Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Alcohol Delivery topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Retail alcohol delivery tested by one Waldorf outlet; Portside withdraws application after enforcement report
Summary
A Waldorf liquor outlet told the board it completed about 40 deliveries in February and 70 in March with one failed sale due to an expired ID. Separately, Portside Liquors withdrew a delivery application after an alcohol enforcement officer reported a delivery to a 17‑year‑old and other violations.
Get email alerts on the Alcohol Delivery topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
A retail operator updating the Charles County Board of License Commissioners said a Waldorf outlet that has tested retail delivery completed roughly 40 deliveries in February and about 70 in March, with the only unsuccessful attempt attributed to an expired ID.
The operator described procedures intended to prevent underage sales: requiring third‑party apps to collect ID at order time, training drivers to check IDs at handoff and calling customers to verify details before delivery. “We verify everybody, everything, signatures, all that,” the operator told the board when asked about safeguards.
Later in the meeting, the board heard an inspection report from Master Corporal Marc Bourgeois of the county alcohol‑enforcement unit. Bourgeois testified that he observed a Portside Liquors delivery that resulted in alcohol being handed to a 17‑year‑old who presented another person’s identification; his report also noted a 20‑year‑old employee involved in a sale. Bourgeois said he had documented the incident in an incident report and submitted it to the board.
Following that testimony and the inspector’s account, counsel for Portside informed the board the store would withdraw its retail-delivery application and review the enforcement report. The board discussed the report and indicated that a show‑cause or other enforcement follow‑up could occur if the inspector’s findings prompt formal charges.
Board members pressed that any retail‑delivery program must keep robust ID checks and clear recordkeeping, citing the inspector’s account as a cautionary example. The board voted separately to accept future retail‑delivery applications in writing and indicated each application could be reviewed on its merits and subject to enforcement review.
