tell Mr. Lascola that he would need to do a much better job in responding to community concerns than he had been doing since he took over as manager. She told Lascola, “you need to return calls and answer emails. Are you committed to doing that?” Lascola replied that he was.

Mr. Melvin Kodenski represented the licensee and, on behalf of his client, admittted the violation. Kodenski explained that his client had had a sales tax issue but is now in good standing and has a copy of his trader’s license.

Chairman Ward asked why the word “defiant” was in the report. Fosler responded that the licensee had always been cooperative with him, except that he did not comply with the inspector’s request.