Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing examines Prince George’s County padlock of 24Seven DC Mart and Tobacco at 9400 Livingston Road
Summary
Prince George's County Department of Permitting, Inspections and Enforcement padlocked the Fort Washington convenience store in late June after inspectors and police reported hookahs, drug paraphernalia and field‑tested cannabis. The store owner appealed the padlock to the county zoning hearing examiner, who heard testimony Aug. 29.
Prince George's County Zoning Hearing Examiner Maureen McNeil heard testimony Aug. 29 on an appeal by Livingston Road LLC (doing business as 24Seven DC Mart and Tobacco) of a Department of Permitting, Inspections and Enforcement (DPIE) padlock at 9400 Livingston Road in Fort Washington.
The case centers on a chain of enforcement actions. DPIE issued a notice of violation April 1, 2025, citing flashing signage and display of hookahs that, DPIE said, exceeded limits on the store’s use and occupancy (UNO). The store’s attorney said the UNO was issued in March 2025. After a police narcotics investigation and a DPIE reinspection in late June, county inspectors and police padlocked the unit on June 25, 2025; a notice revoking the UNO is dated June 27 and, according to testimony, was served in person July 9.
Why this matters: the hearing asked the Zoning Hearing Examiner to decide only whether the padlock was properly imposed and should remain in force, not whether the UNO revocation itself is valid. The outcome affects the operator’s ability to reopen pending an administrative appeal and weighs DPIE’s enforcement discretion against procedural protections in the county code.
What inspectors and police told the hearing: Kelvin Thomas, a former DPIE zoning inspector, testified he first visited the storefront in late March after noticing new feather flags and flashing signage and then issued the April 1 notice of violation that listed signage and the display/sale of hookahs as nonconforming with the UNO. Thomas identified the posted UNO limitations and testified that he documented the store’s exterior signage and interior displays with photographs.
Inspector James Laws testified that a June 24 reinspection was performed in conjunction with Prince George’s County police executing a search warrant. Laws said county narcotics personnel field‑tested items photographed at the reinspection and “confirmed to be positive cannabis.” Laws and other county witnesses described multiple items the county characterized as drug paraphernalia on shelves and behind the counter; Laws testified that some items were visible to customers and other paraphernalia was found in a back room. According to county counsel’s summary in the hearing record, police reported roughly 939.3 grams of marijuana recovered in the operation (reference: county exhibit cited in argument).
Walter Balmer, DPIE’s code enforcement officer, testified he oversees zoning enforcement in the county and that DPIE delayed a reinspection while the police investigation was ongoing. He told the examiner that, on review of the photographs and police findings, DPIE concluded padlocking the unit was an appropriate, immediate measure under the county code to cease operations at that address.
What the owner said: Owner/occupant testimony (recorded under the name Simanto/ Samantha Das) acknowledged receipt of the April 1 notice, said some items (hookahs) were removed from shelves and placed in storage, and said the store has remained padlocked since June 25. The owner testified that an inspector told them the store was in compliance; DPIE witness Kelvin Thomas testified he never returned to the store after the initial April inspection and did not tell the owner the property was in compliance.
Legal and procedural dispute: The parties disputed which procedural code governs review. County counsel Kalisa Smith said the padlock was taken under Subtitle 27 (zoning enforcement) with the hearing right to the zoning hearing examiner; she argued DPIE followed applicable notice and enforcement procedures before taking immediate action after the police inspection. The store’s attorney, Tracy Scudder, argued the revocation referenced Subtitle 4 (building/code permits) and that DPIE improperly mixed procedures; Scudder also argued the county did not allege “imminent danger” in writing and did not use lesser remedies (such as fines) before padlocking.
Current posture and next steps: No vote was taken; this was an administrative appeal hearing. Hearing Examiner Maureen McNeil said she would issue a written decision and requested time to prepare it. At the end of the session the examiner told counsel she would aim to issue her ruling within a short period (she said she would provide something by Wednesday).
