SALISBURY — The state Alcohol Beverage Control Commission has ordered Salisbury's Liquor Licensing Commissioners to follow the law and take action on the applications of two local bar owners, a beach bar and a local strip club, who want to swap their liquor licenses.
In a finding handed down Tuesday on the appeal filed by the owners of the two clubs, the ABCC recommended local commissioners hear the applications made by the two owners soon.
The application of Jeffrey Smith, owner of North End Boulevard's Shore Club, requests permission to transfer his year-round liquor license to Kevin Maury, the owner of Kittens Gentlemen's Club on Bridge Road.
Kittens already has a year-round beer and wine license, but its liquor license is seasonal, extending from April through December only. Maury's application to the Salisbury licensing commission requests permission to transfer his seasonal liquor license to Smith's Shore Club.
Salisbury's Liquor Commissioners had refused for months to address the issue and never accept the applications filed on Feb. 6, claiming no such transfer is legal in Salisbury.
When Salisbury failed to act as state law requires, the club owners' attorney Samuel Vitali of Lynn, filed an appeal with the ABCC, citing Salisbury's refusal to accept the applications, set a hearing and take action within the 30-day period required by state law.
In its finding, the ABCC found that the actions requested by Smith and Maury are indeed legal and allowable under Massachusetts General Laws. And it cautioned Salisbury's liquor licensing commissioners that any regulations created by the Salisbury Liquor Licensing Commission can in no way preempt the laws of the state of Massachusetts. Local commissions must abide by the state's liquor licensing laws, the ABCC wrote in its finding.
The ABCC also announced its disapproval of Salisbury's commissioners failure to act, remanded the matter to Salisbury with a recommendation to "comply forthwith" with the law, and place the required legal notice concerning the hearing on the applications in the newspaper within 10 days of the ABCC's May 13 decision.
In its last recommendation, the ABCC "urges the licensing board of the Town of Salisbury to seek advice from and representation by legal counsel as soon as possible."
Receiving the notice only yesterday, Vitali said the finding by the ABCC was not a surprise to him.
"The finding said the transfer is legal and Salisbury has to abide by state laws," Vitali said. "These applications are still with the Salisbury commission and have been since Feb. 6. Ultimately, the transfer of these licenses will be approved. It's only a question of when and by whom, whether it's by commissioners in Salisbury, the ABCC, or a judge in a black robe in Salem."
Salisbury's commissioners refused to attend an April 23 appeal hearing, instead sending what the ABCC's finding refers to as an "extraordinary" letter demanding the state board cancel the appeal hearing, and stating Salisbury's commissioners would not attend the hearing if held, nor abide by any ruling should the ABCC make one.
The ABCC ruled that since Salisbury's letter was not sent to the applicants or their legal counsel, the letter was "an ex parte communication prohibited by" state law. As a result, the ABCC disregarded it and the Salisbury commissioners comments.
