News-Letter

Media Credit: Lena Denis

To college students who frequent Charles Village, the neighborhood's rapid growth in the past few years has been an economic and social triumph, but a recent zoning dispute involving the Den Lounge, located on the second floor of Tamber's Nifty Fifties Diner on St. Paul Street, highlights another side of the story.

The Den will have to close, according to David Tanner of the Baltimore City Zoning Board. After two hearings this year, on March 29 and June 26, the city found the Den in violation of zoning ordinances that prohibit establishments on the second floors of row houses adjacent to similar houses.

Currently Tanner is drafting the decision to be finished next week. The verdict will then be enforced and the Den will be shut down unless the owners appeal to the circuit court.

In Tanner's opinion, though they have the right to appeal, the lounge is operating on borrowed time and will not be able to stay open much longer.

"We follow the letter of the law and have never done anything wrong. This place is not a rowdy club. It's a cool lounge where people can stay in the community and have a good time without getting into trouble," owner Dave Weishaus said.

The legality of the Den's location was brought into question when their neighbor, Mary Darago, complained to the city about the noise level.

"I have been in living hell since [Den] started [construction]," Darago said.

Darago, who has lived in the same row house on St. Paul Street for years now, was there when Tamber's opened in 1991. At the time it occupied a smaller building on the corner of St. Paul and East 34th Streets, with a house in between the restaurant and Darago. However construction began in 2002 to add the Den Lounge on the top floor of Tamber's, and the house next door that abutted Mary Darago's property was torn down to add space to the Tamber's/Den property.

That was when problems began for Darago. She described extensive damages that she claims occurred as a result of the construction, and expressed dismay with how much money she has had to spend fixing the damage - with almost no reimbursement from the owners, whom she blames for the damage.

She claimed that recent water damage to her ceiling, costing her $4,370.00 to repair, was a result of the construction. In addition she claimed that her back steps were torn out of the building in the remodeling process, leaving a hole in the outside wall that allowed a rat to enter her home.

Continued...

Page 1 of 3 next >

Article Tools