.

Lavender Restaurant Receives Warning for Licensing Violation

The following information was supplied by the Sudbury Police Department. Where arrests or charges are mentioned, it does not indicate a conviction.

According to Sudbury Police Lt. Scott Nix, was recently issued a warning for violating regulations of the licensing authority.

On May 9, patrons in the restaurant were discovered in the establishment past the time allowed by the authority. Nix said patrons were still inside about 30 minutes past the allowed closing time, which was about 1:45 a.m.

"The matter was addressed with Lavender that morning and the situation was made aware to the chief of police (Richard Glavin)," Nix said. "There was no evidence of alcohol being served at that time, but patrons were present past the time allowed."

Nix said Glavin issued a warning to the management of Lavender. Language in the warning included if any further violations should occur, it will be noted and the licensing authority may take further action.

Nix also said this is the first warning Lavender has ever received.

"They've been pretty respectful with things," he said.

A person who answered the phone at Lavender said the manager was not available for comment.

Metrowest May 22, 2012 at 11:46 PM
r
Edward Stark May 22, 2012 at 11:46 PM
I have a friend who works at Lavender and told me the whole story. I heard that there were indeed elected town officials there and one who does indeed vote on liquor licenses (Selectman). He should have known better! Our town leaders should come clean on this. If somebody starts doing some digging this could become a major black eye for the town. I want to know if liquor was being served. Town meeting ended after 10:00 which is the same time that liquor sales are cutoff on a Tuesday night. If drinks were served and a Selectman was aware of it then the establishment and the Selectman should both be reprimanded. HOW IRRESPONSIBLE!
siobhan hullinger May 23, 2012 at 12:23 AM
If a Selectman or Slelctmen were there, the Patch should publicize it. We should know if our elected can be trusted to follow the same rules we do. My question now is: If it is true that a Selectman was there, was there and has there been preferential treatment?
Robert Fucci (Editor) May 23, 2012 at 12:40 AM
Just to clarify ... no arrests were made so the PD has no obligation to release the names of those who were allegedly there.
Enuff May 23, 2012 at 12:50 AM
Someone should just bring this up at the next board of selectmen's meeting. Oops, that's right, John Drobinski stopped public comments at the board of selectmen meetings a long time ago. What a well run town!!!
siobhan hullinger May 23, 2012 at 12:53 AM
I disagree! The Selectmen are the ones who approve or disapprove licenses and if they are present during a violation, we have a right to know and you have a right to report. Anything less and you are perpetuating wrongdoing. Arrest is of no matter.
Robert Fucci (Editor) May 23, 2012 at 12:57 AM
Where did I say I wouldn't report on it? All I said is the reason why there are no names mentioned. If I find out these allegations are true, then absolutely it will be reported on.
siobhan hullinger May 23, 2012 at 01:03 AM
Here's what I say - do the investigation, ask all around, found out who was ther and question them. We are all disgusted with the way our elected work behind the scenes and the press needs to push the issue and publicize responses. It's time to get back to finding out if rumor is fact and then report the outcome. To not report anything gives power to those who break the trust. You are helping those in power instead of investigating news. Truth comes out when you dig deep enough.
Enuff May 23, 2012 at 01:05 AM
This sounds an awful lot like something being covered up. The police must know who was there. There are surveillance cameras everywhere today. Why did this take weeks to come out? Why wasn't this in the police blog? Lots of people need to start giving some answers. I don't think the people of Sudbury are going to let this one slide.
Edward Stark May 23, 2012 at 01:07 AM
Robert would it be possible to contact all 3 Selectman and ask them if they were there? Then you can just publish each of their exact responses whether it be yes, no or no comment.
Robert Fucci (Editor) May 23, 2012 at 02:02 AM
Calling it a night ... continue to comment, but just know they won't show until the morning.
Samantha Hammel May 23, 2012 at 08:00 AM
What if they got there late and were finishing up dinner and paying the bill? Is 30 minutes really an eyebrow raiser?
Enuff May 23, 2012 at 11:10 AM
Samantha, Most citizens cannot go into a restaurant that sells liquor after closing hours and expect to get in. If it were you or I the place would be shut down. But since it was a selectman and his cronies everyone just turns a blind eye. It is disgusting. Just try going to a liquor store after they have closed and tell them it "is only a half hour". Good luck.
Samantha Hammel May 23, 2012 at 12:11 PM
Maybe I'm reading it wrong...it sounds like the restaurant closes at 1:15 and these people had entered before closing and they were still inside at 1:45?
Sudburytoo May 23, 2012 at 01:30 PM
Let's just hope that whichever Selectmen was involved as well as all the elected and appointed people that were with him have the decency to resign immediately. Rather than embarass the Town of Sudbury with yet another public spectacle, they should be accountable and realize they have made mistakes. I wouldn't be surprised if there was another secret meeting where Lavender's was granted a one night exception and this was never recorded in the minutes, (kind of like the Town Managers covert early contract extension). Sudbury should be embarassed!!! What a well run town.
Concord Rd May 23, 2012 at 02:41 PM
Sudburytoo- How is this embarrassing? Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill! Lavendar made a mistake, the selectman should not have stayed that late, oh well! No one was hurt, a warning was issued, I'm sure Lavender won't make the same mistake again. MOVE ON! I'm more embarrassed by the nasty comments people post here instead of getting out there and actually trying to improve the town through action rather than online complaints!
None too thrilled May 23, 2012 at 03:12 PM
There are security cameras. Since they weren't arrested the police have no need to mention names. Honestly, that isn't there place. Just to get a liquor license in this town is a mission and a half. It is crystal clear that the owner of Lavender kisses the towns behind and anyone who works for the town. He gives preferential treatment to anyone that he thinks in town has clout. The restaurant is the one that stayed open too late. Whether or not the folks inside were town employees just adds another awkward layer to the situation. If you look online the restaurant closes at 10pm. The "patrons" left at 1:45am which is absurd. They clearly were serving liquor until that time. They have a license to serve until 1:30. However, the fact that they are closed to the public and it was confirmed (yes, it has been confirmed) that Selectman were there, just makes it glaringly obvious that this town has a few issues to work out.
Sudburytoo May 23, 2012 at 04:19 PM
Noyes Parent, So the law does not apply to those who make the laws? Get over it. These people are NOT above the law as you and they seem to think.
james May 31, 2012 at 02:51 AM
To the guy who keeps saying it was supposed to be closed at ten - please read the article. Those who seem to be so offended with the anecdote that members of the BOS may have been at Lavenders post-closing should also read the statement by the police officer. Namely, that no alcohol was being served at the time. How about the possibility that the reason patrons (lets assume arguendo members of the BOS) were staying past the closing time was to lessen the effects of alcohol consumed before 1:30 AM. Is that irresponsible? I think it a tadddd obnoxious to make statements like "[the fact that] Selectman were there, just makes it glaringly obvious that this town has a few issues to work out." -- Get. A. Life... Yeah, we really need to discuss the insidious corruption that is Lavenders chinese restaurant and the Sudbury BOS (who are all unpaid volunteers).
RT Paine May 31, 2012 at 10:39 AM
The "allowed closing time" is 1 am Monday - Thursday only for special events where food is being served. The original closing time of midnight was extended for special events (karaoke) by a vote of the selectman(men?) who were there past 1 am. No Karaoke was occuring that night since the restaurant closed at 10pm.
siobhan hullinger May 31, 2012 at 11:47 AM
@james If you think this is simply about a gathering at a local establishment then you are quite mistaken. This is a pattern of disregard for rules, by-laws, legalities, abuse of power, violations of open meeting law, violations of licensing, violations of drunk driving laws etc etc etc. I ask you - who let the town employee leave drunk? What would have happened if someone was killed that evening? Had it happened in someone's home, that host would have been violating the social host law. Whether you are paid or unpaid is of no matter - there is a responsibility that goes with the position. It doesn't mean to get a free ride nor does it mean you are above the law. The antics of the "insider group" are enraging the general population and we have become fodder for talk radio and the like. I feel badly that the owners of Lavendar have been put in the position of no choice by these people. They will likely suffer the consequences. Where is the integrity? Where are the ethics? Where are the morals? It's just too much.
sla271320 May 31, 2012 at 12:40 PM
Town employee? Why are people assuming that a town employee was the person who received the OUI? Where is the proof that there was an employee involved? Before you defame someone's character and expose yourself to a libel suit, you should be very certain of the facts. Don't assume facts not in evidence. Oh, and by the way, the media reportsingsomething, doesn't make it true.
james June 01, 2012 at 12:45 AM
@siobhan-hullinger I think you are going a bit too far in regards to this notion of an malevolent Sudbury "insider group." Many of the members of the BOS ect. have been in office for many terms. If they are just an awful band of misfits, then why have the residents of the town repeatedly voted for them? With respect to assertion that the individual would have been in violation of the social host law - that's just completely unqualified. The social host law generally refers to minors being served alcohol by parents. Maybe if the level of the rhetoric is toned down, a reasonable conversation can take place.
siobhan hullinger June 01, 2012 at 10:01 AM
@james, quite frankly, I haven't gone far enough nor has the rhetoric gone far enough. My understanding is that the social host law also includes knowingly allowing an impaired guest leave. I could be wrong, if so, my apologies. However, when I have time, I will look into who would be responsible for allowing the driver to leave - sufficiently impaired. Who knew? Was this a party? Is the host and the restaurant on the hook? As always, I am not anonymous and I am in the phone book. I am a reasonable person and would welcome a conversation.
siobhan hullinger June 01, 2012 at 12:41 PM
The social host statute applies to both adults and minors.
RT Paine June 01, 2012 at 01:21 PM
The town rules and regulations specify that only "The licensee and his employees may be upon the premises during the time the premises are closed to the public only for the purpose of cleaning, making emergency repairs, (etc)." Lavenders closed to the public at 10pm. The people who arrived after 10 and stayed there until after 1 am were not employees or anyone else permitted under the regulation. According to a prior Patch article, "Sudbury Board of Selectmen Chair Larry O'Brien has denied allegations that he and others were served liquor at Lavender Asian Cuisine & Bar after hours after Town Meeting concluded the night of May 8." Town leaders were at Lavendars after it was closed to the public, and it would appear that alcohol was being served.
Enuff June 01, 2012 at 01:48 PM
James, You state above "if the level of the rhetoric is toned down, reasonable conversation can take place" Are you forgetting that Drobinski has taken away the publics right to speak at board of selecmen meetings? That is another "tradition" he didn't mind breaking.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »