►
From YouTube: Boston Cannabis Board - Voting Hearing - 3/16/2022
Description
Boston Cannabis Board - Voting Hearing - 3/16/2022
A
Okay
good
afternoon,
this
is
a
hero
before
the
boston
cannabis
board.
Today
is
march
16
2020.
Today's
hearing
is
being
conducted
pursuant
to
certain
temporary
amendments
to
the
open
meeting
law.
That
is
what
allows
us
to
meet.
Virtually
this
hearing
is
being
recorded
and
will
be
posted
to
the
city
of
boston's
website.
Before
I
review
some
procedural
matters,
I
will
introduce
chairwoman
kathleen
joyce.
C
A
A
A
Each
board
member
has
the
ability
to
grant
grant
with
conditions
defer,
reject
without
prejudice,
which
means
the
applicant
can
return
at
any
time
with
the
same
application
or
reject
with
prejudice,
which
means
the
applicant
cannot
reapply
at
the
same
location
for
one
year
we
are
going
to
go
in
order
that
they
appear
on
the
agenda.
The
first.
B
A
Is
the
applicant
is
high
park,
dispensary
llc
high
park
dispensary,
the
proposed
license:
premise
is
1589
blue
hill
avenue
matapan
the
license
type
is
a
recreational
cannabis
dispensary
license.
The
proposed
hours
of
operations
are
11
a.m
to
8
p.m.
Seven
days
a
week
this
is
the
equity
applicant.
The
initial
application
was
filed
june
14
2021,
the
applicant
filed
with
inspectional
services
june
2nd
2021,
and
the
community
meeting
took
place
october,
20th
2021.
We
will
start
with
comments
from
the
board
members
beginning
with
chairwoman.
C
Thank
you
jasmine.
Before
I
get
into
the
deliberation
I
want
to
put
on
the
record.
This
is
an
equity
applicant
and
I
do
realize
the
board
granted
a
license
to
a
different
applicant
at
this
location
on
august
9
2020,
and
that
the
app
that
particular
applicant
decided
to
withdraw
his
application
opening
up
this
site
for
the
current
applicant
park
dispensary.
D
About
the
applications,
no
questions,
but
I
I
wholeheartedly
agree
with
the
chairwoman's
statement
that
she
just
made.
That
was
my
my
biggest
contention
here
that
I
felt
that
their
plan
was
just
a
little
short.
It
felt
like
they
kind
of
rushed
through
it
and
they
needed
to
do
a
little
bit
more
work.
There
were
a
lot
of
things
missing
from
the
presentation
that
showed
up
later,
so
I
just
think
they
really
need
to
regroup
get
it.
You
know
come
back
with
a
with
a
stronger
presentation.
D
A
E
I
agree
with
my
commissioners.
I
in
particular
wanted
more
detail
around
the
employment
plan.
I
was
not
satisfied
with
the
answer
to
my
question
about
a
comprehensive
recruitment
plan,
in
particular
some
good
goals,
but
not
a
lot
of
details
and
substance,
so
would
love
to
see
more
of
that
in
the
future.
F
Thank
you.
I
I
agree
with
my
fellow
commissioners.
I
do
I
really
like
this
applicant
a
lot,
but
I
felt
that
there
was
a
lot
missing
in
in
the
application
and
I
just
want
to
reiterate
the
chairwoman's
suggestion
to
get
assistance
from
the
fund,
the
technical
assistance.
I
think
that
would
be
tremendous.
I
really
feel
like
the
the
owners
are
in
a
in
a
in
the
right
place
and
what
they
want
to
do
why
they
want
to
do
it.
But
there
were
a
couple.
F
So
I
think
I
think
you're
on
this
is
a
great
start,
and
you
know
I
would
just
like
to
see
again
further
community
input
or
further
community
connection
meetings,
matapan
health
center,
as
well
as
greater
manipan
and
matapan
maine
street.
So
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
there's
a
lot.
There's
a
lot
of
good
stuff
there.
It
just
needs
to
be
expanded
and
finalized.
C
That
being
said,
I
think
to
trigger
the
requirement
of
the
community
meeting.
My
motion
would
be
to
reject
without
prejudice.
The
without
prejudice
allows
him
to
come
back
without
having
to
wait
in
line,
and
that
would
allow
us
to
hear
him
hear
this
application
again
and
ask
more
questions
about
the
revised
plan.
A
A
A
All
right,
the
next
applicant
we
have
is
alcohol,
alston,
llc
doing
business
as
dr
green
thumbs
austin
the
proposed
license:
premise
is
144,
harvard
ave
austin,
the
licensed
type
is
a
recreational
cannabis
dispensary
license.
The
proposed
hours
of
operation
are
9
a.m
to
9
p.m.
Seven
days
a
week
this
is
an
equity
applicant.
The
day
of
the
initial
application
was
october.
13
2021,
the
applicant
filed
with
instructional
services
october
8
2021,
and
the
community
meeting
was
held
january
24th
2022..
C
Thank
you
jasmine
I'd
like
to
point
out
again.
This
is
an
equity
applicant
that
we
have
before
us.
It's
a
very
strong
application.
One
part
of
our
scoring
is
community
feedback
and
public
support.
That's
20
of
our
scoring
sheet
of
our
scoring
guide,
and
because
this
is
such
an
important
part
of
our
scoring,
and
we
have
recently
received
allegations
of
compromise
public
testimony
which
we
take
very
seriously.
C
C
My
recommendation
would
be
to
defer
the
application
so
that
the
community
has
an
opportunity
to
hear
from
the
applicant
in
a
fair
and
transparent
manner.
Now
that
all
of
these
questions
about
testimony
have
been
brought
out
into
the
open,
I
would
like
them
to
go
back
and
have
another
community
meeting
and
then,
since
I
have
no
other
issues
with
the
application,
I
don't.
I
don't
think
that
we
need
to
hear
from
them
again.
F
I
I
agree
with
my
fellow
commissioners-
I
am
you
know
this.
I
am,
I
agree
with
holding
up
the
integrity
of
the
process
and
so
forth.
I
did
look
at
the
allegation
that
came
to
us
as
a
follow-up
from
from
from
last
week
and
just
want
to
you
know,
put
it
out
there
that
we
are,
we
could
be
holding
up
in
so
actually
let
me,
let
me
ask
something
to
the
chairwoman:
is
your
recommendation
to
conditionally
or
defer.
C
My
motion
is
to
defer
the
applicant
themselves
raised
an
issue
on
january
31st,
actually
their
correspondence
to
the
board
detail
what
they
described
as
coordinated
attacks
against
the
company,
so
they
raised
issues
first
and
then
followed
up
by
supposed
opponents.
I
I
understand
you,
but
having
received
this
information
so
late
in
the
game,
I
haven't
had
an
opportunity
to
weigh
whether
or
not
these
are
you
know
these.
These
allegations
that
came
to
us
last
friday
have
merits
whether
they
should
be
dismissed.
F
Yeah,
thank
you
thanks
for
for
clarifying,
especially
in
terms
of
the
the
january
31st
correspondence,
because
I
just
I
feel
you
know
this
is
a
applicant
in
an
area
with
a
really
high
rent,
and
so
you
know
deferring,
but
I
is
something
and
but
we
are
not
able
to
really
make
and
a
decision
on
whether
it's
a
valid
it's
a
valid
complaint
or
not.
So
I
I
wholeheartedly
agree.
I
just
I
want
us
to
kind
of
think
about
moving
forward,
how
we
might
like
what
can
we
have
more
of
a?
F
C
Opinion,
it's
only
20
of
the
score
sheet.
We
did
have
staff
reach
out
to
the
person
who
contacted
us
who
was
not
going
to
get
more
information
at
this
time.
I
don't
know
if
there's
fear
or
whatever
it
is,
but
at
this
point
at
this
point
I
don't
feel
comfortable
moving
this
forward
until
we
have
an
opportunity
to
review
it.
I
think
the
allegations
of
the
community
process
being
tainted
are
are
serious
and
those
were
brought
to
us
by
the
applicant
themselves.
So
I'm
not
saying
they
have
have
to
come
back
and
present.
C
A
A
C
C
Since
then,
the
applicant
has
done
that
additional
community
process,
including
door-to-door
flyering,
talking
and
meeting
with
director
butters.
They
conducted
a
traffic
study
and
agreed
to
roll
back
their
hours
while
there
are
traffic
and
parking
issues.
These
are
very
experienced
operators
and
I
don't
have
any
issue
with
this
location.
D
Yeah,
I
was
I
I
I
love
their
presentation
and
everything.
I
was
having
a
little
bit
of
a
issue
with
the
location,
but
you
know
after
I
kind
of
went
and
looked
at
it
and
you
know
yeah
they've
done
everything.
We've
asked
the
traffic
study
really
helped.
So
I
don't
see
a
problem
with
this
application.
B
Thank
you.
I
think
that
some
of
the
concerns
don't
bear
up,
because
I
think
they
have
tried
really
hard
to
answer
them.
There
was
a
business
there
before
I
understand
it
being
on
the
corner
and
all
that,
but
I
think
given
their
history-
and
you
know
again,
they
are
experienced
in
this,
so
I
think
they
understand
traffic
flow.
They
understand
customer
flow
they've
done
this.
You
know
in
different
parts
of
the
city
and
I
trust
that
they
will
be
able
to
make
this
work
in
brighton
with
the
help
of
the
community.
F
Thank
you
not
much
to
add.
I.
I
agree
that
just
being
an
experienced
operator,
definitely
eased
the
the
concern
for
me
around
and
the
traffic
and
the
parking
I
will
say.
I
was
very
I'm
very
empathetic
to
the
to
the
community's
concerns.
As
you
know
there,
in
a
neighborhood
like
many
neighborhoods
in
boston,
that
are,
that
is
quickly
changing
and
growing
and
trying
to
deal
with
how
we
plan
for
for
a
city,
that's
changing
how
people
move
and
how
people
work,
and
I
also
felt
like
the
community.
A
All
right
all
right:
next,
we'll
move
to
old
and
new
business.
The
first
applicant
we
have
is
rooted
in
llc.
The
proposed
license
premise
is
13-15
west
street
chinatown.
The
license
type
is
a
recreational
cannabis
dispensary
license.
The
proposed
hours
of
operation
is
9
a.m
to
7
p.m.
Seven
days
a
week
this
is
an
equity
applicant.
The
initial
application
was
filed
september
10,
20
20,
20
20..
It
found
with
inspectional
services
august
20th
2021,
and
the
community
meeting
was
held
august
19
2021.
There
was
a
buffer
zone
conflict
chairman
joyce.
C
Thank
you
jasmine.
This
application
was
originally
before
this
board
december
15th
2021.
I
had
a
lot
of
concerns
with
this
location.
Not
no
concerns
with
the
operator.
I
think
it's
not
a
good
location
for
a
cannabis
establishment
there.
Not
only
is
there
a
buffer
zone
issue,
there's
more
than
one
buffer
zone
issue
and
it
is
directly
next
to
a
youth,
homeless,
shelter.
C
C
D
To
michelle
holmes
my
sentiments
exactly
the
my
only
issue
with
this
is
that
it's
directly
next
door
to
bridge
over
troubled
waters,
the
the
presentation
was
fine.
The
business
plan
is
fine
everything
I
just
cannot
in
good
conscience,
agree
to
allow
this
dispensary
to
open
next
to
such
a
vulnerable
population.
D
My
heart
will
not
sit
well
with
that.
I
cannot
do
that
as
as
great
as
I
may
think,
their
presentation
is
there's
a
greater
need
for
those
young
people
who
are
trying
to
get
their
lives
back
on
track
and
not
saying
that
cannabis
is
going
to
contribute
to
their
non-well-being.
But
it's
just
not
the
type
of
thing
that
I
want
to
put
my
name
on.
D
A
B
Thank
you.
So
you
know
this
made
me
go
back
and
do
a
lot
of
research
into
cannabis
use,
and
it
is
true
that
you
know
from
what
I've
read
that
and
I'm
looking
at
it
right
now
that
there
has
been
a
steady
increase
in
cannabis,
use
amongst
adolescents
in
the
united
states
and
that
it
really
does
impact
them
in
some
way.
B
To
sort
of
you
know
fight
this
war
on
drugs
that
has
been
ongoing
forever
and
ever,
and
so
we
want
people
who
have
been
impacted
by
it
to
be
involved
in
this
industry
and
we've
incentivized
people
to
be
to
pursue
these
businesses
and
be
downtown,
and
so
I
feel
sort
of
economic
impact
for
the
other
side.
You
know
that
you
know
they
have
rented.
B
These
places
worked
on
them,
worked
in
the
community
and
spent
lots
and
lots
of
their
resources
to
try
to
get
these
businesses
moving
in
in,
and
so
I
feel
both
sides
very
very
much.
So
this
one
is
a
little
bit
more
difficult
and
a
little
bit
more.
While
I
think
that
you
can
recoup
lost
funding,
even
though
it's
very
difficult.
B
I
think
the
argument
that
stuck
out
for
me
was-
and
I
really
had
to
research
this-
to
be
honest-
the
idea
that
if
you
know
young
people
are
that
influenced
by
cannabis
and
if
there
is
some
something
that
goes
on
that
and
they're
caught
with
it,
because
it's
federally
legal,
they
lose
a
lot.
So
we
end
up
putting
people
in
a
sort
of
double
bind
right,
they're
homeless,
but
they'll
lose
vouchers
and
they'll
lose.
B
I
totally
support
having
these
cannabis
shops.
I
totally
support
because
I
think
we
as
a
society
have
agreed
on
it
and
we
we
voted
on
it.
We
needed
to
have
probably
a
deeper
debate
about
the
impacts,
not
just
the
economic
impacts,
but
the
impacts
on
families
and
folks,
like
that
and
homeless
people
and
young
people,
and
so
I
think
for
that
reason,
for
the
reason
that
you
know
it
is
it's:
it's
a
federal
offense
if
they're
caught
that
doesn't
mean
that
they
won't
go
to
the
ones
down
the
street
or
anything
like
that.
B
I
think
that's
still
open
wide
open
for
debate,
but
I
think
my
fellow
commissioners,
and
at
least
the
ones
who've
spoken
you
know
early
on,
we
talked
about
the
location
and
that
you
know
there
can
be
a
better
location.
I
hope
there
is-
and
I
think
I'm
basing
this
solely
on
the
location
like
everyone
else
is.
I
want
to
say
yes
and
then
there's
the
other
part
of
me.
E
I
think
my
fellow
commissioner
smith
sort
of
summed
up
the
anxiety
that
all
of
us
are
feeling
at
this
time.
I
think
that
this
is
really
not
a
good
choice.
I
feel
like
it's
a
false
choice,
where
we
have
to
choose
between
a
very
strong
equity
applicant
and
the
support
of
a
very
important,
not
just
that
not
just
the
homeless
shelter,
but
there
are
other
folks
in
that
community
as
well.
That
have
also
voiced
opposition,
and
I
went
back
to
look
at
my
research
was
not
on
cannabis.
E
It
was
actually
on
my
own
scorecards
and
trying
to
look
at
what
how
I
did
try
to
score
the
community
sport,
which
is
only
20
weighing
that
against
the
applicant
itself
and
also
a
buffer
zone
conflict,
which
is
also
an
added
piece.
I
think
in
all
of
our
scoring
mine
in
particular.
So
this
did
lower
the
lack
of
community
support
and
this
being
close
to
a
homeless,
shelter
in
the
opposition
did
lower
the
scores.
E
E
I'm
not
even
I
thought
it
was
decided
right
now,
but
I
do
feel
like
it
is
a
very
difficult
place
to
be
in
and
I
I
wouldn't.
It
wouldn't
sit
well
if
we
put
forward
this
applicant
with
not
as
strong
of
a
scoring
in
front
of
the
zoning
board
with
a
buffer
zone
conflict
and
I'm
not
feel
completely
confident
that
we
are
saying
this
is
the
this
is
the
this
is
the
applicant
we
want
to
see.
So
again,
I
feel
like
I
feel,
like
I
feel
like
john
a
little
bit.
E
F
F
F
F
F
From
that
experience
that
that
the
board
will
have
in
terms
of
seeing
how
in
the
community
we
have
and
seeing
how
these
play
out.
So
I'm
still
in
support
of
the
applicants
and
I,
but
I
fully
respect
and
understand
my
fellow
commissioners
and
opposition,
particularly
from
bridge
over
troubled
waters.
I
just
think
it's.
F
I
want
to
say,
what's
the
best
way
to
say
it,
I
feel
like
I'm
rambling
too,
but
I
just
don't
think
that
it
once
you
see
the
establishments
up
and
running
it
just
doesn't.
It
doesn't
play
out
in
the
way
that
that
there
that
there's
fear
that
it
is
going
to
and
and
also
I
think,
a
greater
sort
of
education
on
on
local
versus
federal
laws,
and
all
of
that
is
is-
is
hugely
important
for
all
of
us
myself
included.
A
E
In
my
opinion,
it
had
to
reach
a
higher
bar,
and
so
that
was
the
reason
I
mean
I
have
we.
My
scores
reflected
high
scores
on
all
the
things
except
for
community,
and
that
does
significantly
lower
the
score
sheet.
Unfortunately,
unfortunately,
I
guess,
and
so
the
buffer
zone
conflict
we
are
it
just
it
just
for
me,
raises
the
bar
on
the
support
that
we
need
to
to
to
grant
the
license.
C
Yes,
I
want
to
thank
everyone
for
their
comments.
They're
thinking
this
through,
I
think
it's
we
do
have
a
very
important
role
and
commissioner
lombos
summed
up
what
we
tried
to
do
every
single
week
when
there
is
a
buffer
zone.
I
think
we
take
our
charge
very
seriously
with
this
heightened
scrutiny
and
with
with
this
higher
bar
and
we
are,
we
are
continually
tested
on
making
sure
something's
in
the
buffer
zone
is
held
to
a
higher
standard
or
a
different.
It
has
to
be
pierced
with
a
higher
standard.
A
F
D
A
Next,
we
have
berkshire
routes
inc
the
board
already
granted
their
proposal
to
them
in
their
operating
hours.
At
the
last
hearing
and
the
last
item
we
have
is
a
one
day,
amendment
so
hb,
mass
inc,
dba,
happy
valley
at
220,
william,
f,
mccullen,
highway,
east
boston
has
applied
for
a
one-day
extension
of
their
hours
on
april
20th
2022.