By Brian Shane

Staff Writer

Liquor board officials in Worcester County declined to greenlight a “liquor locker” concept for a downtown Berlin bar and restaurant but still approved its liquor license transfer to a new ownership group.

The bourbon and tequila joint Bour-Agavé is no more at 104 North Main Street. It reopened May 23 as CounterClox, a new restaurant with an industrial vibe, said Patrice Ottey, part-owner of the business.

“Berlin being a kind of ‘step back in time’ place, we felt like CounterClox really is a pause in time,” she told the Worcester County Board of License Commissioners (BLC) at a May 21 hearing. “We feel Berlin is like that, and that’s how we kind of came up for the name for that. So, it’ll be a very industrial theme when you walk in, very casual, very comfortable atmosphere and inviting.”

The BLC considered the request to transfer Bour-Agavé’s liquor license to a new ownership group of Ottey, Meghan Newberger, and Fredric Leibowitz. Newberger had been the proprietor of Bour- Agavé and now shares 40% ownership with Ottey in CounterClox, while Leibowitz has a 20% interest, according to their BLC application.

The board did unanimously approve the license transfer, pending the owners meeting the 70-seat minimum required of a Class “B” beer, wine, and liquor license.

However, at the hearing, a line of inquiry by board members injected some uncertainty to the outcome when CounterClox introduced the concept of a “liquor cabinet” ¬– where customers rent a space to hold liquor for a 12-month period, not unlike a wine cabinet at other fine dining establishments.

Guests would have to purchase liquor from the restaurant, not from outside, and CounterClox would keep those bottles under lock and key. Diners could ask the bartender to pour from a bottle in their cabinet. Customers would never touch the bottle, and all liquor would stay on the premises.

While “liquor cabinets” would help the business with inventory management control – guest-held bottles are paid for, as opposed to sitting on a shelf generating no revenue ¬– the main reason is to just get people in the door with something unique, explained Kristina Witkowski, an attorney representing CounterClox.

“So, this is really to help your regulars kind of feel like VIPs,” she said at the hearing. “It’s not a club. It’s really a public but private offering. And it’s a quieter space.”

BLC chairman Billy Esham politely paused Witkowski’s testimony, and turned to ask board attorney Tom Coates: “Is this legal?”

Coates said, on first blush, the liquor cabinet seems to violate BLC rules.

Once upon a time, bars in Worcester County would lure customers by offering 3-for-1 or even 4-for-1 drinks. To combat this practice, the BLC adopted a regulation, Rule 8, which prohibits the sale of more than two drinks at one time, Coates explained.

“Since they’re selling the bottle to a customer,” Coates said, “that would violate Rule 8. There’s no locations in this county that has any type of service like that, and that’s because of this rule.”

Coates added that, if there are any other local bars now offering some version of a liquor cabinet, then that also would be a Rule 8 violation. “They didn’t ask permission of this board for that privilege,” he said.

Part-owner Leibowitz jumped in to say that the bartender is still the one regulating the pour.

“So they pre-purchased the inventory. That doesn’t mean they’re getting service,” he said. “We withhold that judgement, as the bartenders, to cut someone off – to say, you’ve had your two drinks. … We’re still controlling the distribution of what’s poured out of that bottle.”

Esham ultimately stated, almost apologetically, that the liquor cabinet concept isn’t permitted under BLC regulations ¬– for now. He didn’t rule out the possibility that the board could rethink the locker concept.

“I’m just telling you, I don’t think we’ll do it,” he said to the applicants.