What happened at the Liquor Board on September 10, 2015.

Bing Chai Chen gave only 5 years of employment history, not the 10 required in the applicants’ interview form. The interview form also did not contain the name of the person or entity who loaned the applicants the money to purchase the business and property.

Chairman Benjamin Neil clarified that the hearing would not be a “reconsideration,” because none of the commissioners were on the Board when the matter was first heard. He said, “we can’t reconsider it, because we never heard it originally. … It’s going to be a new hearing, and we’re going to hear everything.”

Marie Sennett, for the South Baltimore Neighborhood Association, made a motion to dismiss the entire hearing, because she argued that it was improper under a Court of Appeals case which discusses reconsiderations. Chairman Neil responded that her motion to dismiss, was “problematic, from a legal standpoint,” because Mr. Kodenski did not have any notice that she wanted to dismiss the case. He denied the motion.

Mr. Kodenski continued by putting on exactly the same case as he put on in June. Mr. Singh previously was a licensee at Caton House but has sold that business, and wants to operate this bar as a BD-7 tavern. He has met with community groups at least three times. Singh was presented with an MOU, which he mostly agreed to, but he did not agree to be bound to a 50% food sales requirement, though he would agree to sell “some food.” Singh agreed to not have live entertainment and to not use the second floor of the building. Mr. Butler, the other applicant, was not present at the hearing.

Ms. Sennett cross-examined Mr. Singh about the veracity of the information that he had included on his application. One of Mr. Singh’s associates, who was present at the hearing, but did not testify, provided information to the community that Mr. Singh had formerly owned a business in Baltimore County called the Liquor Station. There had also been complainst that Mr. Singh’s video poker machine was not up to date on its permits and that there were patrons with open containers outside of the premises, though there were no violations issued by the Liquor Board about these complaints. There was also some discussion about whether Mr. Singh had told the community that he had had no violations, when, in fact, he had been found responsible for an underage sale violation. Mr. Singh’s responses to these questions were difficult to understand, and his tone was combative.

Mr. Kodenski pointed out that he had submitted a letter the day before the hearing that corrected Mr. Singh’s application and explained the previous underage drinking violation. Ms. Sennett said that the letter doesn’t specifically state what needs to be corrected.

Ms. Sennett asked Mr. Singh about his wife’s business, New Punjab LLC, where she owns a liquor license. Mr. Kodenski objected to this line of questioning, arguing that, since the Constitution allowed women the right to vote, they have been “femmes soles” and that Mr. Singh shouldn’t have to answer for his wife’s business.

Sennett asked Mr. Singh about his business plan for 1542 Light Street, pointing out that he had never told the community about his plans for the business. Mr. Singh said that he might serve foods like chicken wings, fries, and other deep fried foods. Sennett pointed out that, previously, Singh had said he might sell crabs. Singh replied, “I don’t know! You like crabs? I sell crabs.”

Moving to the community’s side of the case, Mr. Michael Murphy, president of SBNA, testified that he had met with Mr. Singh and was trying to negotiate an agreement and create a good working relationship with him when discrepancies began to arise in Mr. Singh’s communications. At the most recent meeting of the SBNA, the membership of the organization turned down the MOU, even with the 50% food sales requirement. The Chairman pointed out that Mr. Singh did not have to agree to the MOU to get a license, and Mr. Murphy agreed. Neil gave both sides a chance, at this point in the hearing, to try to come to common ground, and both sides said that they had already tried to do that. Neil said that if the transfer does not go through, there would be an empty building. Murphy said that, if this transfer falls through, another business will open, since “South Baltimore is not lacking for development; Cave Valley is blowing the place up, and Under Armour is buying things. We are very fortunate in this neighborhood.”

Councilman Eric Costello testified that he also did not see a deal possible for the community with this transfer. Costello normally does not get involved in liquor issues, because they are regulated by the state, not the city, but he was present because of how strongly he felt that the transfer was a bad idea. Costello didn’t recall any other establishment trying to open, ever, that did not have a business plan.

Two more neighbors testified in opposition to the transfer. Ms. Adia Hoag, who was the main spokesperson for SBNA in the June hearing, testified again, echoing what others had said before her about the negotiations between SBNA and Mr. Singh. Ms. Sennett then testified last, going through the investigative steps that she had taken to uncover Mr. Singh’s violation and other business(es). She stated that everything in her affidavit, which was submitted at the June hearing, was true, to her knowledge.

In closing, Mr. Kodenski said that he didn’t know how many red herrings had been given by the opponents, but that he supposed it was appropriate, since the hearing took place close to the Jewish holidays. Kodenski said that one community group is not the “be all and end all.” His client wasn’t issued a violation for the poker machine and open container complaints. Kodenski said that he didn’t know what a business plan is, that his client wants to make money, and there is a language barrier.

Ms. Sennett said that SBNA was not the only group opposed to the transfer and pointed out that there were letters of opposition from other groups, including Riverside, Federal Hill, and Harbor Court. The groups’ main concern was that they wanted an owner they could trust, and Mr. Singh had not been truthful. They did not believe that he would be a good owner and take care of his business.

Completeness of Application: Mr. Kodenski, for some reason, was apparently allowed to make amendments to the application the day before the hearing. This is in complete violation of Article 2B section 10-202(a)(4)(vii)(1), which states that “[t]o incorporate a change in the application document after the Board or the Board’s designee has determined the application to be complete, the applicant shall submit the change to the Board not later than 15 days before the scheduled hearing.” Either Mr. Kodenski’s amendments should not have been considered by the commissioners at the hearing or the hearing should have been rescheduled to give the community members time to address the amendments.