Deja vu all over again?

A Northeast Baltimore proposal that has been given the thumbs-down by basically every community association nevertheless has the backing of the area’s 3rd District Councilman Robert Curran.

The last time this happened it involved a 24-hour Royal Farms gas station, a widely disliked and still-under-appeal project that left many embittered toward its champion, Curran.

This time it’s a proposal for another prominent spot along Hamilton’s retail strip – a 200-seat banquet hall at 5501 Harford Road that opponents fear will become a low-end nightclub or bring in party promoters and attract a boozy, rowdy crowd.

Curran’s support for a “conditional use” for the banquet hall comes not just amid community rancor, but on the heels of a unanimous rejection of the zoning change by the city Planning Commission.

At a recent meeting of the Glenham-Belhar Association, Curran, a lame-duck councilman whose last day in office is December 2, was asked why he plans to bring the project before the City Council.

Curran said that he was obligated to do so in his role as a councilman.

“We as council people don’t have the luxury of not putting in an ordinance ‘on behalf of,’ ” he said. “People have property rights. They can have a land-use hearing.”

He cited examples where he said he went against the community’s wishes on projects they liked in the end.

The owner, meanwhile, is saying that he regards the Planning Commission’s decision as legally flawed and essentially superfluous, and is looking for success before the City Council.

“The Planning Commission decision is advisory only – and not binding on the City Council,” said Charles Lamasa, attorney for the building’s owner, Howard Fine, in a statement emailed to The Brew.

“You Don’t Have to do This”

About 50 people gathered at City Neighbors High School for the group’s monthly meeting on Wednesday – and several of them pressed Curran sharply.

“Every single community organization is opposed to it. In a representative democracy, your job is to listen to those groups,” said the Green Party’s candidate for Curran’s seat, Andreas “Spilly” Spiliadis.

“You’re prioritizing one bad absentee businessman over all of those other perspectives,” said Ryan Dorsey, the 3rd District Democratic nominee for Curran’s seat.

Challenging the veteran councilman’s central position in a heated exchange, Dorsey pointed a finger at him and said, “You’re not under any obligation to enter this bill. You’re not obligated by law in any way to do this!”

Dorsey noted that the measure would likely be approved in committee, given the tradition of Council members deferring to their colleagues in matters of local interest.

“I hope you get the opportunity to get councilmanic courtesy,” Curran said to his potential successor, “if you give councilmanic courtesy.”

Regina Lansinger, director of Hamilton-Lauraville Main Street, said she has been negotiating with landlord Fine to come up with a better business plan for the 11,000-square-foot building, a former Blockbuster video store that is currently vacant.

At Lansinger’s request, Curran said he will hold off until after Labor Day before scheduling a committee hearing on the bill. Curran said he may propose conditions that include limiting hours of operation and the times when alcohol can be served.

“Won’t be Like Visions”

The banquet hall controversy comes as Hamilton and nearby neighborhoods try to encourage attractive small businesses and a walkable, family-friendly vibe in an area that’s also threatened by crime, vacant storefronts and low-end retail such as dollar stores and check-cashing outlets.

During other parts of Wednesday’s community agenda, speakers touted the wonders of Big Bad Wolf’s House of Barbecue (“You don’t need to go to North Carolina!”) and the healthy pleasures of the Tuesday farmer’s market.

But hovering over the banquet hall proposal is the sour memory of another controversial event space in Hamilton – the now-closed Visions Banquet and Catering operation.

Located nearby just off Harford Road in a former American Legion Hall, Visions held events that turned rowdy and led to a stabbing and a homicide, according to neighbors.

The lawyer representing Fine says that residents had made an unfair snap judgment based on the Visions debacle.

“The owner is familiar with community anxieties over the Visions experience and seeks an accommodation with community groups who appear to have immediately rejected the proposal out of hand before seeking any details from the owner,” Lamasa wrote.

He said the owner seeks a banquet hall use “primarily for funeral repasts, birthday parties, anniversaries, graduations, confirmation/bar mitzvahs and other small gatherings that would give the user the ability to self serve food and drink.”

Lamasa said the space would accommodate larger gatherings such as weddings and would commit “to reasonable closing times for weekday and weekend gatherings.”

“It will not allow third party promoter gatherings of the type that created a problem at Visions,” Lamasa wrote.

Who Will Manage it?

Residents at the meeting expressed skepticism, saying that Fine, who owns pretty much the entire block, has failed to bring in other businesses and does not appear to have a viable plan. They worry also about parking, the issue which was cited by the Planning Commission before their June vote.

Several pointed to an online ad for a “Kolorz” party at the 5501 address that appeared to be sponsored by a promoter. The event was ultimately held elsewhere but the ad’s text caused concern.

“Wear what represents you,” said the ad, which includes a guide for partygoers: “Blue=Single, Red=Ready, Purple=Stoner.”

Several speakers raised questions about the establishment’s management noting that, at the Planning hearing, Lamasa had said that Fine would run the business.

“They do not have a plan. . . I was on the phone with Mr. Fine today and he asked me if I would run the banquet hall,” Lansinger said. “He’s not a bad man. He’s a man with a property that is too large to rent post-recession.”

Others were less sympathetic.

“This is a for-profit business. He has no intention to run it properly. He has no ability to run it properly,” said Richard Marsiglia, president of Hamilton-Lauraville Main Street.

Lamasa acknowledged that Fine, the brother of prominent zoning attorney and City Hall lobbyist Stanley Fine, lives in Florida from October to May every year. But in his emailed statement he said the facility will be run professionally.

“The facility will be managed by event managers with knowledge and experience in food and beverage service hired on a contract basis and other management staff as required and not by the owner personally,” he wrote.

Addressing Curran toward the end of the meeting, Marsiglia made a plain request: “The community doesn’t want it. Just let it die.”

Curran did not respond to that plea, but said he would talk to the owner. “He’s got to come up with a better business model,” Curran said.
_____________________________________

In a statement to The Brew, Lamasa offered this legal analysis of why his client believes that the Planning Commission vote was in error:

“The Commission vote was based on two grounds: That there is inadequate parking at the site and that the proposed use violates the Hamilton Business District URP. Both of these grounds are clearly erroneous under any legal standard.

“The Zoning Code Section 10-405 (22)(i) requires one space for every ten attendees. As the owner had committed to a limit of 200 patrons in a letter to the Planning Department 10 days before the hearing, 20 spaces would be required. The owner submitted an architect’s striping plan for the existing parking lot at least a week before the hearing demonstrating that 45 spaces would be available. The Planning Department Staff Report ignored these commitments and implied that inadequate parking existed.

“More egregiously, the Staff Report incorrectly stated that the proposed banquet hall use would undermine the intent of the URP because a large portion of the rear of the building would be devoted to a non retail/service use. The statement with respect to the Plan’s intent is flatly contradicted by the staff report for the ordinance that enacted the retail/service requirement, City Council Bill 08-0022, which expressly stated that rear uses would not be affected by the restriction. The Planning Commission relied in large measure for its rejection on the parking and URP issues as delineated in the Staff Report. Otherwise, a banquet hall use is an approved use unless facts and circumstances can be demonstrated that a banquet hall at this location would adversely affect the community beyond what is inherent in the use itself. See Schultz v. Pritts, 291 Md. 1, 22-23,432 A. 2d 1319 (1981).”