The Kingsville Liquor Store - 11846 Belair Rd
Case CR99CO0042716 - May 9, 2008 (misfiled as 11864 Belair Rd) - SNOW BALL STAND. NO PERMIT WITH ELECTRIC SERVICE (ON THE SIDE OF KINGSVILLE LIQUORS); REOPEN - SNOWBALL STAND, ILLEGAL STREAMERS
- Sept 29, 2008 - re-inspection
- Oct 7, 2008 - "in compliance"
Case CR99CO0061403 - May 21, 2009 - unregistered rental property
- June 10, 2009 - no violation (must have gotten registered)
Case CC99CO0097390 - July 6, 2011 - crab stand and signs
- May 23, 2011 - Complaint filed
- June 6, 2011 - Initial inspection - Inspector's comments: "6/13/11 OBSERVED THE CRAB TRUCK. NO ACTIVITY. KLP"
- June 20, 2011 - Inspector's comments "6/20/11, SPOKE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER ON SITE. ALSO SPOKE WITH THE CRAB STAND OWNER IN THE OFFICE, HE STATED THAT HE WILL COMPLY. KLP"
- July 12, 2011 - Inspector's comments "7/12/11, PROPERTY IS IN COMPLIANCE. CLOSE CASE. KLP Conv- No Violation"
There never was a permit or allowance for a crab stand at this location. There is no such allowance in the County Zoning Regulations, but this inspector, who no longer works for the county, was oblivious to reality!
Case CC99CO0126240 - Apr 1, 2013 Tenant complaint: - THE ROOF IS COMPLETELY ROTTED, THE CEILIING IS CAVING IN, THERE WAS A PIPE HAD BEEN LEAKING FOR YEARS, POSSIBLE MOLD UNDER THE CARPET. THE FLOORS SEEMS TO BE ROTTING WHERE THE LEAK IS, BROKEN BEAM IN THE CEILING, WATER DAMAGE ON WALLS. COMPL WILL BE LIVING THERE UNTIL 4/6/13. SHE SAID THE OWNER IS GOING TO TRY TO RENT IT OUT WITHOUT FIXING IT.
- Apr 3, 2013 - initial inspection - inspector's comments "4-3-13 exterior of building looks okay, photos, no answer when called, per complaint tenant leaving, close 4-4-13 cf Conv- No Violation"
(That is, no inspection was done, case closed! The property is listed on the Rental Registration, and is known to be occupied at the present time.)
Case CC99CO0138003 - Oct 2, 2013 - illegal signage
- Oct 3, 2013 initial inspection - inspector's comments: "spoke w/owner and instructed him to permit or remove all temporary signs and pendants, photos, no notice issued, popup 10-10-13 cf"
- Oct 24, 2013 citation issued - inspector's comments: "temporary signs remain on bldg and extension on free standing sign, photos, citation issued, hearing on 11-13-13 at 9:00 am check for hearing, pu 11-11-13 cf"
- Nov 12, 2013 re-inspection - inspector's comments: "signs on bldg removed, pole sign extensions remain and per L. Wasilewski are a violation even w/out advertising, photos, check for hearing results, pu 11-26-13 cf"
- Nov 13, 2013 Hearing $250 fine, $350 suspended
- Jan 15, 2014 re-inspection - inspector's comments: "sign in compliance, photos, close 1-15-14 cf Conv- No Violation"
Case CC99CO0139267 - Oct 31, 2013 - illegal signs
Sept 30, 2013 - Complaint filed
No record of action taken.
Case CC1500588 - Jan 26, 2015 - "signs all over property"
It is bizarre, and very troubling, that the zoning office would intentionally issue a sign permit for this sign that is "non-conforming" with the current regulations. This is an indication of why we are having so much trouble - the administration decides which laws it does not want to comply with or enforce! Especially when the owner just goes ahead and does something without a permit and then "asks for forgiveness later".
- Jan 27, 2015 - initial inspection - inspector's photos show one violation - an A-frame, plus newly installed "blade" or "projecting" sign
- Jan 30, 2015 - copy of permit for "wall sign 1.5'x7' (10.5 sq ft) (20 foot height from grade on wall); Aluminum sign cabinet with acrylic faces, mounted off of wall 5"; non-conforming to CR overlay for size of sign only". While the signature of the applicant says 1/22/15, the signature of the approval says 1/29/14, so it is unclear when this permit was actually issued. Most likely 2015, just before being shown to the inspector. Thus, they did erect the sign without a permit, and the zoning office okayed it after the fact - allowing what they had already done although it was an illegal design! (Actually, the description on the permit does not match what was installed (photo on right).
- Feb 3, 2015 - initial inspection (sic) - "no violation" - inspector's photo shows A-frame gone.
Case CC1613564 - Nov 8, 2016 - unlicensed vehicles in parking lot (probably G&M's)
Note: CZMP 2016 downzoned this property to RCC, partly because of previous problems, which should further restrict what it is used for. For example, even if all the vehicles are properly licensed, they still cannot be parked here, since they are part of a nearby business's operation.
- Nov 8, 2016 - Complaint filed: "Unlicensed vehicles parked in public parking lot. Also, yellow commercial truck being used by Stephen Boyd of 7553 Bradshaw Rd for his illegal tree-care business. License is expired and this constitutes a "contractor's storage yard". Since CZMP 2016 Issue 5-048, this property is zoned RCC."
- Nov 17, 2016 - Initial inspection and correction notice issued (although it was mailed to the wrong place). Inspector's photos follow:
- Dec 19 - Citation issued, but again to the wrong person.
- Jan 3, 2017 - Case closed when inspector found no unlicensed vehicles.
Case CC1800069 - Jan 3, 2018
Jan 3, 2018, complaint filed for "Blow-up 'dancing man' sign". System marked it as "already underway" and closed, apparently because the previous case had not been properly closed. I sent an e-mail which resulted in case being reopened (see next).
Case CC1800393 - Jan 16, 2018
Jan 18, marked as "no violation", so I talked to inspector and wrote an e-mail to the head of CE, which resulted in the next case being opened.
Case CC1800440 - Jan 18, 2018
Jan 19 - correction notice issued
Jan 29 - citation issued with hearing scheduled for Feb 7
Feb 5 - case dismissed
Case CC1803657 - Apr 19, 2018
Additional non-permitted wall signs installed.
May 17, 2018 - citation issued
June 22, 2018 - hearing held, fine $600,
Case CC1804235 - May 2, 2018
Although this had nothing to do with any previous complaint, it was marked "duplicate reviewed" and immediately closed.
|Donation collection bin illegally placed, probably without the property owner's permission. This is not a "shopping center, industrial park, or fuel services station", as those terms are defined and the only places that bins are allowed. It is placed so that it blocks the view of drivers exiting the parking lot. There is no identification of the company that placed it and the website shown, reuseclothesandshoes.com, is flagged by my Internet service provider as a reported "attack page".|
Case CC1812219 - Aug 15, 2018
| 1. Donation collection bin on this parking lot. Since this is not a "shopping center, industrial park property, or fuel service station" as stated in Bill 43-17, no bin is allowed here. Please take action to get it removed. 2. Large banners covering entire wall. This went up a month ago for a Going out of business sale July 13-17. But it is still there, now says July 13 - Aug 15.|
Sept 13, 2018 correction notice issued (but only addressed the collection bin since the banners were removed).
Throughout 2018, there were too many illuminated window signs, and one was flashing. The zoning regulations regarding these window signs are very confusing, but I believe the interpretation, applicable elsewhere, is that they are allowed only 3 such signs, with permits, and they cannot be on the side window. They are essentially considered "Changeable copy" since they can be turned on and off.
Prior to the 2016 CZMP, the CR District regulations applicable at this location prohibited illuminated signs completely (unless approved via a variance hearing). Since the zoning was changed to RCC in 2016, and the CR designation was apparently dropped, it is unclear what effect this has on what signs are allowed. But flashing is clearly not allowed. While a new liquor store would not now be allowed, this one is "grandfathered".
Note: On 6 Feb 2017, the liquor board approved a transfer of the license for this store from Gurmit Ram and Sukhdip Kang to Theresa Jenese Jackson of Charm City Liquor, Inc. The property changed hands on 16 Feb 2017 for $353,000 (but then mortgaged for $585,000.
The store is now closed, but some window signs remain. The property is still owned by Charm City Liquors (as of 17 Feb 2019).