►
From YouTube: City of Boston Cannabis Board Voting Hearing 5-19-21
Description
City of Boston Cannabis Board Voting Hearing 5-19-21
A
Good
afternoon,
this
is
the
voting
hearing
of
the
likes
of
the
boston
cannabis
board.
Today
is
wednesday
may
19
2021.
Today's
hearing
is
being
conducted
to
certain
temporary
amendments
to
the
open
meeting
law.
That's
what
allows
us
to
meet
virtually
this
hearing
will
be
recorded
and
posted
to
the
city's
website,
while
the
public
is
invited
and
welcome
to
attend.
No
additional
testimony
will
be
accepted
today.
Before
we'll
begin,
I
will
introduce
kathleen
joyce
the
chairwoman.
B
Good
afternoon
leslie,
I
just
wanted
to
make
a
note.
I
think
your
volume
might
be
down
a
little
bit
low.
I
have
a
hard
time
hearing
you.
My
name
is
kathleen
joyce,
I'm,
commissioner
of
the
boston
cannabis
board.
I'm
joined
today
by
commissioner
lisa
holmes,
commissioner
darlene
lombos
and
commissioner
john
smith
also
joined
today
by
project
manager,
jasmine
nguyen
and
our
executive
secretary
leslie.
A
Thank
you
as
a
reminder.
The
items
before
the
board
today
or
the
options
before
the
board
today
on
each
application
is
to
grant
to
grant
with
any
conditions
that
the
board
feels
appropriate
to
defer
to
reject
without
prejudice,
which
means
the
applicant
can
reapply
at
the
same
location
or
to
reject
with
prejudice,
which
means
the
applicant
cannot
reapply
at
the
same
location
for
a
period
of
one
year.
A
I
will
begin
with
the
chair
and
ask
for
comments
on
each
application
and
go
through
the
chairwoman
and
the
commissioners
after
that,
we
will
ask
for
a
motion
if
there
are
any
questions
on
the
motion.
After
that,
we
will
vote
on
each
item
calling
item
one.
The
licensee
is
liberty,
compassion,
inc.
The
license
premise
is
51
albany
street.
This
is
an
existing
medical
cannabis
dispensary
license.
This
is
an
application
for
a
change
in
beneficial
interest,
holder
officers,
directors
and
transfer
of
stock
with
no
changes
to
operations.
D
A
A
The
license
plate
is
a
recreational
cannabis
dispensary
license
with
hours
of
operation
monday
through
friday
a.m,
to
9
00
saturday
through
sunday,
9
a.m
to
9
00
pm.
This
is
a
certified
equity
applicant.
The
date
of
the
initial
application
was
november.
19
2020,
the
date
of
filing
with
inspectional
services
was
october,
26
2020
and
the
date
of
the
community
meeting
was
march.
10
2021.
A
B
B
I
do
want
to
point
out
a
few
things
that
especially
the
community
and
feedback
community
feedback
and
public
support
that
did
not
have
equally
high
scores,
but
for
everyone
here
joining
us
today.
This
category
is
only
20
of
100
points
that
we
have
to
score
and
that
category
is
broken
down.
10
points
for
support
from
local
officials
and
intend
for
support
from
local
community
groups.
B
A
couple
of
things
I
want
to
point
out:
counselor
edwards,
supplemented
her
initial
letter
and
she
asked
to
clarify
in
that
letter
she
claire
I'd
like
to
clarify
that
she
mentioned
the
november
motion
of
this
board
was
zero
to
five
against
this
application.
I
just
want
to
clarify
that
motion
was
to
reject
without
prejudice
and
that's
very
important.
B
Rejecting
a
proposal
and
rejecting
a
proposal
without
prejudice
are
two
very
different
votes,
especially
when
one
of
the
when
this
applicant
is
an
equity
applicant
for
scheduling
purposes.
The
board
members
discussed
on
the
record
whether
to
defer
or
whether
to
reject
without
prejudice.
I
made
it
very
clear
at
the
first
hearing
in
november
that
I
wanted
the
applicant
to
go
back
to
the
community
and
do
a
full
traffic
study,
and
that
is
why
I
made
a
motion
to
reject
without
prejudice,
and
I
did
not
make
a
motion
to
defer.
B
This
motion
required
the
applicant
to
hold
another
community
meeting,
after
which
the
applicant
could
request
a
letter
of
support,
opposition
or
non-opposition
from
the
district
city
councilor
or
wait
the
45-day
period
in
order
to
be
put
back
on
our
agenda.
This
is
distinct
because
if
it
had
been
deferred
it
would
have
it
would
not
have
required
a
community
meeting.
It
would
not
have
required.
Another
letter
from
the
district
city
councilor
in
the
45-day
tolling
period,
wouldn't
have
started.
A
deferral
allows
an
applicant
to
notify
us
that
they
are
ready
to
come
back
before
the
board.
B
With
this
additional
information
that
rejecting
without
prejudice
requires
the
applicant
to
go
through
a
couple
of
other
steps
before
coming
back
to
our
agenda,
so
what
was
very
important
to
me
was
this
traffic
study.
It
was
brought
up
many
times
at
the
november
hearing
at
the
community
meeting.
I
expected
the
traffic
study
and
its
implications
on
the
surrounding
neighborhood
to
inform
our
decision.
B
The
next
time
the
applicant
was
before
us.
I
also
want
to
make
sure
our
action
and
request
didn't
prevent
the
applicant
from
being
heard
in
a
timely
manner.
So
I'd
also
like
to
address
ons
support.
There
were
some
questions
about
how
ons
could
support
an
applicant
that
at
the
community
meeting,
did
not
have
any
support.
B
The
two
things
I
want
to
address
was
my
request
of
the
applicant
to
do
the
traffic
study
and
to
continue
to
work
with
the
community.
The
traffic
study
was
done.
They
did
just
that
in
taking
a
close
look
at
the
traffic
study.
It
was
designed
with
the
help
of
the
office
of
economic
development
in
the
boston
transportation
department.
B
I
think
it's
well
within
reason
that
the
applicant
deferred
to
the
expertise
of
those
two
departments
who
guided
the
engineers
as
to
scope,
desired
outcomes
and
area
of
study
to
ensure
its
validity,
the
community
outreach
to
the
community.
The
applicant
went
back
to
project
abutters
and
stakeholders
and
held
the
statutorily
required
meeting.
They
noticed
the
community
meeting
with
the
help
facilitated
by
the
mayor's
office
of
neighborhood
services.
B
I
would
ask
that
they
continue
to
work
with
the
larger
community.
Beyond
the
300
foot
of
butter
notification
requirement-
and
I
would
have
liked
them
to
have
reached
out
to
the
larger
community
whole,
but
they
weren't
required
to
so
all
of
those
things
I
think,
are
very
important
to
get
on
the
record.
But
overall,
I
think
we
had
a
very
strong
presentation,
a
very
strong
application
before
us
and
I
didn't
see
any.
I
didn't
see
the
traffic
study
point
out
anything
that
would
we
didn't
know
in
november.
B
D
Again,
yes,
I
agree
with
the
chairwoman
sentiment.
The
heritage
club
went
back
and
did
everything
we
asked,
and
this
was
a
much
stronger
presentation
than
the
one
in
november.
We're
always
going
to
have
areas
that
you
know
not
in
my
backyard.
I
don't
want
this,
but
you
know,
sadly,
this
board
has
to
not,
sadly,
but
this
board
is
charged
with
making
sure
that
the
applicants
have
everything
they
need
to
legally
and
statutorily
open
up
a
cannabis
establishment
in
in
an
area
that
is
approved
by
the
city
and
by
the
state.
D
So
with
saying
that,
and
I
was
very
impressed
that
they
went
back
and
got
the
labor
peace
agreement
from
the
union
and
the
traffic
study,
which
I
clearly
thought
was
not
going
to
come
back
favorable
for
them,
and
it
did
so.
That
was
really
what
we.
What
our
biggest
worry
was
here
was
that
the
traffic-
and
it
came
back-
that
it
was
not
going
to
have
a
significant
impact
on
the
area
by
the
experts
who
are
charged
with
doing
this.
So
with
that
being
said,
I
I
think
this
application
has.
D
E
Our
our
charge
is
to
ensure
that
there's
equity
in
this
industry
that
everyone
has
a
chance
to
participate
fully
and
in
this
industry,
and
I
do
believe
that
all
the
folks
that
are
applying
we
just
give
everyone
and
the
elected
officials.
We
give
the
benefit
of
doubt
that
you,
you
all
care
about
your
own
communities
and
you
care
about
this
industry.
So
I
just
wanted
to
again
it
is
challenging
at
times,
but
it
is
part
of
our
democracy.
I
I
actually
like
that
people
are
participating
and
showing
their
views
their
strong
views.
E
E
It
just
assures
me
that
there
will
be
worker
voice
on
the
job,
and
that
is
so
important,
especially
in
this
time
period,
when
people
are
going
back
to
work,
and
it
is
important
for
people
to
be
able
to
have
dignity
and
respect
and
good
family
sustaining
wages.
So
I'm
really
glad
that
they
are
able
to
do
that
as
an
applicant.
So
yeah,
that's
all
I
have
to
say
again.
I
appreciate
everybody
participating.
It
really
does
seem
obviously
challenging,
but
it
is
important
for
this
process.
C
B
B
A
A
Item
three
the
applicant
is
rooted
in
llc.
The
proposed
license
premise
is
331
newbury
street
back
today.
The
license
type
is
a
recreational
cannabis
dispensary
license.
The
proposed
hours
of
operation
are
monday
through
saturday
10
a.m,
to
10
p.m.
Sunday,
11
a.m,
to
8
p.m.
This
is
a
certified
equity
applicant.
The
date
of
initial
application
is
january.
12
2021.,
the
date
of
filing
with
inspectional
services
is
january.
12
2021
and
the
date
of
the
community
meeting
was
february.
23
2021.
B
B
I
thought
the
applicant
did
a
great
job
explaining
why
this
should
not
be
prevented
from
moving
forward
despite
the
buffer
zone
conflict,
the
applicant
submitted
a
strong
statement
provided
sufficient
rationale
as
to
why
we
should
this
should
not
be
prevented
at
this
location
and
in
particular,
he
pointed
out
that
in
this
particular
nape,
this
particular
part
of
this
particular
neighborhood.
It's
quite
often
to
have
businesses
replicate,
replicate
each
other
in
the
same
general
vicinity,
and
that
was
very
persuasive
to
me
so
that
those
are
my
comments
on
this
application.
D
So
now
I
just
thought
it
was
a
strong
application
and
a
and
and
in
a
location
that
I
think
will
will
do,
will
be
sufficient
despite
having
a
buffer
zone.
I
I
don't
think
that
will
be
too
much
of
an
issue
for
either
business
if
they
get
themselves
together
and
really
flourish
as
a
real
business.
I
I
don't
think
either
of
them
will
suffer
because
of
the
location.
E
C
A
While
in
item
4,
the
applicant
is
r2
resilient
remedies,
llc
the
proposed
license
premise
is
31
cambridge
street
charlestown.
The
license
type
is
a
recreational
cannabis
dispensary
license
with
proposed
hours
of
operation
monday
through
sunday,
11
a.m
to
8
p.m.
This
is
a
non-equity
applicant.
The
date
of
initial
application
was
april.
24
2020,
the
date
of
filing
with
inspectional
services
was
april.
16
2020.,
the
date
of
the
community
meeting
was
october.
22Nd
2020
and
the
board's
vote
on
item
two
establishes
a
buffer
zone
with
this
applicant
chairwoman.
Joyce.
B
Well,
thanks
leslie,
this
applicant
scored
very
high
in
several
categories,
in
particular
the
employment
plan
and
the
community
feedback
public
support
category.
I
thank
them
for
supplementing
the
presentation
with
more
details
about
the
hiring
practice.
It
was
good
to
see
that
fleshed
out
in
the
supplemental
email
and
I
appreciate
them
working
with
us
on
that.
It's
a
small
building.
I
am
concerned
with
some
the
crowd
management,
but
again,
I
think
the
application
they
presented
addressed
some
of
those
issues.
I
think
we
could
still
work
with
them
on
that.
B
But
again
I
have,
as
I
have
at
almost
every
single
hearing.
I
have
real
concerns
about
the
traffic
here.
I
brought
this
up
at
numerous
hearings
with
numerous
applicants
and
with
a
license
at
this
location.
I'm
concerned
what
the
traffic
will
mean
to
the
surrounding
neighborhoods
and
in
light
of
the
fact
that
we
will
be
having
another
cannabis
location,
opening
up
not
too
far
away
so
the
applicant.
B
This
is
the
same
situation
we
had
just
for
members
of
the
board
we
had
in
high
park.
We
had
two.
We
had
one
agenda
with
an
applicant
that
created
a
buffer
zone
for
an
agent
for
another
applicator
on
the
agenda
and
they
had
to
prove
whether
or
not
they
met
the
heightened
level
of
scrutiny
but
putting
aside
the
buffer
zone
conflict
for
a
second.
I
really
want
to
go
back
to
the
traffic
study.
B
As
I
said,
we
have
requested
the
traffic
study
from
for
numerous
applicants
before,
for
example,
rooted
in
rooted
in
at
195
dudley
street,
we
had
to
defer
them
to
complete
a
traffic
study.
This
applicant
did
provide
us
with
a
traffic
study.
It
was
16
pages
which
is
really
distinct
from
the
traffic
study.
B
We
got
submitted
by
the
heritage
club
staff
consulted
with
boston
transportation
department
regarding
the
submitted
traffic,
16
page
traffic
study,
and
we
were
advised
that
we
should
request
the
appropriate
supplemental
data
and
the
processes
that
were
used
to
reach
the
conclusions
in
the
16-page
traffic
study
that
was
submitted
to
us.
They
did.
They
submitted
a
57-page
overview
yesterday
at
six
o'clock.
B
I
haven't
had
an
opportunity
to
confer
with
my
fellow
commissioners,
but
I
know
I
have
not
had
enough
time
to
digest
what
was
in
the
supplemental
57
pages,
and
I
would
normally
ask
staff
to
review
what
was
submitted
to
then
confer
with
btd
to
see
if
that
constituted
a
sufficient
and
full
study
akin
to
what
we
asked
of
the
heritage
club.
So
I
just
want
to
open
up
this
part
of
the
deliberation
to
my
fellow
commissioners
to
get
their
input
and
feedback
on
in
their
thoughts
on
the
traffic
in
the
traffic
study
that
was
submitted.
D
E
Yeah,
I
just
I
I
obviously
defer
I
haven't
read
the
study
either
it
did
come
fairly
late,
but
I'm
hoping
that
the
study
is
sufficient,
partly
because
I
did
they
did
have
high
scores
for
me.
They,
you
know,
looking
back
at
my
notes
at
some
of
the
the
pieces
on
the
hiring
it
was.
You
know
I
had
some
questions
about
that
and
they
answered
them
and
the
supplemental
information.
So
I
did
have
high
scores
on
that
and
I
also
one
just
little
comment.
E
You
know
in
the
presentation
the
wages
weren't
actually
in
the
you
know
delineated
in
the
in
the
presentation
but
asked
a
question
and
they
did
have
that.
But
for
other
applicants
I
like
to
see
the
wages
and
benefits
and
things
written
out
so
for
future
applicants
don't
be
shy,
even
if
it's
aspirational,
because
those
are
really
important.
So
again
they
have
fairly
high
scores
on
on
most
categories.
E
C
B
Yes,
just
a
clarify
just
to
pick
up
what
commercial
holmes
has
said
rooted
in
and
dudley,
undudly
and
heritage,
they
were
both
equity
applicants,
so
they
were
able
to
tap
into
the
equity
fund
to
get
the
traffic
study
right
correct.
So
this
applicant
couldn't,
but
we
might
be
able
to
get
the
expertise
of
btd
to
interpret
the
details
of
this,
and
so
I
don't
want
to
put
this
applicant
at
a
disadvantage
to
them
have
to
go
out
and
pay
for
another
traffic
study.
If
btd
tells
us
that
this
is
sufficient.
D
B
Yeah,
I
think,
that's
I
think,
that's
the
way
to
go
about
it
and
if
it's
insufficient,
we
can
talk
to
the
applicant
about
getting
more
information.
Okay,
but
I
don't
think
they
need
to
go
back
to
the
community
if
the
traffic's
sufficient.
So
I
and
I
and
I
do
think
it's
a
strong
application.
Otherwise,
in
light
of
all
that,
I
would
make
a
motion
to
defer
this
applicant
to
the
next
board
meeting
next
voting
meeting
leslie
or
do
we
need
to
come
back
and
present
on
the
traffic
study
if.
A
Once
we
speak
to
btd
and
they've
reviewed
the
supplemental
materials,
if
they
feel
that
it's
appropriate
and
that
the
methods
and
the
data
support
the
conclusion
that
was
in
the
the
brief
narrative
that
was
initially
provided,
I
would
recommend
that
they
can
go
straight
to
the
voting
meeting
and
we'll
convey
that
to
the
chairwoman
each
of
the
commissioners.
If
btd
has
concerns
about
the
methods
or
the
process,
then
we
can
work
with
that
applicant
to
give
them
the
opportunity
to
represent
if
they,
if
they
do
move
forward.
With
another
study.