Howard County hearing continues on MD Fine Wine & Spirits application after contested testimony and expert market study

The Howard County Alcoholic Beverage Hearing Board continued the hearing on an application for a new Class A seven‑day off‑sale beer, wine and liquor license for Madhuv LLC, which proposes to operate as MD Fine Wine & Spirits at a planned shopping‑center location along U.S. 1 in Elkridge. The hearing on the application began June 10 and was not concluded; the board scheduled a continuation and invited rebuttal and closing statements.

Applicant Hitesh Vaidya (also presented as Hitesh Wadeya/Vaidya in testimony) and counsel Norman J. Kodensky presented sworn testimony describing the proposed operation: a roughly 2,400‑square‑foot store with a planned 17‑door beer cooler, about 40–50% of the sales floor devoted to wine, and inventory plans focused on Maryland craft producers plus higher‑end wines and distilled spirits. Vaidya told the board he expects a buildout cost in the “$250,000 to $300,000” range and an opening‑day wine inventory of approximately $180,000–$200,000; he said the store would be open roughly 9 a.m. to midnight and that he intends to work long hours on site.

Economic testimony: The applicant proffered an independent market study by Dr. Gerald R. Patnode, who testified as an expert in retail evaluation and economic demand. Dr. Patnode told the board, “There is sufficient demand for, an additional license, in this area.” He described his methodology as drive‑time market analysis and Claritas data modeling, and reported population growth and steady consumer spending on off‑premises alcoholic beverages in the applicant’s 10‑minute market area. Patnode said that while product mixes and consumer preferences have shifted since the pandemic, overall spending has recovered to near pre‑COVID levels and shown modest growth; on that basis he concluded the market would support another provisionally specialized retailer.

Opposition and scrutiny: Linda Carter, representing Howard Wine and Spirits and other opponents, and several nearby licensees questioned some of the applicant’s representations. Cross‑examination covered the applicant’s depth of retail experience, inventory SKUs and precise square‑foot allocation for wine, storage and cold display space, and whether building plans had been approved by the county (they had not). Counsel and members of the public also highlighted translation difficulties during testimony for a witness who required interpretation; the board directed that clarifying translations be provided on the record.

Board members and opposing questioners also probed paperwork and signatures. One member of the public asked the applicant to confirm signatures on the application packet and a background questionnaire; the applicant acknowledged his signature on documents dated October 22, 2024, and said he had completed the background questionnaire. Several opponents raised concerns about the applicant’s limited direct experience in the retail liquor trade and about whether the proposed store’s inventory claims could be sustained in practice. Supporters — including several neighbors, former business partners and local small‑business operators — described the applicants as local, community‑minded operators and said they would patronize the store.

Next steps: The hearing was left open for rebuttal. Counsel for the applicant and the opposition agreed to present rebuttal witnesses and closing arguments at a later session; the board identified August 12 as a possible continuation date (parties to confirm availability). The board did not make a licensing decision on June 10.

What was in the record: key technical details elicited during testimony include the proposed store size (2,400 square feet), a backroom/storage area of roughly 200 square feet, a 17‑door beer cooler, a projected wine inventory investment of about $180,000–$200,000, and a planned build‑out estimate of $250,000–$300,000. Dr. Patnode testified using household and Claritas retail‑demand data for 5‑ and 10‑minute drive‑time market delineations and said he had visited and evaluated several existing local liquor stores for comparison. Several supporters and businesspeople gave on‑record statements in favor of the applicant; several nearby licensees and community members raised concerns about competition and proof of inventory/experience.

The board reserved final determination. Parties and the board agreed on procedural next steps, including scheduling rebuttal and closing statements at a future date.