►
Description
Docket #0654 - Ordinance amending CBC Chapter 8-13, Ensuring Equitable Regulation of the Cannabis Industry in the City of Boston; and,
Docket #0655 - An Order Regarding a Text Amendment to the Boston Zoning Code with respect to Marijuana Establishment
A
Good
afternoon
everyone,
I'm
city,
councilor,
lydia,
edwards,
chair
of
the
committee
on
government
operations.
It
is
wednesday
august
11th,
2021
and
we're
here
today
for
a
virtual
working
session
on
docket
0654
ordinance
amending
the
cbc
chapter,
8-13,
ensuring
equitable
equitable
regulation
of
the
cannabis
industry
in
the
city
of
boston
and
docket
0655,
an
order
regarding
a
text
amendment
to
the
boston
zoning
code.
With
respect
to
marijuana
establishments,
which
referred
to
the
committee
on
may
12.
The
committee
held
a
hearing
on
these
matters
on
july
6.,
council,
flaherty
and
myself
are
the
sponsors
of
both
dockets.
A
According
to
chapter
20,
the
act
of
2021.
We
are
modifying
certain
requirements
of
meeting
law
which
allows
for
the
city
council
to
carry
out
its
responsibilities.
While,
inheriting
public
accommodations
public
may
watch
this
working
session
via
live
stream
through
at
excuse
me,
www.boston.gov
city
dash,
council
dash
tv
and
live
on
xfinity
8,
rcn,
82
and
verizon
964..
A
A
This
working
session
is
also
being
reported
quickly,
summarizing
the
dockets,
I'm
actually
gonna,
since
we're
gonna
I'll
talk
about
them
in
the
order
that
we're
gonna
discuss
them.
We'll
first
work
with
the
text
amendment
for
the
zoning
and
then
we're
gonna
go
into
the
ordinance.
The
text
amendment
is
docket
0655
and
it
proposes
to
make
cannabis
establishments
and
allow
use
and
prohibits
cannabis
establishments.
A
A
It
would
remove
the
zba
from
the
process
entirely
and
specifically
with
with
regards
to
the
half-mile
buffer,
which
would
be
transferred
over
to
the
bcb
boston
cannabis
board
to
enforce
what
would
stay
is
the
500-foot
buffer
for
all
cannabis
establishments,
that
is
by
state
law.
What
would
stay
is
the
again
it
will
continue
to
be
a
forbidden
use
in
residential
districts.
A
The
what
will
change
and
needs
to
change
to
be
consistent
with
state
law
is
the
way
in
which
we
measure
the
distance,
which
has
changed
at
the
state
level
in
terms
of
measuring
what
is
from
the
door
area
to
the
door
area,
and
that
was
a
change
that
happened
at
state
law,
and
so
our
city
law
should
be
consistent
again
when
it
comes
to
commercially
zoned
properties,
it
would
be
just
like
any
other
vice
alcohol
smoke
shop
so
and
so
forth,
and
it
would
be
analogical
use
so
0,
6,
5
4
then
fills
in
that
gap
or
fills.
A
In
that
analysis,
the
proposal
codifies
the
half-mile
buffer
zone.
Let
me
repeat
that
it
is
actually
codifying
the
half-mile
buffer
zone,
so
we
are
putting
it
in
the
law
and
it
maintains
that
objective
that
no
area
of
the
city
will
have
an
over
concentration
of
of
cannabis
businesses.
That
is
the
goal.
That
is
the
reason
why
we
had
the
half-mile
buffer
and
that
is
going
to
be
continued
to
be
the
mission.
A
A
We
also
do
certain
carve-outs
for
the
one-to-one
to
making
sure
that
it's
dispensary
analysis
with
dispensary
analysis,
dispensary
and
cultivation
with
cultivation,
and
we
also
add
a
conflict
of
interest
laws
and
concerns
for
the
members
of
the
bcb
in
training,
so
just
working
on
the
zoning
ordinance
itself.
A
This
is
oh.
Finally,
it
does
does
establish
her
counselor
box
concerns
and
other
counselors.
It
does
establish
certain
standards
for
which
to
judge
the
half-mile
buffer
zone
in
in
the
bcb
in
which
we
do
expect
it
to
be
enforced
by
the
bcb
and
looking
at
that
and
exceptions
if
there
are
to
be
any
and
certain
standards
for
those
exceptions.
A
B
You
can
go
right
to
the
documents
and
get
to
work.
Any
clarity
you
can
give
us
where
we
welcome
and
we're
open
to.
C
Just
want
to
be
council
edwards,
I'm
not
going
to
be
able
to
stay
on
the
meeting.
I
have
another
engagement
in
my
district,
I'm
going
to
review
the
and
again
sorry
to
interrupt
I'm
going
to
review
the
notes
or
the
video
later
this
evening,
but
I
think
my
number
one
concern
was
you
know:
what
would
the
neighborhood
process
be?
How
would
residents
interact
with
the
new
board,
the
cannabis
board
and
what
that
process
would
be
like?
C
Does
this
give
residents
more
of
a
say
or
or
less
of
a
say,
I'm
just
trying
to
get
a
little
bit
more
information
on
that
again
I
apologize
for
interrupting,
but
I'll
I'm
going
to
review
the
notes
later
tonight.
I
might
call
you
later
tonight
also
council
edwards.
A
If
you
want
to
go
ahead
and
pull
up
the
zoning
amendment,
the
text
amendment,
that's
what
we'll
focus
on
first
and
looks
like
we
have
two
attendees.
Oh
counselor
braden
has
also
joined
us.
A
E
I
appreciate
I
appreciate
the
recap.
Obviously,
my
main
concern,
as
you
know,
is
just
making
sure
that
the
half-mile
buffer
that
we
we
went
through
an
exhaustive
process
across
the
city,
countless
meetings
and
community
organizations.
E
What
have
you
just
making
sure
that,
as
you
reference,
no
one
neighborhood,
no
one
area,
no
one
part
of
our
city
becomes
sort
of
the
pot
zone
sort
of
reminiscent
of
the
the
old
combat
zone.
So
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
it
was
sort
of
equitably
and
fairly
dispensed
and
decentralized
throughout
the
city
and
making
sure
that
it's
accessible
so
that
half
mile
buffer
is,
is
there
for
a
reason
and
went
to
great
lengths
to
make
sure
that
we
secured
it.
E
So
if
it's
going
to
be
codified
and
respected
and
not
trampled
like
we've
seen
in
some
instances
through
the
the
zoning
board
of
appeals-
and
I
would
I
would
appreciate-
we
continue
to
keep
focused
on
that.
But
look
forward
to
hearing
from
everybody
today.
B
I
need
access
to
it.
I
requested
access,
but
I
don't
have
access
to
it.
A
And
I'm
just
reading
an
email
from
brian
you
wanted
to
listen
to
the
conversation,
I'm
happy
to
speak
outside
the
working
session.
So
thank
you
brian
for
coming
to
listen.
We
appreciate
it.
I'm
gonna
now
go
directly
to
the
for
the
voting
amendment.
Just
look
it
up.
A
Are
any
questions
concerns
suggestions
about
the
specific
zoning
amendment?
Ultimately,
yes,
by
doing
this,
we
would
be
removing
the
zba
from
the
process
for
for
the
process
of
granting
anything
actually
for
the
cannabis
industry.
The
goal
is
to
streamline
and
to
make
sure
that
one
agency
speaks
with
one
voice
for
the
city
of
boston,
that
agency,
that
has
the
expertise,
an
agency
that
is
measuring
safety
and
all
the
different
aspects
of
equity.
A
While
I
appreciate
the
zba
has
tried
and
does
bring
up
equity
in
certain
things
and
points
they're,
not
qualified,
they're,
not
selected,
they
have
no
point
system
in
front
of
them
to
discuss
it
and,
let's
be
very
clear,
they
have
never
discussed
equity
or
the
analysis
of
ownership
in
other
projects
that
come
before
them
on
a
regular
basis.
A
So
I
I
can
point
to
yesterday's
conversation,
which
was
convoluted
confusing
and
just
I
thought
not
well
in
good
form,
and
I
I
think
if
anything,
it
demonstrated
that
we
need
one
agency
to
speak
and
one
agency
for
people
to
go
to
to
express
their
concerns
and
grievances.
A
This
agency
is
also
not
only
tasked
with
with
the
movement
of
this
particular
industry,
they're,
also
tasked
with
being
able
to
respond
to
as
the
industry
changes
we
expect
at
some
point.
There
will
be
onsite
consumption,
restaurants,
all
different
ways
in
which
cannabis
can
be
consumed.
The
bcb
will
be
in
control
of
that.
So
that's
why
I
specifically
want
them
to
be
the
final
voice.
A
Final
study,
final
grantor
or
denier
of
certain
licenses
from
the
city
of
austin,
so
I'll
turn
it
over
to
kathleen
leslie
and
jasmine
for
any
of
your
thoughts
and
then
I'll
go
around
to
all
of
the
counselors.
Actually,
I'm
so
sorry
counselors,
I
think
counselor
flynn
may
have
dropped,
but
counselor
bach
did
you
did
you
have
any
thoughts
specifically
on
the
zoning
and
then
we'll
go
to
the
administration.
D
D
Our
zba
process
involves
fairly
haphazard
consideration
of
a
lot
of
things,
because
we
put
these
crazy
agendas
together
and
people
sort
of
roll
through
it,
and
I
think,
certainly
we
all
feel
the
difference
in
sort
of
the
the
amount
of
familiarity
that
the
bcb
gets
with
the
applicants
through
their
process
and
the
and
the
yeah,
the
more
sort
of
like
cursory
familiarity
that
the
zba
has
in
this,
and
so
I'm
supportive
of
your
efforts
there.
D
I
will
just
say-
and
I
know
you're
trying
to
talk
about
one
document
and
the
other,
but
I'm
not
sure
that
the
language
that
you
have
in
the
second
document,
we're
going
to
look
at
is
strong
enough.
Yet
for
me.
D
With
strike
with,
but
I
get
the
point
of
striking
it
from
the
zoning
so
that
we're
enforcing
it
in
the
other
ordinance
I
just
I
would.
I
would
flag,
I
think,
to
counselor
flaherty's
point
that
to
really
to
really
preserve
this
consideration,
I
think
I
think
we
may
need
to
think
a
little
bit
differently
about
it
in
the
other
document,
but.
A
I
agree
I
I
assume
people
have
a
stronger
standard
in
suggested
language
for
the
half-mile
buffer
enforcement
with
the
bcb
councillor
flaherty
and
then
council
braden.
F
A
So
on
the
proposed
order
to
to
the
administration
kathleen
leslie
jasmine
thoughts,
concerns
suggestions.
E
Actually,
madam
madam
chairs,
council
clarity
again,
if
I
just
maintain
one,
there
was
one
issue
that
it's:
what
what
impact,
if
any,
will
the
text
amendment
have
on
the
zoning
sub
district?
That's,
that
was
a
question
I
did
get
from
some
folks
in
the
community
as
to
how
what,
if
any
impacts
that
will
this
text
amendment
have
on
zoning
sub-districts.
A
Right
and
one
of
the
examples
that
you
had
discussed
was,
for
example,
if
it's
a
triple-decker
or
a
three-story
building
upstairs
is
residential
downstairs,
it's
commercial,
for
example,
right
or
in
some
areas
of
east
boston,
where
there's
within
a
residential
there's
like
a
commercial
core
within
that.
I
believe
that
that's
where
that
came
up
in
terms
of
concern
council
clarity.
A
Right,
so
we
we,
we
expect
that
the
same
zoning
that
exists
at
that
time.
So,
if
it's
commercially
zoned,
if
the
building
or
the
storefront
or
that
area
is
commercially
zoned,
then
the
impact
that
this
would
have
is
that
it
would
be
an
at
the
right
like
a
liquor
store.
Basically,
could
a
liquor
store
exist
there?
Could
a
smoke
shop
exist
there,
as
as
the
current
zoning
exists,
then
so
could
a
cannabis
establishment
within
the
envelope
of
the
building,
of
course,
with
other
zoning
and
height
and
all
those
other
things
like
that.
A
That
would
still
apply
obviously,
but
the
that
is
what
that's
the
impact,
so
it
couldn't
exist
upstairs
where
it's
zoned
residential
it
couldn't
exist
in
other
parts
of
residential
neighborhoods,
where
it's
sewn
that
way,
any
more
than
a
liquor
store
could
just
just
you
know
prop
prop
up
in
a
triple
decker.
D
I
def,
I
think
I
think
probably
it
would
be
worth
like
I
I
it's
making
me
think
that
I
probably
need
to
on
a
district
counselor
basis
just
go
through
and
think
about
which
of
the
commercial
districts
in
my
neighborhoods,
I
think
what
councilor
flaherty
is
getting
to
is
ones
where
neighborhoods
have
kind
of
customized
them
already
like
even
across
the
city's
commercial
districts.
I
mean,
I
think,
about
the
fact
that,
for
instance
like
on
charles
street,
you
know
a
number
of
years
ago.
D
There
was
concern
about
making
sure
that
it
would
still
have
a
lot
of
storefrontages
that
people
would
be
going
in
and
out
so,
like
professional
services
are
banned
on
the
ground
floor,
which
just
has
to
do
with
not
wanting
it
to
all
be
real
estate
offices,
but
so
I'm
just
thinking
about
you
know
the
places
where
our
communities
have
made
an
effort
to
customize
their
commercial
districts
and
how
this
interacts
with
that.
But
it's
a
thought
that's
occurring
to
me
now,
so
I
haven't
done
any
due
diligence
on
it.
A
I
think
it's
fair,
I
think
it
also
dovetails
when
we
go
into
why
we
don't
want
or
why
we
specifically
want
to
still
be
focused
on
not
having
a
concentration
of
of
cannabis
establishments.
Even
if
we
do
decide,
we
want
a
commercial
core
and
we
do
want
a
certain
commercial
vibrancy
or
we're
trying
to
help
revitalize
an
area
where
you
want
to
like
ease
up
on
the
zoning
for
commercial.
D
Right
and-
and
I
obviously
represent
neighborhoods
and
so
does
councillor
flynn-
that
you
know
some
people
who
live
in
further
neighborhoods,
the
city
regard
as
commercial,
but
the
many
thousands
of
people
we
represent
regard
as
residential,
and
you
know
you're,
of
course,
also
familiar
with
that
kind
of
neighborhood.
So
yeah,
I
think
that's
that's
also
just
something
a
line.
We
have
to
walk
fair
enough.
E
In
manhattan
and
madam
chair,
the
concern
from
the
two
and
the
three
families
that
have
the
first
floor-
commercial,
where
they
were
hoping
that
somehow
would
remain
conditional
as
opposed
to
allowed
just
given
the
impacts
it
could
have
on
their
tenancy
and
their
quality
of
life.
That
was
the
that
was
the
ass.
E
A
I
do
think
that
skin
in
the
game
and
that
analysis
would
still
be
able
to
happen
at
the
bcb
with
because
again,
every
cannabis
establishment
has
to
demonstrate
safety.
They
have
to
demonstrate
how
they're
going
to
control
traffic.
They
have
to
demonstrate
all
sorts
of
different
ways
in
which
they
will
have
mitigating
pros
and
cons
and
impacts
on
the
community,
and,
of
course
the
community
would
come
and
be
able
to
say
those
very
things
as
well.
A
A
So
I
want
all
of
this
conversation
counselor
friday.
I
want
people
to
understand
on
record.
I
absolutely
want
this
deep
analysis.
I
don't
want
anyone
to
feel
that
they're
being
shoved
out
of
their
home,
because
a
horrible
business
is
coming
on
suddenly
putting
in
live
music
people
get
upset
about
that
and
they're
concerned,
there's
so
many
different
ways
in
which
people
feel
in
those
you
know
both
residential
and
commercial
districts,
that
there's
there's
a
little
growing
and
that
analysis
should
still
happen
it.
A
Just
I'm
just
saying
it
should
happen
at
the
bcb,
the
boston
cannabis
board,
not
at
the
bcb
and
then
turn
around
and
then
the
zba
with
no
standards.
No
experts
on
the
panel
decide
based
off
of
whatever
standard
that
they
don't
have
in
front
of
them
to
deny
or
approve.
E
The
old
trick,
the
hocus
pocus
when
they
make
those
decisions
somewhat
willy-nilly
and
just
continue
to
trample
on
either
local
zoning
or
concerns
of
folks
in
the
community
that
direct
about
us,
particularly
when
they
don't
when
they
don't
send
out
re-notices
for
deferrals,
so
anyways
I
might
have
broke
up.
I
call
that
the
the
old
hocus
pocus
move.
A
I
learned
more
vocabulary
from
you,
counselor
flaherty
than
anybody
else
on
the
city
council
so
now
to
the
administration
or
any
thoughts
on
the
zoning
and
the
removal
of
the
zba.
B
Well,
I
think
we,
I
think
this
board
has
been
put
in
place
as
a
signing
authority
to
determine
one
the
appropriateness
of
a
particular
application,
and
we
take
that
very
seriously.
The
city
council's
ordinance
gives
us
very
specific
criteria,
and
I
challenge
anyone
to
say
that
we
don't
take
that
to
heart.
All
of
our
all
of
our
evaluations
are
public.
We
all
vote.
We
all
have
new
numbers
assigned
to
the
to
what
we
vote
on.
B
I
I
think
we
may
be
able
to
do
a
better
job
in
elaborating
on
the
reasons
why
we
do
move
something
along
that
does
pierce
the
buffer
zone.
I
take
I
try
to
at
the
beginning
of
every
hearing
if
there
is
a
buffer
zone
conflict,
to
explain
the
reasons
why
I
think
this
application
has
has
met
the
minimum
standard
of
heightened
scrutiny.
It
could
be
something
that
we
could.
You
know,
strengthen
as
a
board.
B
With
your
help
and
with
your
guidance,
I
think
what
happens
sometimes
is
we've
gone
through
this
thorough
vetting
process.
We've
had
a
public
hearing,
we've
heard
the
pros
and
cons
hours
and
hours
long.
We
read
every
single
letter
of
opposition
and
support
and
then
sometimes
the
zba
is
used
as
an
opportunity
for
the
public
to
have
a
second
bite
of
the
apple
and
it's
unfortunate.
Sometimes
I
think,
when
we've
gone
to
these
great
efforts,
we've
looked
at
it
through
this.
B
This
lens
every
lens
that
we've
every
tool
we've
been
given
and
then
sometimes
the
zba
decides
they're
going
to
they're
going
to
look
at
things
that
aren't
really
within
their
purview
that
should
be
remaining
within
the
boston
cannabis
board.
Those
are
my
two
cents.
I
I
feel
very
confident
that
we
have
a
strong
board.
We
take
our
role
very
seriously
and
we
vet
these
applications
with
a
fine-tooth
comb.
B
We
we
ask
that
the
difficult
questions
we
take
our
time
with
every
single
application
and
I
feel,
like
we've
done
a
very
good
job.
G
Just
and
just
to
to
the
chairwoman's
point
when
the
vcb
was
adopting
the
rules,
our
rules
and
regulations,
we
very
specifically
mirrored
the
variant
standard
for
when
the
bcb
is
evaluating
the
appropriateness
of
a
site
within
the
within
a
half
mile,
and
I
think,
if
you
look
at
the
testimony,
one
of
the
things
that
the
chairwoman
does-
and
this
is
similar
to
on
the
alcoholic
beverages
side-
is
look
at
the
distinctions
between
the
established
trends
and
that's
when
we're
evaluating
appropriateness,
there's
a
difference
between
when
you're
looking
at
what
they
specifically
are
offering
and
what
their
business
plan
is.
G
And
I
think
that's
something
that
this
board
takes
very
seriously.
There's
one
thing
to
have
a
buffer
zone
where
you're
evaluating
two
recreational
sites
next
to
each
other,
which
the
board
may
find
appropriate,
but
there's
also
a
very
significant
difference
when
you're
evaluating
a
recreational
site
next
to
a
manufacturing
site
because
they're
very
different
impacts.
I
think
that's
something
that
this
board
has
taken
very
consistently
into
consideration.
A
Thank
you
so
now
we're
going
to
move
to
the
ordinance
which
would
fill
in
a
lot
of
the
standards
for
which
we're
analyzing
these
the
buffer
zone
in
analyzing
sites
and
analyzing,
of
course,
who
is
equity
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
I
had
quickly
summarized
some
of
the
changes
I
think
yeah,
it's
just
brian,
so
everyone
else,
everyone
have
the
zoning
ordinance
in
front
of
them.
A
Okay,
I'm
just
gonna
walk
through
it,
and
then
I
will
bring
up
my
changes
as
we
go
through
so
section,
so
the
section
8-13
point
1
the
purpose
that
is
not
being
proposed
to
change.
Unless
anyone
has
any
change
proposals.
Moving
on
to
section
point
two
definitions:
does
anyone
have
any
suggested
definitions
or
concerns?
A
Number
four:
it
currently
states
in
full
the
full
sentence,
but
if
you
read
it
plus
number
four
an
applicant
shall
be
designated
by
the
boston
cannabis
board
as
an
equity
applicant
if
at
least
51
percent
of
its
ownership
meets
at
least
three
of
the
following
criteria:
number
four,
which
is
a
list
of
some
of
the
criteria.
It
includes
a
person
who
is
black,
african,
american
latino,
asian
or,
and
I'm
putting
an
indigenous
descent.
A
Another
added
quality
in
number.
Six
is
a
person
who
has
been
certified
by
the
cannabis
control
commission
as
an
economic
empowerment
applicant
or
is
a
participant
in
the
cannabis
control
commission
social
equity
program.
There
are
two
programs,
I
think
they
both
may
have
come
back,
so
we
just
figured
to
put
in
both
programs
here
and
as
a
resident
of
boston
for
at
least
one
of
the
three
last
years
number
seven.
A
I
propose
a
number
seven,
which
is
a
person
who's,
a
former
member
of
the
armed
forces
of
the
united
states.
We
list,
then
each
branch
who
served
on
active
duty
and
was
discharged
under
conditions
which
were
other
than
dishonorable.
So
that's
what
I
have
suggestions
for
number,
three
or
18-13.3
any
concerns
suggestions,
thoughts.
D
Madam
chair,
are
you
going
first
to
the
admin
or
oh
go
ahead,
so
I
I
was
wondering
if-
and
I
don't
know
if
you
or
the
administration
could
just
because
I'm
I'm
not
knowledgeable
about
the
social
equity
program,
so
just
curious
if
we
can
get
a
little
more
context
on
that,
just
because,
obviously,
in
one
case,
we're
talking
about
a
certification
and
the
other
reference
is
participation,
and
so
I
just
want
to
understand
like
what
is
the
qualification
or
bar
like
that,
makes
you
a
participant
in
that
counselor.
Would
you.
G
Like
us
to
definitely
so
at
the
state
level,
there's
social
equity
and
there's
economic
empowerment,
the
economic
empowerment,
they
have
very
similar
criteria.
Although
the
economic
empowerment
criteria
is
slightly
more,
it's
kind
of
heightened
and
jasmine,
and
I
can
get
you
the
specific
criteria
but
ee
also
closed
out
after
under
the
law
under
a
very
specific
amount
of
time.
G
So
at
the
state
level
you
get
fast
tracked
in
your
application
review
of
your
economic
empowerment
if
you're
ee
and
you
also
get
fast
track,
but
slightly
less
so
if
you're
social
equity,
because
it's
a
slightly
lower
kind
of
standards
that
you
have
to
adhere
to
ee
under
the
law
has
been
closed
out.
G
So
the
the
difference
there
is
that
and
again
that,
obviously
the
board
is
not
testifying
in
support
or
opposition
to
anything,
but
we
have
seen
applicants,
and
this
has
been
very
confusing
who
they
were
se
at
the
state
and
they
thought
that
was
a
triggering
factor
for
them.
But
it
was
only
ee
and
currently,
if
I,
if
I
were
to
apply
to
be
economic
empowerment,
I
couldn't
because
that's
closed
out.
G
D
Got
it
that's
very
helpful
and
it
certainly
seems
like
yeah:
we
would
want
to
be
using
the
program
that
is
actually
still
enrolling
people
it.
I
guess
the
fall
questions
I
have.
It
would
be
helpful
to
see
what
the
criteria
for
se
is
because,
of
course,
the
sort
of
sub
question
I
have
there
is.
Is
there
anything
that's
qualifying
people
for
being
se
that
we
should
just
be
making
one
of
the
criteria
on
our
side
like
do
you
know
what
I
mean
like
it's
like?
D
There
must
be
criteria
that
the
state
is
using
for
this
qualification
and
then
I
think
my
probably
sort
of
related
question
for
you,
leslie
and
kathleen
would
just
be
you
know.
Well,
we
have
the
section
of
the
law
open.
Are
there?
Are
there
other
categories
that
you
know
of
people
who
sort
of
it
seemed
as
though
the
intent
of
the
law
might
have
been
to
include
people
like
them,
but
we're
seeing
them
not
qualify
as
equity
applicants,
because
because
they're,
not
there
like
they're
sort
of
near
misses,
that
are,
I
mean.
D
Obviously,
there
are
people
who
are
missing
the
criteria
right,
but
that's
the
reason
to
have
a
criteria
is
that
a
bunch
of
people
don't
make
it.
But
I
guess
just
whether
there
are
any
like
other
kind
of
unintended
exclusions,
that
you
guys
think
that
we
should
at
least
be
discussing
in
this
context.
B
Excuse
me,
neighborhoods
we've
had
a
couple
of
examples
where
people
like
one
or
two
streets
apart
leslie
and
jasmine
can
correct
me
in
certain
neighborhoods
we're
considered
disproportionately
impacted.
It
goes
by
the
census,
data
or
or
a
computer
program
that
you
put
in
you
put
in
your
zip
code
in
the
street.
It
pops
up
whether
or
not
you've
been
disproportionately
impacted.
B
That
goes
to
our
equity
criteria,
and
it
seems
crazy
in
some
instances
that
two
streets
in
matapan
one
might
be
disproportionately
impacted
and
one
might
not
be-
and
I
think
this
is
happening
in
other
parts
of
the
state
too.
We've
heard
anecdotally,
like
quincy
parts
of
quincy
or
leslie
might
hear
more,
but
this
has
been
an
issue.
People
who
thought
for
sure
that
they
would
have
qualified
as
disproportionately
impacted
as
one
of
the
criteria
it
turns
out.
They
didn't
because
we
follow
the
specific
census,
data
or
census.
G
Yeah
it
so
it's
this,
we
follow
in
the
ordinance
it
directs
us
to
follow
when
we're
evaluating
area
of
disproportionate
impact,
the
ccc's
identified
areas,
and
so
the
ccc
undertook
a
an
extensive
study
based
on
the
census
data,
but
obviously
the
census
data
is
not
necessarily
collecting
or
historically
has
not
been
collecting
kind
of
the
data.
You
want
to
look
at
for
something
like
evaluating
an
area
of
disa
disproportionate
impact
for
these
purposes
for
kind
of
the
failed
war
on
drugs.
G
So
the
ccc
in
conversations
with
us
has
actually
said
kind
of
just
in
casual
conversations
and
jasmine.
Correct
me.
If
I'm
wrong,
but
they
said
to
us,
we
were
talking
about
our
equity
program.
We're
struggling
with
our
adis
like,
for
example,
none
of
somerville
is
considered
is
considered
an
area
of
disproportionate
impact
and
obviously,
if
you
know
somerville
it's
hard
to
argue
that
no
area
there
was
disproportionately
impacted
by
the
failed
war
on
drugs
areas
in
newbury,
nubian
square.
Do
not
qualify.
G
Areas
in
matapan
do
not
qualify,
so
that's
been
a
conversation
with
both
this
board
and
the
ccc
and
the
office
of
and
oed
about,
reevaluating
that,
but
obviously
that's
a
longer
conversation.
The
ccc
has
undertaken
some
studies
in
other
areas,
but
they
have
not
in
boston.
So
that's
kind
of
been
a
continuing
conversation
that
we've
actually
had.
We've
had
applicants
and
actually.
A
Right,
may
I
make
a
suggestion,
because
I
I've
also
heard
about
that
when
it
would
come
to
charlestown
right
and
dealing
with.
We
have
the
single
large
deposit
development
in
new
england
without
a
doubt
there
and
the
history
of
charlestown.
There
was
certainly
an
impact
to
the
war
on
drugs,
not
all
kind,
not
necessarily
this
drug,
but
certainly
all
drugs.
A
At
some
point,
so
I
wonder
if
it
makes
sense
to
have
the
standard
of
a
disproportionate
impacted
area
in
here
or
lives
in
there,
and
then
we
take
the
regulations
that
we
have
and
define
it
differently.
A
I
mean
that
that's
the
power
again
of
this,
this
this
ordinance
and
the
fact
that
our
regulations
can
be
amended
can
be
added
to
can
be
defined.
So
it
would
be
a
huge
job.
I'm
not
saying
doing
it
right
now
in
this
working
session,
but
there
is
something
to
be
said
that
when
you're
dealing
with
the
law
versus
the
zoning
amendment
to
be
able
to
say,
we
do
think
this
should
be
a
category
and
to
add
and
define
what
is
a
disproportionately
impacted
area.
A
What
we're
not
interested
in
doing
is
having
people
who
were
not
personally
just
disproportionately
impacted
but
having
to
live
near.
You
know
a
housing
development
and
then
saying
somehow
that
they
were
indirectly
impacted
by
the
war
on
drugs.
Does
that
make
sense?
I
don't
want
people
to
be
borrowing
burdens
of
populations
by
virtue
where
they
choose
to
live.
A
D
And
I
guess
I
guess
counselor
edwards-
that
I
guess
the
thing
is
that
it
seems
as
though
so
two
things
I
mean.
I
very
strongly
agree
that
you
sort
of
you
wouldn't
want
you
wouldn't
want
equity
status
to
be
dependent
on
zip
code
shopping
right,
and
I
think
that's
I.
I
assume
that
that's
part
of
why
the
original
thing
was
set
up
with
you
needing
three
of
the
criteria
to
make
it
so
that
it
would
at
least
be
harder
for
people
to
do
that
right.
D
But
but
it
seems
to
me
like
we
in
the
way
it's
currently
written
criteria
and
number
one.
We
haven't
given
ourselves
the
option
to
redefine
anything
on
a
regulatory
basis,
because
we've
said
it's
as
defined
by
the
cannabis
control
commission
at
the
state
level.
So
it
I
think
there
we
haven't.
We've
outsourced.
C
D
D
D
So
my
only
point
is
that
we
haven't
left
ourselves
any
space
to
redefine
that
phrase
on
a
regulatory
basis,
because
we've
said
oh
we're
going
to
take
the
state's
definition,
which
I'm
sure
again
made
good
sense
because
it
was
like
god
if
the
state
is
doing
the
census
tract
analysis.
We
don't
want
to
take
that
on.
Except
now
it
sounds
like
we're
all
stuck
with
a
sub-optimal
designation.
D
D
Yeah
I
mean
we
could
and
then
make
it
kathleen
and
leslie's
problem.
Kathleen's
problem
mainly
excited
kathleen.
D
I
mean,
I
guess,
right
with
the
idea
being
that
the
bcb
could
still
say,
oh
as
defined
by
the
cannabis
control
commission,
but
it
could
also
say
I
mean
I
guess
the
question
is:
is
there
any
fix?
I
know
you
guys
are
talking
about
it.
It
sounds
like
kathleen
leslie,
but
there's
not
like
a
fix.
D
That's
come
up
because,
certainly
like,
like
you
know
off
the
top
of
my
head,
I'd
be
like
just
do
a
penumbra
like
just
say
like
or
within
you
know,
a
thousand
feet
of
such
a
district
right
like
just
like,
create
some
kind
of
like
you
know,
but
but
obviously
that's
off.
You
know
off
the
cuff,
so
it
sounds
like.
G
And
and
the
ordinance
actually
refers
in
one
place-
it
refers
to
the
ccc's
definition
I
think
in
another
place.
It
doesn't
refer
to
any
definition,
but
to
counsel
to
your
point,
that's
the
the
we
don't
have
a
fix,
but
we
definitely
agree
that
it's
been
something
that's
been
challenging
and
kind
of
inconsistent
for
for
applicants
where
you're
having
a
black
or
brown
applicant
who
lived
in
matapan,
who
qualifies
under
everything
else,
but
they
they
don't
they're
where
they
grew
up,
doesn't
qualify
where
they
live,
doesn't
qualify
as
an
area
of
disproportionate
impact.
A
So
would
you
be
open
to
that
removing
the
cannabis
control
commission
as
defined
by
them
and
and
allowing
for
the
bcb
I
mean
I
actually
would
prefer
that
the
bcb
be
riding
and
and
fulfilling
and
have
the
flexibility
to
fill
in
their
regulations
and
as
much
as
you
can
you
can
go.
You
know.
B
I
guess
and
expand,
but
I
guess
you're
saying
we
could
we
could
use
the
ccc
as
a
start
starting
right
and
then
expand
that
a
little
bit,
but
I
mean
there's
some
we're
always
because
this
this
allows
people
to
basically
jump
the
line.
Yeah.
There
are
people
that
are,
I'm
not
you
know
not,
but
we
we
scour
this
information
to
make
sure
that
they
properly
meet
the
criteria
for
equity,
because
this
is
such
a
a
race
to
open
first,
so
I
wouldn't
want
I
for
my
own
sake.
B
I
wouldn't
want
to
be
so
broad
that
I
would
like
some
parameters
of
which
we
could
think
of
as
a
board
and
then
right
into
our
rules
and
regulations,
like
you
know,
would.
A
I
also
wanted
to
address
the
what
you
just
said:
kathleen,
which
was
the
race
to
open
first,
and
I
think
a
lot
of
that
has
to
do
with
the
buffer
zone
and
how
it's
been
implemented
in
the
cba.
I
hope
by
removing
the
zba
that
we
will
have
the
buffer
zone.
People
will
feel
less
like
if
they
don't
get
in
there
first
and
and
and
do
all
these
things
at
this
level.
A
This
is
you
know
whatever
that
they
won't
I'm
hoping
to
remove
some
of
the
tension
between
cannabis
entities
where
they
can
coexist,
they
shouldn't
concentrate,
but
they
can
certainly
coexist.
G
And
I
think
counselor
to
to
kathleen's
point.
I
think
if
there
was
language
that
said,
you
know
as
amended
from
time
to
time
by
the
bcb.
But
I
think
that
is
something
that
the
and
kathleen
correct
me.
If
I'm
wrong,
the
board
would
want
guidance
from
the
administration
and
from
the
city
council
on
what
areas,
because,
as
you
can
imagine,
that's
going
to
become
a
every
neighborhood
is
going
to
have
an
applicant
who
claims
that
their
neighborhood
was
an
area
of
disproportionate
impact
because
they
want
to
qualify.
They
want
to
qualify.
D
And-
and
certainly
I
certainly
think,
I
don't
think
that
you
guys
or
the
council
would
want
it
to
would
want
to
write
something
that
ended
up
with
it
being
like.
Oh,
this
definition
is
going
to
be
at
the
bcb's
discretion
in
a
kind
of
case-by-case
basis.
That's
a
nightmare
right
from
from
an
equal
application
of
law
perspective
and
from
a
you
know,
just
a
like
kind
of
sharp
elbow
pressure
that
people
might
bring
to
bear
yeah.
D
Counselor
edwards
in
the
rest
of
this
section
I
was
just
gonna,
say
personally,
I'm
definitely
supportive
of
the
social
equity
program
thing
and
the
addition
of
indigenous
folks
and
addition
of
veterans.
The
only
thing
on
the
veteran
front
I
mean
it
is
a
small
note.
I
I
guess.
I
suppose
that
when
we're
listing
the
branches
we
should
start
listing
space
force,
I
mean,
I
know
it
sounds
a
little
goofy,
but
it
is,
I
think,
now
like
actually
a
codified
branch
of
the
armed
forces
like.
I
think
that
is
a
thing,
so
I
was
just
gonna.
A
How
about
but
not
limited
to
following
armed
forces
but
not
limited
to
I
I'm
not
ready
to
put
space
force
in
and
an
ordinance
councillor,
flaherty
raised
his
hand
and
then
council
great.
I
don't
know
if
you
have
any
questions.
Council
clarity.
E
Thank
you,
madam
traders,
quick
question.
The
current
ordinance
section,
8-13.4.
E
It
says
boston's,
boston,
cannabis,
board.
It
just
reads:
the
mayor
shall
establish
a
cannabis
board
to
be
in
compliance
with
the
charter,
and
I
guess
the
question
I
have
is:
do
we
want
to
try
to
add
someone
that
is
a
land
use,
expert
someone
that
has
landed
zoning
experience,
given
that
we're
going
to
be
sort
of
taking
it
from
like
the
zoning
board
to
put
it
to
the
cannabis
board,
it
should
be
someone
that
has
some
working
or
working
knowledge
or
experience
in
land
use
or
zoning.
E
A
Absolutely
I'm
going
to
put
a
pin
in
that
counselor
clarity,
we're
we're
still
in
section
0.3
on
the
equity
program,
but
absolutely
I
think
that
that's
worth
consideration,
land
use
and
another
roles.
A
Any
other
points
on.
There
was
one
other
thing
I
I
made
a
suggested.
Excuse
me
edit
on,
and
that
would
be
the
carve
out
if
you'll
look
further
down
after
the
points,
one
through
eight.
A
It
goes
on
to
say,
the
city
of
boston
shall
maintain
an
equal
or
greater
number
of
equity,
af
equity
applicant
licenses
to
licensees
to
who
do
not
qualify
as
equity
applicants.
I'm
putting
in
language
suggesting
this.
This
ratio
shall
only
apply
to
retail,
dispensary
and
cultivation
licenses
so
that
the
equity
program
is
yeah,
dispensary,
dispensary
or
cultivation
or
cultivator.
A
B
In
another
example,
is
the
laboratory
application
applicant
we've
had
in
the
queue
for
almost
a
year.
It's
a
non-equity
laboratory
applicant.
We
cannot
put
that
per
they're
ready
to
go
on
the
agenda.
We
cannot
right
now
put
that
application
on
our
agenda
because
there
is
no
equity
laboratory
applicant
before
us
yet
so
this
would
allow
us
to
not
subject
something
like
a
a
laboratory
use
to
the
one-to-one
ratio.
D
And
just
sorry
stupid
thing,
but
is
retail,
dispensary
and
cultivation?
Is
that
a
conjunction
of
a
single
type
of
license
two
different,
two
different
things?
Okay,
so
that's
what
I
thought
so
then
I
just
so.
Do
we
want
people
to
be
able
to
match
an
equity
retail
dispensary
with
a
non-equity
cultivation
license
in
the
process.
G
License
type
to
license
type
but
to
the
chairwoman's
point
we
have
so,
for
example,
the
council
very
early
on
in
our
discussion
said
we
don't
want
when
councilor
edwards
was
talking
about
an
amendment,
we
don't
want
delivery
to
count
towards
the
one-to-one.
Because
of
what
what
the
chairman
was
just
saying
that
concerns
we
have
it.
So
there
could
be
five
delivery
applications,
all
of
whom
are
equity
on
the
agenda,
but
we
wouldn't
pair
them
with
non-equity.
G
The
issue
is
that
we
have
certain
license
types
that
are
not
common
and
the
example
being
that
that
lab
so
there's
a
shortage
of
laboratories
in
the
state.
But
when
we're
pairing
based
on
their
application
date,
they
haven't
gotten
to
be
paired
yet
with
a
non-equity,
so
that
would
actually
take
them
out.
D
Got
it
yeah?
No,
and
I
I
just
think,
there's
probably
a
slight
wordsmith
thing:
you
could
do
here,
counselor
edwards,
just
to
sort
of
say
the
you
know
it
might
be.
A
question
of
like
for
retail,
dispensary
licenses
and
cultivation
licenses.
City
of
boston
will
maintain
an
equal
number
of
licensees
of
each
type.
Two
licensee.
D
I
just
think,
there's
a
way
to
word
it
a
little
bit
more
clearly
because
I
think
I
think,
for
instance,
the
licensees
to
licensees
part
that
first
sentence
doesn't
actually
establish
the
thing
about
how
we're
operating
within
categories.
D
A
I
I
see
your
point.
The
the
original
language
was
the
licensing's,
the
licensees
right,
and
we
added
in
that
part
which
we
thought
would
clarify,
but
we
can
maybe
wordsmith
it.
So
it's
very
clear
the
one
to
one
shall
apply
to
the
following
entities:
period
right:
okay,
right,
you
can
do
that
all
right
now
on
to
section
8.4.
A
D
I
think
that
putting
putting
the
distance
in
under
location
safety
and
security
as
sort
of
one
of
five
things
in
a
20
thing,
I
think,
does
subordinate
the
consideration
about
about
distance
too
much.
I
think
just
many
other
things
could
outweigh
it
in
the
vcb's
consideration
and
I
and
with
respect
to
the
chairwoman,
and
I
think
she
does
a
wonderful
job
running
the
bcb.
D
Like
I
think
that,
if
we're
rewriting
and
we're
shifting
this,
we
need
to
be
being
intentional
about
what
that
standard
of
heightened
scrutiny
is.
I
have
certainly
experienced
as
a
counselor
that
it
feels
as
though
the
bcb
in
his
current
operation
is
outsourcing
the
ultimate
decision
about
whether
the
buffer
zone
should
stand
or
be
overruled
to
the
zba,
and
I
think
council
edwards
is
making
a
good
streamlining
point.
But
I
think
that
I
think
we
have
to
be
more
specific
about
the
way
in
which
we
expect
the
bcb
to
weigh
that.
D
If
it's
the
sole
authority,
then
we
have
the
date,
and
I
think
that,
fundamentally
that
there
is
a
difference
of
opinion.
D
You
know
between
many
counselors
and
many
bcb
members
about
the
basic
value
of
the
half-mile
buffer
zone,
and
I
think
that-
and
I
think
that
part
of
giving
up
the
zba's
role
in
forcing
the
half-mile
buffer
zone-
I
mean
there's
a
compromise
to
be
made
here,
and
a
piece
of
that
compromise
is
is
a
little
bit
of
a
shift
about
what
how
the
bgb
thinks
about
the
half-mile
zone.
D
So
I
guess
count
the
red
rhythm
and
I'm
sorry
to
have
to
hop
off
when
we're
kind
of
getting
this
part,
but
just
that
I
still
I
I
still
agree
with
you
about
like
we
can
do
this
like
we
can
fix
this.
The
two
boards
thing
is
not
working,
but
I
I
don't
think
that
the
language
that's
here
in
the
amended
draft
is
quite
there
yet.
So
I
just
wanted
to
sort
of
put
that
on
the
record.
A
A
Might
it
make
more
sense
to
pull
it
out
as
its
own
separate
category
prevention
of
a
concentration
of
cannabis
and
its
own
cat
and
then
having
some
underlying
things
about
what
that
that
looks,
like
I'm
hap,
I'm
open
to
that,
I'm
open
to
also
you
know,
there's
a
I'm
open
also
to
if
a
neighborhood
is
already
got
a
certain
number
of
pre-existing
cannabis
or,
like
your
your
neighborhood
may,
the
standard
is
even
it's:
heightened
scrutiny
gets
higher
and
higher,
depending
on
how
many
already
are
pre-existing
right.
A
If
it's
just
one
and
you
end
up
with
two
and
that's
it,
that's
one
thing,
but
if
it's
like
already
three
and
again
your
neighborhood
is
you
know
this
big
but
they're
all
coming
on
this
one
street?
We
can
all
see
that
this
is
there's
about
to
be
a
concentration
or
there
seems
to
be
an
unnecessary
laziness,
maybe
on
the
part
of
some
of
the
people
who
want
to
establish
these
businesses
and
look
around
essentially.
A
So
I
I'm
happy
to
explore
higher
scrutiny
depending
on
how
many
pre-existing
entities
are
there
and
within
the
half
mile,
and
I'm
also
happy
to
maybe
carve
out
specifically
instead
of
just
lumping
it
into
health.
And
safety
is
one
of
the
categories
that
it
is.
That
is,
prevention
of
concentration,
and
we
call
that
out,
because
that
was
the
mission
and
goal
to
begin
with.
D
B
In
my
opinion,
from
someone
who
has
been
sitting
through
every
single
hearing
and
who
is
the
one
who
has
to
actually
come
up
with
the
scores,
I
have
always
felt
that
location
should
should
be
its
own
category.
I
don't
think
location
safety
security
go
together.
What
we
see
is
people
just
submit
their
security
plan
and
say
I
hired
where
security,
so
they
get
a
full
score.
Big
location,
there's
a
lot
to
be
looked
at
and
you
know
I
respect
your
opinion.
B
Counselor
there's
a
lot
that
goes
into
it,
the
the
traffic,
the
amount
of
foot
traffic
again,
the
type
of
neighborhood
I
think
location-
could
really
be
its
own
category.
I
think
what
that
would
be
the
distance
from
other
retail
establishments.
B
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much.
Counselor
bach,
I
think
you've
provided
a
wonderful
perspective,
especially
for
those
of
us
who
have
downtown
neighborhoods
and
thank
you.
So
there
were
the
two
suggestions:
pulling
out
location
right
and
then
coming
up
with
its
own
standards
and
then
the
other
I
just
took
notes
in
my
notes
was
coming
up
with
the
specific.
A
Okay,
any
other
suggestions,
so
if
we
pulled
out
location,
I
would
assume
concentration
of
cannabis
locations
or
pre-existing
would
be
part
of
that.
The
half-mile
buffer
would
be
part
of
that,
of
course,
traffic
traffic's
kind
of
addressed.
But
what
other
things
would
you
want
to
see
under
location
chairwoman.
B
Well,
I
think
I
think
d
in
red
is
is
important.
You
know
proximity
to
I
I
feel
very
stuck
by
the
changes
at
the
ccc
with
schools.
I
think
we
should
be
able
to
consider.
I
know
we
can,
but
I
think
you
know
really
fleshing
out
the
location
of
the
establishment
to
a
school
even
might
be
502
feet
away
and
would
be
able
to
put
some
weight
to
that.
F
Okay,
madam
chair,
and
I
I
also
think
the
location
issue
is
always
a
hot
issue
in
our
neighborhood,
and
I
think
the
the
factoring
in
of
traffic
conditions
and
and
pedestrian
safety
is
is
a
valid
consideration
in
terms
of
the
location,
discussion.
B
And
I
think
location
might
be
more
naturally
paired
with
parking
and
transportation.
You
might
be
able
to
weigh
some
of
the
so
this
location
may
lack
parking,
but
it
might
be
right
next
to
a
transportation
hub.
I
don't
know
I
feel,
like
that's
more
yeah,
then
the
security
plan,
because
what
we're
getting
is
people
getting
20
because
they
have
like
a
robust.
B
We
hired
this
group
and
we
have
this
many
cameras
and
we're
following
the
ccc
guidelines
about
when
deliveries
have
to
be
made
and
to
me
that
doesn't
make
sense.
Location
to
me
is
the
impact
that
this
establishment
will
have
on
this
neighborhood.
At
this
time
I
think
parking
and
access
to
transportation
traffic
distance
from
another
establishment
schools
should
we
should
be
allowed
to
consider
those
things.
E
Man,
I'm
sure
I
would
also
concur
with
the
chairman.
That
was
one
of
the
arguments
when
we
were
dealing
with
the
buffer
in
terms
of
creating
as
much
predictability
of
process
and
giving
communities.
Predictability
as
well,
and
so
you
know
interesting
to
hear
the
chairwoman's
comments
on
on
location
is,
and
I
think
that
would
sort
of
dovetail
to
to
communities
and
communities
having
a
stronger
sense
of
predictability
as
to
what's
going
to
happen.
E
A
If
you
recall
counselor
flaherty,
we
I
think
counselor
braden
may
have
been
on
as
well,
but
we
did
have
a
hearing
specifically
about
locating
a
dispensary
near
a
methadone
and
clinic
and
other
services
for
folks
in
recovery,
and
it
was
a
it
was
a
good
good
hearing.
I
actually
the
folks
who
came
and
spoke
jack,
kelly
and
katie
o'leary.
A
B
I
think
to
me
that
is
very
important
and
I
felt
like
the
criteria
we
have
doesn't.
Let
us
take
into
consideration
those
things
subjectively
or
objectively
we're
stuck
with
things
like
you
know.
Every
brown
bag
is
coded.
You
know
it's
like
okay,
you
met
the
minimum
requirements,
but
I
think
location
is
really
what
the
neighborhoods
care
about.
F
The
other
question
I
have-
and
I
don't
know
if
this
is
the
right
place
in
the
conversation
you
know
if,
if
there
are
several
dispensaries
in
the
in
the
line
to
come
up
for
approval
and
one
gets
approval
and
then
it
gets
thrown
out
with
his
eba,
so
it
was
the
first
one
out
of
the
box
and
and
it
gets
thrown
out
with
his
epa,
even
though
it's
been
approved
by
you
folks
and
then
then
later
another
dispensary
comes
along
that
if
the
first
one
was
approved
and
fully
operational,
the
second
one
would
have
fallen
within
the
buffer
zone.
F
These
are
the
conundrums,
I'm
sure
you
folks
have
to
deal
with
every
day,
but
I
don't
envy
your
your
your
your
job.
How
do
you?
How
do
you
handle
that
situation
like?
F
G
Under
the
bcb's
regulations,
an
an
existing
establishment
is
someone
with
an
hca
prior
to
the
board's,
the
board
being
created
or
following
the
creation
of
the
board,
an
entity
that
was
granted
a
license
and
has
executed
an
hca.
So
in
terms
of
how
the
board
the
bcb
looks
at
the
buffer
zone,
even
if
it's
being
you
know
out
of
the
five
that
have
been
granted
by
the
board
and
denied
from
by
the
zba
one
has
withdrawn.
G
B
B
Sometimes
these
eba
hearings-
I
mean
we
don't
know
some
they've
been
moving
along
pretty
subtly,
but
there
could
be
something
that
still
they
could
get
through
the
zba
and
still
decide
not
to
open
for
whatever
reason.
So
we
wait
until
the
hca
is
either
we're
informed,
they've
been
withdrawn
or
it's
no
longer
valid.
F
A
Thank
you
so,
just
keeping
in
mind
what
counselor
bach
had
said
and
we'll
get
to
these
sections
again.
A
second
time
I
did
want
to
move
on
to
13.4,
which
is
the
mayor,
shall
establish
a
cannabis
board.
A
We
suggested
edits
from
my
office
or
this
work,
conflict
of
interest
and
ethics.
Training
where
we
say
no
member
of
the
cannabis
board
may
be
a
close
associate
controlling
person
or
investor
in
a
business
that
holds
is
seeking
or
intends
to
seek
a
license
on
the
board.
The
board
members
shall
receive
annual
ethics
training
and
shall
provide
a
financial
disclosure
statement
on
an
annual
basis
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
above
conflict
of
interest
provisions,
I
believe
also
counselor
flaherty
wanted
to
include
the
board,
would
also
have
a
land
use
expert.
E
E
I
believe
so
there
was
different
yeah
areas
of
expertise
or
specialties
whatever,
but
I
know
that
there
was
no
mention
of
any
anyone
with
any
sort
of
land
use
of
zoning.
B
B
Sub-Districts
is
a
different
story,
but
I
thought
we
were
as
we
would
with
liquor,
licensing
and
that
might
come
into
the
location.
If
we
beefed
up
the
location
category,
we
could
take
those
things
into
consideration.
A
Two
things
so
we'll
check
on
the
I
think
the
expertise
you're
looking
for
counselor
flirty
might
be
in
the
person
with
licensure
and
the
ability
to
analyze
and-
and
we
just
had
a
really
good,
robust
conversation
and
continue
to
have
a
request,
conversation
about
how
to
analyze
that
buffer
zone
and
creating
very
strict
standards
for
looking
at
it.
A
But
moving
a
little
bit
on
in
this
conversation,
I
see
brian
has
his
hand
race
he's
I
will
get
to
brian
shortly,
but
was
there
any
concerns?
Questions
suggestions
for
the
conflicts
of
interest,
the
financial
disclosures
of
board
members
ethics
training
at
all?
A
A
Okay,
brian,
you
had
raised
your
hand.
H
I
had
thank
you,
council
edwards.
Thank
you
for
letting
me
listen
in
to
the
conversation.
If
I
could
take
a
minute
or
two
just
to
reflect
on
a
few
of
the
things
that
I
heard
today,.
H
Yes,
okay,
so
several
of
you
had
talked
a
bit
about.
You
know
alcohol
or
liquor
stores
as
sort
of
the
model,
and
if,
if
a
liquor
store
could
go
somewhere,
then
shouldn't
a
cannabis
dispensary,
and
I
agree
with
you.
H
The
issue
with
at
least
where,
where
I
am
is,
is
that
a
liquor
store
isn't
as
of
right
allowed
in
the
place
where
the
applicant
had
proposed
and
for
a
variety
of
other
reasons:
traffic
quality
of
life,
pedestrian
safety.
We
we
opposed
it.
We
would
prefer
to
see
things
go
for
retail
cannabis
into
districts
that
are
zoned
for
retail,
and
so
it
would
seem
like
the
match.
H
Is
there
and
and
so
this
discussion
today,
even
ms
joyce
had
just
mentioned,
we
aren't
really
analyzing
the
zoning,
but
but
that
that
seems
to
be
the
great
concern
that
if,
if
a
licensing
board
is
because
the
zoning
would
change
to
allow
retail
cannabis
everywhere,
but
residential
right,
you
wouldn't
have
to
look
at
at
zoning
and
the
impacts
on
the
community
in
any
other
district
or
in
any
district.
Really
so
so
that
that
I
mean
that
seems
to
be
a
significant
concern.
A
Okay,
the
and
that
we
we
had
a
robust
conversation
literally
where
the
chairwoman
said,
location
should
be
its
own
category
to
analyze,
yeah,
specifically
because
of
the
impact
on
where
it's
near
school,
whether
it's
near
methadone
clinic,
whether
it's
with
near
another
establishment,
whether
it's
within
the
half-mile
buffer
zone,
so
we're
actually
increa.
A
First
of
all,
when
we
recodifying
the
half-mile
buffer
zone,
which
isn't
even
part
of
our
our
laws
right
now,
making
it
law
and
then
adding
to
it
the
analysis
for
how
this
works-
and
that
is
what
I
want
to
be
clear
and-
and
I
want
that
all
to
be
in
one
house,
which
is
why
I
no
longer
want
it
to
be
bifurcated
where
that
analysis
is
somewhat
touched
on
by
the
zba,
because
the
zba
oftentimes
steps
into
categories
that
they
have
no
expertise
in.
They
want
to
ask
about
equity.
A
C
A
Robust
conversation
that
is
established
for
community
outreach
for
months
in
advance
outreach
to
this
city.
Counselor
I've
been
to
the
meetings,
and
I
can
tell
you
this.
I
mean
I
have
agreed
and
disagreed
greatly
with
the
cannabis
board.
I've
watched
them
oppose
an
applicant
and
make
the
come
back
and
be
better.
So
this
I
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
yeah
the
description
that
we're
saying
they
go
anywhere
anyway,
anyhow
is
not
at
all.
The
point
of
this
conversation
point
is
an
announcement
happens
in
one
city
agency.
H
Okay,
and
so
for
that
analysis
I
think
councilor,
flaherty's
question
and
and
suggestion
about
having
folks
that
have
city
planning
experience,
it's
vital
then
that
the
bcb
has
that
experience
as
well,
because
those
things
that
we
were
concerned
with
relative
to
again,
the
dispensary
that
was
proposed
across
the
street
from
from
residences,
were
very
much
about
city
planning,
about
lack
of
public
transportation,
pedestrian
safety,
vehicle
safety
traffic
are
not
about
equity
and
in
fact
we
you
know
that
that
wasn't
anything
we
looked
at
in
in
how
we
opposed
it.
H
In
fact,
you
know
it's
really
up
to
you
know
you
folks,
I
think
you're
better
positioned
to
make
those
determinations,
so
I
don't
think
anything
that
we
ever
had
given
his
feedback.
You
know
fell
into
that
realm,
so
so
we
are
in
agreement
there.
I
just
think
of
things
like
you
know,
building
height
like
who,
who
will
decide
if
it
goes
outside
of
current
zoning,
for
that
and
and
right
now,
I'm
hearing
the
bcb
world,
but
how
like.
B
These
aren't
these
aren't
being
built.
I
mean
I'm
just
gonna,
I'm
just
gonna
defend
my
my
experience.
I've
been
chair
of
the
liquor
licensing
board
now
for
almost
three
years,
and
I
take
these
things
to
heart.
B
We
look
at
the
public
need
for
a
particular
type
of
license
on
the
licensing
board,
whether
it's
a
package
store
license.
If
you're
online
licensed
an
alcohol
license,
a
public
need
is
not
is
not
popularity.
It's
not
support.
It's
not
lack
of
opposition.
It's
a
public
need
for
a
particular
type
of
license
in
our
neighborhood,
so
bringing
that
hat
over
to
the
cannabis
board.
That
goes
to
location.
If
there's
three
retail
cannabis
establishments
on
a
street
in
a
neighborhood,
let
me
guess
south
boston.
B
There
probably
wouldn't
be
a
public
need
for
that
type
of
license
than
that
neighborhood
different
on
newbury
street.
You
might
find
more
retail
establishments
on
newbury
street,
just
as
you
might
find
two
liquor
stores
on
newbury
street
two
t-shirt
shops
on
newberry
street.
The
the
the
public
need
is
different
in
every
neighborhood
and
I
feel
like
I'm
qualified,
to
determine
the
public
need.
As
chair
of
the
licensing
board,
I
don't
need
somebody
who's
talking
about
far
and
zoning
and
sub-districts.
B
I
think
if
we
could
beef
up
the
location
and
put
some
real
teeth
into
that,
I
think
I
think
everyone
will
get
what
they
want
right
now.
We
are
hamstrung
by
the
ordinance
and
how
we
score
things
and
transportation,
security
and
location.
In
my
professional
opinion,
as
I
raised
earlier
today,
do
not
go
together.
It
does
a
disservice
to
the
neighborhoods
you
could
have
a
park.
You
could
have
a
community
center
right
next
to
a
retail
establishment,
but
there's
no
way
for
us
to
take
that
into
consideration.
A
Sorry
I
want
to
be
clear:
I
don't
disagree
with
having
the
the
roles
defined.
I
mean
the
roles
for
the
zba
are
defined
too
by
expertise
except
they're,
defined
at
state
level,
and
I
find
that
to
be
more
frustrating.
I
have
no
problem
defining
perspectives.
I
think
that
they
were
just
simply
the
prior
mayor
kind
of
could
pick
these
categories.
I
have
no
problem
codifying
certain
categories
or
viewpoints
that
we
can
assure
to
the
public
will
always
be
there.
A
So
excuse
me
if
the
board,
you
know
13.4,
if
you
want
to
see
certain
things
codified,
that
are
already
there,
so
we
have
economic
development.
I
believe
you
mentioned
that
kathleen
joyce.
We
have
labor,
we
have
safety,
we
have
health,
we
have
licensing,
I
don't
mind,
writing
that
in
there
and
if
land
use
or
urban
something
or
city
planning
is
something
else
that
you
think
makes
sense,
I'm
happy
to
add
that
additional
seat
or
perspective
so
going
forward.
A
I,
like
the
perspectives
that
are
currently
there,
so
I'm
not
trying
to
get
rid
of
anything
if
anything,
just
making
sure
as
we
go
to
add
board
members
going
forward,
another
perspective
could
be
there
and
to
be
very
frank,
it
should
because
we
might
again
have
indoor
dining
and
we
might
want
a
restaurant
perspective
because
we
might
have
consumption
on
site.
I
I
don't
mind
the
flexibility
of
having
certain
perspectives
be
guided
in
our
ordinance.
A
So
that's
all,
and
I
I
do
think
again
we
are
there
is-
and
I
appreciate
the
not
just
the
defense
but
the
perspective
from
having
been
on
chairs
of
both
licensing
board
and
dealing
with
vices.
I
think
it's
an
invaluable
perspective,
so
I
do
appreciate
that
chairwoman
brian.
What
do
you
think
of
that?.
H
So
so
I
I
liked
what
ms
joyce
said:
chairwoman
joyce
said
as
far
as
location
being
critically
important.
It
is
when
the
zoning
is
changed
so
that
everything
is
as
of
right.
It
just
makes
it
difficult
for
the
community
to
have
any
recourse
to
question
or
challenge.
That's
all
so
so
you
know,
as
I
said
in
my
email,
I
think
making
retail
as
of
right
would
certainly
streamline
things
at
least
for
some
locations.
Maybe
it's
not
all
again.
H
H
H
In
our
case,
they
ranged
from
74
to
99
and
and
not
that
that
in
and
of
itself
is
necessarily
bad,
because
obviously
people
are
coming
with
the
voice,
diverse
points
of
view,
but
but
to
some
it
could
look
as
though
I
mean
it's
a
it's
a
pretty
wide
spread
that
maybe
it's
a
lot
subjective
and
less
objective,
and
and
so
as
you
do,
this
work
at
least
consider
ways
to
try
to
guide
those
that
are
doing
scoring
and,
and
the
last
thing
I'll
say
about
scoring
is
at
least
based
on
the
informational
meeting
from
march
16th
of
this
year.
H
It
was
clear
that
the
scoring
was
I'd,
say,
optional
or
or
a
guide,
rather
than
you
know
that
there
was
a
minimum
threshold
that
someone
had
to
meet
in
order
to
have
one
of
the
board
members,
you
know,
vote
to
approve
them.
Mr.
G
The
ordinance
is
very
clear
about
what
the
criteria
for
the
btb
evaluating
and
applications,
and
I
think
the
chairwoman's
been
very
clear
about
the
fact
that
none
of
us
could
have
looked
into
the
future
and
and
seen
how
this
plays
out
right.
We
are
building
the
bike
as
we
ride
it
and
we're
always
looking
to
improve,
but
I
think
the
chairwoman
made
very
good
points
about
how
this
board
has
felt
hamstrung
by
some
of
the
criteria.
G
That
being
said,
we
have
been
very
clear
that
the
score
sheet,
which
is
made
public,
which
is
also
in
the
ordinance,
is
what
guides
the
dis
the
discussion
of
each
member
of
the
commission,
and
there
is
a
public
discussion
about
each
application
and
again,
all
of
all
of
that
is
made
public.
Additionally,
I
do
want
to
go
back
to
just
make
a
point
about
your
inquiry
regarding,
I
believe
it
was
the
height
of
buildings,
the
proposed
change
to
the
zoning.
The
zoning
code
in
no
way
impacts
dimensional
requirements.
G
There
is
a
difference
between
a
dimensional
requirement
and
a
use
requirement,
and
this
is
actually
addressing
the
use,
so
dimensional
requirements
would
if
this
were
adopted,
remain
in
place,
but
I
do
take
issue
with
the
fact
that
you're
alleging
that
scoring
is
optional,
because
every
member
of
this
board
scores
each
applicant
and
I
believe,
we're
addressing
the
south
boston
case
where
all
of
those
score
sheets,
at
the
request
of
the
neighbors,
were
made
public.
All
of
this
is
a
public
record.
This
is
not
optional.
G
A
So
with
that
brian
normally
I
mean
public
comment
usually
doesn't
go
this
this
deep
back
and
forth
with
folks.
A
A
A
The
only
suggested
change.
I
have
36
13.6
in
the
categories.
Excuse
me
an
applicant
in
any
category
of
cannabis.
Supplements
shall
file
in
a
form
and
matter
specified
by
the
city
of
boston
in
application
for
licensure
as
a
cannabis
establishment,
applicants
shall
be
required
to
submit
the
following
information,
so
they
list
one
through
eight
several
aspects
of
information
they're
supposed
to
submit.
A
We
are
suggesting
number
nine,
which
is
currently
not
there,
and
that
is
basically
applica.
It
states
right
now.
No
retail
applicants
that
are
within
a
half
mile
of
another
licensed
retail
marijuana
establishment
shall
be
scheduled
for
a
hearing
before
the
board
until
they
provide
the
following.
So
this
is
again
if,
if
an
applicant
is
trying
to
come
within
the
half-mile
buffer,
they
need
to
provide
documentation
of
support
which
may
include
letters
of
support
from
community
members.
A
Letters
of
support
from
community
organizations,
letters,
support
from
direct
or
indirected
butters
letters
and
support
from
elected
officials
and
their
respective
representatives
bcb
must
at
least
receive
three
of
them.
The
applicant's
statement
explaining
in
particularity
why
the
applicant
should
be
granted
a
license.
A
We
also
added
number
three:
any
application,
utilizing
boston
municipal
code
or
this.
This
code
should
shall
be
consistent
with
the
spirit,
intent
and
purpose
of
the
13.1,
which
is
this
code.
The
preamble
such
that
public
safety
is
secured,
won't
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
neighborhood
and
ensure
minimum
impact
on
the
surrounding
environment.
A
A
A
I'll
check
in
I
know,
counselor
bach
will
come
back,
I'm
sure
she
will
have
some.
Maybe
some
adjustable
suggested
things,
but
again
this
is
this
is
not.
I
want
people
to
be
clear.
B
Can
I
just
make
our
suggestion,
because
I
think
people
confuse-
and
this
happens
on
the
liquor
side
too?
They
confuse
public
need
and
heightened
scrutiny
with
public
support.
Could
we
maybe
needed
three
letters
of
support
secondary
to
number
two?
B
I
think
if
they
really
need
to
spend
some
time
to
explain
why
this
application,
or
should
it
be
granted,
won't
negatively
impact
the
neighborhood
and
won't
have
any
hardships
you
know
on
the
neighborhood.
I
think
that's
more
important,
more
important
than
the
three
letters
of
support
to.
A
B
And
when
we
do
have
these,
I
sometimes
are
very
like
three
or
four
sentences
and
we
go
back
to
the
applicant,
so
we
need
more
than
this.
This
is
not
just
like.
You
have
three
community
groups
supporting
you.
This
is
like.
Why
should
we
look
beyond
the
buffer
zone
and
grant
you
a
license
here,
like
what
special
circumstances
are
you
bringing
to
the
table
or
what
special
circumstances
are
in
this
neighborhood
that
we
should
take
into
consideration.
A
I
will
say
this
having
one
of
the
frustrations
from
the
zba
is
this?
A
The
standard
for
of
substantial
hardship
is
often
not
taken
seriously
at
that
body,
and-
and
I
I
really
would
like
to
make
sure
that
when
I,
when
we
talk
about
substantial
hardship,
I'm
happy
to
maybe
define
that,
but
I
do
not
want
as
part
of
that
definition,
the
financial
well,
but
that
has
actually
been
brought
up
at
the
cba
people
saying
I
can't
make
the
numbers
work
unless
I
go
higher,
there
have
actually
been
their
financial
issues
put
out
there
and
that's
a
frustration,
so
I'm
not
saying
that
we
can,
but
maybe
to
the
exclusion
like
your
your
profit
margins,
or
you
know
that
you
just
want
to
be
in
a
certain
area
or
downtown
is
not
a
substantial
hardship.
B
D
A
B
Oh
yeah,
I
think
it's
fine.
I
don't
think
it'll
be
difficult
for
someone.
A
Okay,
all
right
then
13.7.
This
is,
I
know.
Counselor
film
was
interested
in
the
community
outreach
and
I
just
want
to
emphasize
for
folks.
13.7
is
an
entire
section,
dedicated
to
community
outreach
and
host
community
agreements
and
discussing
who
gets
notified
and
when
their
their
meeting
is
supposed
to
happen
and
the
timeline,
I
would
say,
I'm
really
excited.
Actually
this
was
a
response
to
oftentimes
a
butters
meeting
happening.
We
didn't
know
when
and
when
the
scheduling
would
happen
at
the
zba.
This
is
actually
saying
within
a
certain
amount
of
time.
A
A
Again,
looking
at
the
criteria,
we
we
just,
we
did
discuss
it
actually
at
length,
but
we
were
considering
adding
in
the
pulling
out
location,
separate
and
from
safety
and
security
that
would
be
in
13.8
number.
I
would
make
it
number
four,
maybe
or
if
you
think
chairwoman,
it
should
be
higher.
A
We
have
right
now
number
one
diversity
and
inclusion
employment
plan
number
two
is
employment.
Plan
number
three
is
community
feedback.
I
was
thinking
making
for
location,
sure.
B
I
would
either
make
it
above
community
feedback
and
public
support.
I
actually
put
community
feedback
on
public
support.
Number
three
location,
number:
four,
okay.
B
I
I
think
I
mean
I
don't
know
how
much
we
want
to
break
this
up,
but
I
think,
like
five,
a
and
b
could
be
part
of
location.
A
B
No,
I
would
say
location
I
would
take.
I
don't
know
what
I'm
looking
at
number:
five
as
parking
and
transportation
plan
and
a
is
okay,
transportation
and
b
is
accessibility,
an
amount
of
on-site
parking
to
me
that
goes
more
location
than
it
does.
Okay,.
B
Okay
in
the
delivery
of
product,
because
I
think
that
goes
to
delivery
of
products
with
your
safety
insecurity.
A
F
A
I
think
that
those
were
my
suggested
edits
to
the
to
the
board.
Is
there
a
minimum
threshold
for
points?
G
I
think
having
a
minimum
threshold
puts
puts
the
commissioners
in
an
awkward
situation,
because
people
are
just
going
to
feel
like
they
can
check
the
box
on
everything
they
need
to
to
accomplish.
So
I
think
giving
the
each
commissioner
the
the
option
to
kind
of
use
that,
as
their
guide
to
their
discussions
and
to
their
vote,
has
been
really
helpful.
G
But
obviously
I
defer
to
kathleen
as
a
chairwoman,
but
I
think
it
would
be
boxing
in
the
members
of
the
board
and
I
don't
know
that
their
scores
would
be
able
to
be
as
genuine
as
I
think
they
have
been.
A
Okay,
I
have
heard
that
before
actually
when
points
what
what
I've
learned
is,
oftentimes
applicants
will
figure
out
how
to
get
they
dive
to
the
bottom
and
get
as
minimum
as
possible
like
they
know.
If
it's
51
points
they
just
try
to
cobble
together
yeah
to
get
that.
So
I've
heard
that
as
a
criticism
of
having
a
minimum,
because
people
tend
to
just
try
to
aim
for
that,
but
I'm
open
to
it.
If
you
guys
have
no.
B
I
just
feel
like
every
category
is
different,
like
some
categories
can
be
improved,
so
you
might
get
a
74
because
your
employment
plan
isn't
strong.
So
we
might,
you
might
end
up
with
a
74
but
you're
an
equity
applicant.
So
we're
like
going
to
send
you
to
technical
assistance
to
like
help
beef
up
the
security,
your
employment
opponent,
just
never
wrote
one
before
you
know.
B
A
Okay,
I
will
say
again
for
most
folks
if
they're
this
is
a
new
board
that
we,
the
city
council,
did
create.
I
will
say
one
of
the
things
we
we
are
trying
to
get
the
cba
to
have
is
actually
transparency
on
how
they
vote
and
analyze
projects,
which
I
believe
they
don't.
They
don't
give
that
right
now
they
don't
explain
what
they
looked
at
and
what
there's
no
points
for
that
for
the
variance
they
give
out.
So
this
is
actually
a
more
transparent
board
and
analysis
on
this
emerging
industry.
A
So
I
wanted
to
give
kind
of
acknowledge
that
I
know
people
might
be
frustrated,
but
with
this,
but
it's
actually
more
transparent
than
the
cpa's
analysis,
and
I
I
have
been
I
know-
and
I
want
to
give
compliments
to
leslie
specifically
part,
because
I
will
miss
her
and
but
also
just
to
acknowledge
that
I
don't
know
an
email
that
hasn't
been
sent
to
her
a
boy
request.
Everything
that
she
hasn't
responded
to
consistently
and
within
within
with,
I
think,
great
timing
and
professionalism.
A
I've
I've
had
the
honor
to
work
with
every
with
jasmine,
with
kathleen
and
with
leslie
on
outdoor
dining
as
well,
and
I
I
just
wanted
to
to
make
sure
people
are
very
clear
that
this
these
are
some
of
the
hardest
working
people.
A
Even
when
I
disagree
with
them,
they
have
never
shown
anything
but
professionalism
and
wanting
to
get
this
do
their
jobs.
So
I
want
to
say
thank
you.
Thank
you
for
coming
today
with
your
suggestions
and
I
believe
the
process
will
go
as
such
the
zoning
amendment
itself.
A
We
will
very
likely
bring
up
for
a
vote
on
on
wednesday,
assuming
that
the
language
that
I
can
work
with
counselor
bach
and
make
sure
that
she's
comfortable
with
the
language
suggestions
that
we
have,
we
might
be
able
to
also
bring
up
the
ordinance
as
well
again
for
those
who
are
watching
the
ordinance
is
going
to
be
a
living
breathing
document,
because
the
industry
is
living
breathing
and
growing
all
the
time.
So
it
is
not
that
we
make
mistakes,
it's
more
likely.
We
learn
and
adjust
and
regulate
as
we
go.