What happened at the Liquor Board on October 8, 2015.

Mr. Kodenski represented the applicant, who appeared with around 50 people in support of the new license. Mr. Kodenski began by explaining that his client had withdrawn his request for an off-premises catering privilege. He submitted evidence of capital investment and seating to satisfy the requirements of state law. Mr. Uprety is starting an Indian restaurant in the space that used to be Loco Hombre. The building, which used to be joined with Alonso’s Bar, is being re-divided into two separate buildings.

Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke testified that she had been present at a meeting between the applicant and representatives from nearby communities, where they had gone over concerns and had signed an agreement, whose restrictions they intend to attach to the license. Councilwoman Clarke noted that she is usually not on the applicant’s side at Liquor Board hearings; turning to Kodenski, she quipped, “usually, whatever you say, I do the opposite.” Mr. Kodenski replied, “even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in a while.”

Mr. Uprety testified briefly that he has worked in Indian restaurants before in different roles. He was grateful for the support of the community and happy with the restrictions on the license.

The Board did not take a vote on this license issuance. Mr. Trotter said “I approve.” Chairman Neil said, “we’re making the MOU part of the license, so we’re going to make that as an exhibit with Madame Secretary, and we’re done.” Commissioner Hafey did not say anything.

Mr. Prevas represented the three applicants, explaining that the transfer was for ownership only, not location. The club’s new name will be “Desire.” Mr. Tylor is an officer of the company but not an owner; the other two applicants will be the full-time operators. Mr. Tolson and Mr. Arizzi have been bartenders and managers for adult entertainment clubs before, but neither has been an owner before. They understand, according to Mr. Prevas, the “niceties” of having to run an establishment of this sort. They will be in complete control all the time and will maintain accurate records and “make sure that things don’t go on.” Mr. Tylor is the Baltimore City resident required for the application. The establishment is currently known as “Sherrie’s.” Chairman Neil replied that he’s familiar with the location, which is across the street from a KFC and in front of a cemetery. Neil noted that he didn’t think that anyone in the cemetery would object to the transfer. Mr. Prevas stated that there is no community association that covers the property, which makes it “kind of a good place for an adult entertainment establishment.”

Commissioner Hafey noted that, under Mr. Tolson’s name, no one had checked an answer for whether he had been a resident and taxpayer of Baltimore City for 2 years preceding the application.

Commissioner Trotter asked about the security of the facility. Mr. Prevas responded that the building is off the beaten path. There will be two bartenders, one of whom will be one of the owner-managers. There will also be a floor person. They’re not contemplating extra security, beyond that.

The Baltimore City resident licensee has no pecuniary interest in the business.

Mr. Prevas told the commissioners that there is no community association that covers the property. City View shows 7 possible community associations that cover the property: Baltimore-Highland Community Association, Inc., Brewer’s Hill Community Association, Southeast Community Development Corporation, Eastern Community Action Center, Southeast Presidents Council, Southeastern District Police Community Relations Council, and A Sign of A New Era Community Association. A new community association, called Baltimore Highlands Neighborhood Association, Inc. also covers this property, though it is not listed on City View.

Mr. Melvin Kodenski represented the applicant, who was present with three people in support of the transfer of ownership. There were four community members also present in opposition to the transfer.

Mr. Kodenski proffered that Ms. Lil had owned the bar for many years, but there was a fire, and a “number of problems,” and she wasn’t able to keep the place open. Her daughter, Dale Watkins, filed a transfer of ownership application, which was approved in December, but she couldn’t finish the process of transferring the license. Mr. Kodenski said later that there was a “reason why [Ms. Watkins] couldn’t become a licensee.” She amended her application to transfer the license to her husband, Mr. Claude Shell, of 14-15 years. The amended application was filed March 18, 2015.

Mr. Shell then testified that he has known Ms. Lil, the licensee, for about 15 years. He has worked with friends in the alcohol business in the past. He wants to “make the neighborhood look okay, get rid of trash and so forth.” Ms. Watkins reiterated what Mr. Kodenski had already said: that she had administrative problems with her transfer, which meant that she could not follow through with the transfer of ownership.

Ms. Adeline Hutchinson, presidnet of the Robert W Coleman Community Association, testified that her organization is opposed to the transfer of ownership of the license and is also opposed to any request to reopen the business. Mr. Shell has not attended their community meeting, but Ms. Watkins attended on his behalf. Hutchinson pointed out that the application states that Mr. Shell is single, not married to Ms. Watkins. Hutchinson also said that Ms. Watkins used the “n” word when she addressed the community association, which they found very inappropriate. Ms. Hutchinson told the commissioners that there is no public need or desire for the bar to be open and that the bar had been mostly closed for years before the fire. The community organization is working to use grant funds to improve the block where the bar is located, which is mostly vacant. They are trying to increase home ownership in their community, and they do not believe that people will come and buy houses on a block with a bar in it. Hutchinson submitted a petition with 41 signatures in opposition to the transfer and reopening.

Under cross-examination, Mr. Shell stated that he couldn’t attend the meeting, because he had to be at work. The bar will not serve food, except snacks. He did not know when it had last been open. He plans to reopen after city inspectors come to do their final inspections, saying “the work is done.”

Several more community members testified to the issues raised by Ms. Hutchinson. One woman was concerned for the children of the neighborhood, since the bar is near several schools. She was also concerned about the correlation between alcohol outlet saturation and crime, specifically, domestic violence. There are approximately 5,000 people who live in the neighborhood, but 25 pay dues. Another community member testified that she does go to bars occasionally, and she never saw this one open. Sometimes, she would be inside, but the doors would be locked, and she was asleep. She did not believe that any work had been done on the property.

At this point, a representative from Councilman Mosby’s office appeared at the hearing to submit a letter in opposition to the transfer on behalf of Mosby. Chairman Neil said that the Board doesn’t take letters from city councilmembers on the day of the hearing, because Mr. Kodenski has not had an opportunity to review it. Mr. Neil stated that the 6th amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that people have the right to cross-examine their accusers or people who testify against them. “I’m not making this up,” said Neil. “I’m just telling you what the law is.” Neil stated that if Councilman Mosby has an objection or if he’s in favor, he needs to submit it in advance, as a matter of “fundamental fairness.”

Ms. Savonne Cox testified that she used to visit the neighborhood often, because her mother and father live nearby. She has known Ms. Lil all her life. Cox acknowledged that there are too many alcohol outlets in the area but thought it was wrong of the protesters to single out Ms. Lil’s.

Ms. Watkins then testified that her mother’s bar is outside of the Robert W. Coleman organization’s boundaries. Ms. Hutchinson responded that the organization had changed their boundaries, so the map that Ms. Watkins had was not accurate. Watkins said that she is a real estate broker, and there were investors interested in the area to update and sell homes. Watkins said that the communities should focus more on guns, heroine, and cocaine and that alcohol “was here before we were borth and is going to be here after we die, period.” Ms. Hutchinson asked Ms. Watkins why she told the community members that the transfer was a done deal, regardless of what they thought. Ms. Watkins denied that she had said this. Hutchinson asked Watkins why she used the “n word” at the meeting. Watkins replied that she was trying to explain the difference between good neighbors and “n words” [Ms. Watkins used the actual word in her testimony], which she interprets to mean an ignorant person, who doesn’t care about themselves or anybody else. Watkins said that she did not intend to belittle or put down anyone.

Mr. Shell, under questioning from Mr. Trotter, testified that he has invested about $15,000 of his own money into the property. The building was severely damaged in the fire, but the one last thing that needs to be done is the replacement of a pipe in the basement, said Shell. He will run the business with Watkins and Driver. The capacity of the building is 75. They hope to open in mid-November.

Chairman Neil asked Mr. Kodenski to explain the authority that the commissioners have to transfer the license, after it was amended in March 2015. Mr. Kodenski stated that the application was pending and that the law says that an applicant has the authority to file an amended application.

After Commissioner Hafey asked Shell and Watkins to clarify their marital status, they stated that they are unmarried but have been together for 15 years.

Commissioner Trotter stated that he understood the community’s concern, but Ms. Watkins had been granted permission for a transfer and she and her partner invested money in it, in good faith, and there was no reason why the Board should deny the transfer. Trotter added that it’s up to the community to make sure that the licensees live up to their standards.

Mr. Shell is a Baltimore City resident but does not own the home listed as his home address, according to SDAT. Property ownership is usually how applicants establish their Baltimore City taxpayer status. There isn’t anything else in the file that shows that he is a Baltimore City taxpayer.

It was unclear from the testimony presented at the hearing why Ms. Watkins was unable to become the licensee.

As stated in Booze News posts for previous hearings, this license has been expired under Article 2B section 10-504(d) for over one year. The property is zoned R-7, and the tavern was grandfathered in as a nonconforming use. This nonconforming use has been discontinued since the fire in early 2013, so, under the Baltimore City Zoning Code section 13-407, the nonconforming use has been extinguished and is no longer valid. There is a current, outstanding vacant building notice attached to this property – click here to see it. There are also no permits on file for any work that allegedly had been done on this property; either the work has not been done, or it was done without permits.

Attorney Darren Burns represented the two applicants. Mr. Burns proffered that Mr. Burrell has been long employed with Subway, and Mr. Thompson is the “sweat equity guy.” This will be a transfer of ownership only; the business will continue to be Maxie’s Pizza, though the applicants may make some enhancements to the property.

Commissioner Trotter noted that Maxie’s is near Hopkins, and Trotter knows that there will be students who are patrons. There were violations of the law under the current ownership. Trotter warned the applicants that the Board will not tolerate underage drinking, and they need to take precautions. Mr. Burns responded that the applicants have already invested in ID scanners. Mr. Trotter responded that ID scanners are not effective and that students find their way around them.

Ms. Sandy Sparks, president of the Charles Village Civic Association testified that the negotiation of the agreement with the applicants was the “friendliest one” that she has ever been involved in. The community association supports the transfer of ownership, under the conditions of the agreement. The community does have a problem with the current licensees, but the applicants have come up with a plan to address the issues that satisfies the community.

The application for this transfer is deficient under Article 2B. Mr. Burrell does not reside in Baltimore City, though he claims that he does on the application. Mr. Burrell states that he has lived in Baltimore City for 16 years, but the address that he lists is in Baltimore County. Mr. Thompson’s address is in Baltimore City, but his period of residency is 2 months, which is less than the statutorily required 2 years.

Violation of Rule 3.03(c): Employee Records- July 18, 2015- At approximately 2:00am, Det. L.C. Greenhill of the Baltimore City Police Department responded to the establishment for the purposes of conducting a routine bar check. The bartender/store manager could not provide inspectors with employee records as required by BLLC rules and regulations.

Violation of Rule 4.02: Inebriates and Addicts – September 5, 2015 -At approximately 1:40 am, BLLC Inspector Chrissomallis responded to the establishment after being contacted by Baltimore City Police for a call concerning inebriated patrons.

Violation of Rule 3.12: Public Welfare – September 5, 2015 – At approximately 1:40 am, BLLC Inspector Chrissomallis responded to the establishment after being contacted by Baltimore City Police for a call concerning inebriated patrons and an alleged assault had occurred in the establishment causing the extraction of those individuals out of the bar and into public street.

Baltimore Police Detective L.C. Greenhill, from the Vice Unit, testified that, on July 18, he received a call from the Lieutenant in the Southeast District that there was a 911 call for a fight at 200 S. Haven Street. When the police arrived, the fight was broken up, but there were between five and ten Hispanic women behind the bar who were attempting to leave. An officer asked the security guard who the women were; the guard replied that they were all employees of the establishment. The officers corralled all of the women back into the bar to identify them. In trying to identify them, the officers requested employment records from the bar. The night managers stated that the employment records were locked up, and the managers did not have access to them. The women were identified by other means. Sergeant Douglas Schroyer corroborated Greenhill’s testimony.

Liquor Board Inspector John Chrissomallis testified that, on September 5, at 1:40, he received a call from the police about a 911 complaint. Two individuals had called the police, stating that they were assaulted as they were escorted out of the bar. The individuals were under the legal age to consume alcohol. The two young men did not speak English, so Spanish-speaking officer Bayon interviewed them. The men both stated that they had been drinking inside the establishment. There was another patron coming out of the bar who was visibly intoxicated. She did not have ID. None of the three young people had ID on them. None of the young people were arrested, and the inspectors did not see anyone serve them any alcohol. The inspector did not know whether the young woman, who was inebriated and was inside the establishment had undergone any tests or was under the influence of prescription medicine or other drugs. She left with her mother, who was also at the bar.

Officer Victor Bayon also testified to the September 5 incident that he had seen two young men who were highly intoxicated, who did not have ID but said that they were under 21. At the point that Bayon saw them, they were already outside of the business, across the street. They claimed that they were assaulted by the security guard in the bar, but they did not have any visible injuries.

Mr. Kodenski argued that the inspector and officers did not have enough evidence to charge a violation of the rule against serving inebriates. They could have come into the bar drunk. Kodenski suggested that if the people were inebriated and had no ID, they should have been locked up until they could prove who they are.

Mr. George, the licensee, then testified that there are employee records, but he locks them up, because otherwise they get damaged or lost. He will make them available in the future. George stated that he never serves intoxicated people, and he turns them away at the door.

Mr. Kodenski said that there was nothing wrong with the underage girl being in the bar, because she was with her mother. He also challenged the idea that the two young men were intoxicated. He told the commissioners, “a lot of people are whackos. That’s the way they are.” Were they drinking or did they fall on their head? He concluded that there are a “lot of things floating around” with “no substance to it.”

There were significant prior violations for this licensee, which Kodenski downplayed. Chairman Neil explained that, “we’re not here to be bad guys and lower the boom.”

Violation of Rule 4.05: Prohibited Hours- August 16, 2015- At approximately 1:50 am, BLLC Inspector Chrissomallis and Lt. Colburn of the Baltimore City Police Department conducted a routine check of the establishment. At the time of their inspection, both noticed numerous people consuming alcoholic beverages. Lt. Colburn advised the manager on duty that she had 10 minutes to clear out the establishment so as not to be in violation of BLLC rules and regulations. Both Chrissomallis and Colburn waited in the establishment At 2:05 am, Chrissomallis and Colburn noticed 11 patrons in the establishment, 7 of which were drinking alcoholic beverages. Police then cleared the establishment and the manager was informed of the violation.

Violation of Rule 3.03(c): Employee Records – August 16, 2015 – At approximately 1:50 am, BLLC Inspector Chrissomallis and Lt. Colburn of the Baltimore City Police Department conducted a routine check of the establishment While conducting their investigation, the inspectors and police asked for copies of the employee records of all personnel employed and working at the establishment. The bartender/store manager could not provide inspectors with employee records as required by BLLC rules and regulations.

Violation of Rule 4.18: Illegal Conduct – August 16, 2015 – At approximately 1:50 am, BLLC Inspector Chrissomallis and Lt. Colburn of the Baltimore City Police Department conducted a routine check of the establishment. While conducting their investigation, the inspectors and police asked for a copy of the Trader’s License.The manager provided a copy that was expired. The BLLC Inspector informed her of the violation.

Violation of Rule 3.12: Public Welfare – August 16, 2015 – At approximately 1:50 am, BLLC Inspector Chrissomallis and Lt. Colburn of the Baltimore City Police Department conducted a routine check of the establishment. After clearing the establishment for a violation of Prohibited hours, BLLC inspector noticed a patron of the establishment- who he had previously seen inside of the establishment- directly outside of the establishment urinating on the building next door.

The licensees did not appear for the hearing. Inspector Chrissomallis and Sergeant Schroyer testified very briefly that the facts in their reports were true and accurate. Commissioner Trotter suggested that the licensees receive a two week suspension, since they’re showing a total disregard for the Board’s authority by not appearing. The licensees were found responsible for all charges and the license was suspended for two weeks.

Violation of Rule 4.18: Illegal Conduct – August 4, 2015 – At approximately 5:45pm, Agent Fosler visited the establishment to conduct a routine inspection. At the time of the inspection, Agent Fosler observed numerous dancers performing adult entertainment in the establishment. When Agent Fosler asked for a copy of the establishment’s Adult Entertainment license the bar manager/licensee could not produce it. In addition, the bar manager/licensee failed to produce a copy of an active trader’s license. Further investigation revealed that the establishment failed to renew their Adult Entertainment license until August 10, 2015 and as of August 18, 2015 the establishment had failed to obtain an active trader’s license. Agent Fosler notified the establishment’s bar manager/licensee of the violations upon confirmation.

Violation of AE Rule 9: Codes Compliance – August 4, 2015 – At approximately 5:45pm, Agent Fosler visited the establishment to conduct a routine inspection. At the time of the inspection, Agent Fosler observed numerous dancers performing adult entertainment in the establishment. When Agent Fosler asked for a copy of the establishment’s Adult Entertainment license the bar manager/licensee could not produce it. In addition, the bar manager/licensee failed to produce a copy of an active trader’s license. Further investigation revealed that the establishment failed to renew their Adult Entertainment license until August 10, 2015 and as of August 18, 2015 the establishment had failed to obtain an active trader’s license. Agent Fosler notified the establishment’s bar manager/licensee of the violations upon confirmation.

Mr. Prevas was present as the attorney for the landlord of the property. Ms. Dennison, licensee, was also present. Dennison admitted that she had not picked up the new Adult Entertainment license; there was a hold on the trader’s license. They had not had the opportunity to get to the bottom of the Comptroller hold.