What happened at the Liquor Board on November 5, 2015.

Hurdle said that, when he checked the Community Association Directory, no organizations showed up to cover this address. No community leaders contacted his client, but, if any do, his client will meet with them.

Executive Secretary Michelle Bailey-Hedgepeth noted that the previous transfer for this location, approved in March 2015, had fallen through. The bar has been in consistent operation under its current owner.

A letter from the applicant’s attorney, Mr. Fogleman, included in the docket materials, points out that other attorneys in the past, specifically naming Mr. Kodenski as an example, have had their clients submit their applications for a license while they are still listed on other licenses as licensees. The letter does not address or cite any provision of Article 2B that would allow for this and does not mention Article 2B section 10-103(b)(12).

The applicants had discussed the transfer with the neighbors of Tuscany-Canterbury, and the community members had expressed some concerns about potential noise and underage drinking. The applicants are very receptive to concerns about noise, and they want to be responsive to those concerns. They agreed to terminate outdoor live entertainment, generally, by 9:00pm Sunday through Thursday and 11:00pm Friday and Saturday.

Fogleman noted that his clients did not agree to any restrictions on the carryout privilege of the Class B license. They want to be able to sell alcohol to go. The neighbors would prefer that the business not sell for carryout, because they had concerns about the college students nearby and underage drinking. Fogleman assured the commissioners that his clients will run a “grown-up” establishment, like the Ambassador nearby. Fogleman said that he had discussed with his clients that this Board takes allegations of underage drinking very seriously and had pointed out that “Commissioner Trotter lives close by.” He concluded by saying that his clients do not agree to limit carryout provisions, but they do agree to the rest of the suggested restrictions in the community association’s letter. His clients also want to be able to deliver, especially to the residents in the apartment building where the restaurant will be located.

Commissioner Hafey noted that there were a few discrepancies in the application submitted: there was no answer in the section about off-premises catering, and, for live entertainment, the applicants checked both yes and no. Chairman Neil said that the license will not be issued until the discrepancies are resolved, either as a separate letter of explanation or corrections on the original application, initialed and dated.

Timeliness: La Famiglia restaurant closed on April 6, 2015, according to their website. It was not clear from the materials posted on the website when the transfer application was submitted, but 180 days from April 6 is October 3, 2015. The application to transfer ownership was notarized on October 2; if it was also submitted that same day, the application would have been submitted on the 179th day after the closing and would have been timely.

Pecuniary Interest: The Baltimore City resident named on this application has no pecuniary interest in the business, which may be in violation of state law.

Mr. Jay Yoo represented the two applicants. He proffered to the commissioner that Mr. Patel has 5.5 years of alcohol management experience, but in other states: Virginia and Georgia. He is alcohol management certified in Maryland and has no criminal history. Mr. Upperman has been a licensee at this address and will continue to be the resident agent and a licensee. He has lived in the neighborhood for twenty years. Mr. Patel, the new licensee, will be the day-to-day operator.

Commissioner Trotter said to the applicants that this neighborhood contains a lot of underage people, who may try to get in and buy alcohol. Trotter noted, “we don’t like that. We don’t like underage drinking.”

Chairman Neil quipped, “you’re being nice today Mr. Kodenski, is your medication working?”

Commissioner Hafey noted that the application was incomplete. The portion of the application that asked whether the applicants have obtained zoning approval for their business was not completed. Executive Secretary Michelle Bailey-Hedgepeth explained that the zoning approval was in place, because the business is currently operating.

Bailey-Hedgepeth also stated that the current licensee-transferor has been found responsible for three violations in the past year. Commissioner Trotter mused that the police department must have been doing raids in particular areas for underage drinking with their cadets. Kodenski replied that the Korean community felt that they were being targeted by those enforcement checks.

Mr. Patel testified that he had a liquor store in Prince George’s County for five years, with no violations or problems. Mr. Patel will be running everything in the store. The store is currently open and operating.

Commissioner Hafey asked whether the applicants had met with the community. Mr. Patel said that he hasn’t spoken with anybody from the community, but he doesn’t think anybody has any objections.

Mr. Steve Johnson, from the Mount Vernon Belvedere Association, testified that his organization is in support of the transfer, as is the Mount Royal Improvement Association, which is adjacent to the property in question.

Mr. Lowenthal has had twenty years’ experience in the restaurant business.

Commissioner Hafey noted that the application did not check a box for the zoning or when asked about off-premises catering. Hurdle proffered that his clients will not engage in off-premises catering.

Though the proposed restaurant will be near the MICA and University of Baltimore campuses, Hurdle said that the menu will not be targeted toward college students. The restaurant will sell “high end stuff.”

Violation of Rule 3.12: Public Welfare. September 7, 2015- At approximately 7:00 pm, every available Baltimore City Police Officer assigned to the Southeastern and Eastern District responded to calls for an aggravated assault and disorderly conduct at the establishment. Upon arriving at the scene Baltimore City Police Officers Mirra, Vlard, Eilerman, and Williams, observed the following separate incidents: a victim that needed to be transported to the hospital for lacerations to the face, a physical altercation by two patrons that seemed to be intoxicated, a man wielding what appeared to be a handgun and then running from police, and an overall disorderly crowd of approximately 800 patrons that were exiting the establishment and into the surrounding neighborhoods at the time that Police arrived.

Violation of Rule 4.02: Inebriates and Drug Addicts. September 7, 2015 – At approximately 7:00 pm, every available Baltimore City Police Officer assigned to the Southeastern and Eastern District responded to calls for an aggravated assault and disorderly conduct at the establishment. Upon arriving at the scene Baltimore City Police Officers Mirra, Vlard, Eilerman, and Williams, observed the following separate incidents: a victim, who appeared highly intoxicated, that needed to be transported to the hospital for lacerations to the face and a physical altercation by two patrons that seemed to be intoxicated.

Baltimore City liquor inspector Mark Fosler testified that he was also called down to the scene by Lieutenant Colburn, but he had no testimony about the incident, because most of the people had been cleared from the area by the time he arrived. Fosler saw 19 police cars at the location, plus the helicopter overhead. Fosler spent some time talking to security personnel and officers, but no one had actually seen any fight or incident.

Mr. Kodenski made an argument that all of the charges should be dropped due to insufficient evidence. He said that the incident didn’t disturb anybody in the community, because there was no one present from the community to testify. Kodenski argued that the licensee has nothing to do with the conduct of his patrons once they leave the premises. Kodenski said to the Board, “you make it seem like this is the worst thing since sliced bread!” He said that people don’t take enough personal responsibility for their actions anymore, which is why his client shouldn’t have to be held responsible. The attorney said, in conversation with the commissioners, that the police officers would have to be working anyway, and that the police had overreacted to the situation.

The commissioners agreed to dismiss the Rule 4.02 charge and the Rule 4.18 charge but they found the licensee responsible for violating Rule 3.12.

The licensee has prior violations of Rules 4.02 and 3.12; in 2014, the Board suspended his license for two days and issued a fine of $1,125.

Violation of Rule 3.03(c): Employee Records- October 17,2015- At approximately 1:08 am, BLLC Inspectors entered the establishment while conducting a special investigation.While conducting their investigation, BLLC Inspectors asked for employee records. Staff could not provide inspectors with the employee records upon request.

Violation of Rule 4.18: Illegal Conduct – October 17,2015 – At approximately 1:08am, BLLC Inspectors entered the establishment while conducting a special investigation. Inspectors observed 8-10 patrons in the establishment who possessed and were consuming alcoholic beverages. The license assigned to this establishment allows service only until 1:00 am. In addition, while reviewing the business records of the establishment, BLLC inspectors observed that the Alcohol Awareness certification for the establishment had expired.