Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Thames Street Undefeated Waterfront Noise Capacity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners renew The Undefeated and Waterfront Hotel licenses, order 60‑day monitoring of capacity and noise
Summary
Facing neighborhood protests over capacity, music hours and structure-borne vibration, the board renewed licenses for The Undefeated (1704 Thames) and the Waterfront Hotel (1710 Thames) but ordered inspectors to monitor capacity, music hours, an employee door, food‑sales accounting and perform sound measurements over the next 60 days.
The Board of Liquor License Commissioners for Baltimore City on April 17 approved renewals for two adjacent Thames Street establishments — The Undefeated, 1704 Thames Street, and the Waterfront Hotel, 1710 Thames Street — while directing a 60‑day monitoring period and setting conditions to address neighborhood complaints about capacity, outdoor music hours and building vibrations.
The protests came from the Fells Point Residents Association (FPRA), represented by Amy Petkosik of the Community Law Center, and individual residents who said The Undefeated’s courtyard sometimes exceeded agreed capacity, hosted amplified music outside the hours set in its memorandum of understanding (MOU), and allowed patrons to move between the neighboring Waterfront Hotel and the courtyard through an employee-only door. FPRA members also raised concerns that the Waterfront’s second-floor live-entertainment space produced low-frequency vibrations that carried into nearby homes.
Corinne Scheitler, a member of FPRA who lives behind the properties, testified she could hear music in her yard and inside her home after the courtyard’s speakers were in use; Kate Sims, FPRA president, said residents raised complaints with the operators before filing the protest. Christopher Chute, a Johns Hopkins Medicine chief research information officer who lives adjacent to the Waterfront, described construction of a purpose-built rear sound stage and said he recorded elevated sound and vibrations in his home; he told the board he would welcome regular measurements inside affected residences.
Licensee witnesses and counsel said The Undefeated’s courtyard had been open only briefly (testimony said five days) and that the operation used a scanner/counter and contracted security to control capacity; they also said the Waterfront had invested in sound mitigation, hired engineers and added roof insulation and other measures to damp vibration. The licensees said they had communicated with neighborhood members and were willing to keep lines of communication open.
Counsel for the licensees argued some dispute items were contractual MOU claims and questioned whether they belonged at a renewal hearing. The chair and Commissioner Templeton concluded the board retained jurisdiction to enforce MOUs that had been incorporated into licenses and to address health‑department noise findings. The board denied a motion to dismiss the protests and said it would monitor several discrete items for both properties over the next 60 days.
Conditions and monitoring ordered by the board included: confirming that The Undefeated does not exceed the lesser of its measured dining seats or the 80‑person standard in the MOU; ensuring live‑music speakers in The Undefeated’s courtyard are limited to the established hours (testimony and the MOU referenced a limited use window, the board emphasized no amplified music after 8 p.m. for the courtyard); ensuring the employee‑only door between 1710 and the courtyard is not used by patrons; verifying Waterfront noise levels with calibrated measurements (the board directed inspectors and the health department to measure sound and, if necessary, vibration at points inside affected residences); and verifying compliance with any applicable food‑sales reporting requirements raised in the hearing (counsel disputed whether The Undefeated’s sales mix is subject to a 51% food‑sales test under the BD7 license; the board instructed the licensee to clarify accounting and bring records if needed).
The board also encouraged the parties to resume negotiations and said a signed MOU could be attached to the license; if inspections show violations of the MOU terms, noise regulations or other conditions, the board said it will take enforcement action, including fines or suspension.
Both renewals were approved by the two commissioners present; the chair said the board would revisit the licenses if inspectors find violations within the 60‑day monitoring window.
Ending: The board granted both renewals subject to monitoring and enforcement; inspectors and the health department were asked to measure and report back within 60 days, and the board invited the parties to negotiate a written MOU to attach to the licenses.
