►
From YouTube: Boston Cannabis Board Public Hearing - November 18, 2020
Description
A public hearing of the Boston Cannabis Board was held virtually on November 18, 2020.
A
Good
afternoon,
this
is
a
hearing
before
the
boston
cannabis
board.
Today
is
wednesday
november
18
2020..
Today's
hearing
is
being
recorded
and
is
being
held
pursuant
to
temporary
amendments
to
the
open
meeting
law.
That
is
what
allows
us
to
meet.
Virtually
this
hearing
will
be
posted
to
the
city
of
boston's
website.
Before
we
begin
with
some
procedural
matters,
I
will
introduce
chairwoman
kathleen
joyce
kathleen.
You
are
muted.
B
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Leslie
just
wanted
to
take
a
minute
before
we
get
started
to
introduce
my
fellow
commissioners.
We
have
commissioner
darlene
lombos
commissioner
louisa
holmes,
commissioner
john
smith,
commissioner
alejandra
senkian,
and
I
would
also
like
to
introduce
the
project
manager
for
the
boston,
cannabis
board,
jasmine
wynn,
who's
with
us
today.
B
A
A
An
important
thing
to
note
regarding
the
rejection
without
prejudice
is
that
it
does
trigger
the
statutory
statutorily
required
community
meeting,
and
the
final
option
is
to
reject
with
prejudice
if
the
board
feels
the
application
is
not
appropriate
in
time
place
and
manner,
and
that
there
is
nothing
that
can
be
done
to
to
change
the
board's
position.
The
board
can
vote
to
reject
without
prejudice,
and
this
prevents
the
applicant
from
reapplying
at
that
same
location
for
one
year.
B
I
have
a
question
reject
without
prejudice.
That
means
an
app
applicant
can
come
back
and
pending
the
one-to-one
ratio,
they
would
be
scheduled
once
they've
completed
the
community
process
and
they're
they
filed
a
new
application
with
us.
They
would
be
able
to
be
scheduled
just
pending
them
one
to
one
exactly.
A
So
the
completed
application
involves
the
online
application.
They
would
not
have
to
refile
with
inspectional
services,
because
that's
a
separate
process,
they
would
have
to
have
this
statutorily
required
community
meeting
and
eat
a
letter
of
support,
opposition
or
non-opposition
from
the
district
city
councilor
or
the
45-day
period
would
have
run.
B
A
D
A
A
A
The
public
is
welcome
to
attend
today,
but
we
are
not
taking
public
testimony
with
that.
We
will
begin
with
the
agenda
item.
One
the
applicant
is
evoke
inc.
The
proposed
license
premise
is
1102
blue
hill
avenue
dorchester,
the
license
type
is
a
recreational
retail
cannabis
dispensary
license.
The
proposed
hours
of
operation
are
10,
am
to
8
pm.
This
is
a
certified
equity
applicant.
The
date
of
initial
application
was
may
22nd
2019
the
date
of
filing
with
the
inspectional
services
department
was
march,
15
2019
and
the
date
of
the
community
meeting
was
june.
2019.
B
Thank
you
I'll
begin.
I
just
wanted
to
note
for
the
record
that
this
is
an
equity
certified
applicant
and
they
began
their
application
process
in
march
2019.
This
is
a
strong
application.
E
Agree,
thank
you,
chairman
joyce,
very
strong
application,
very
high
scores
for
me
on
dni
and
employment.
I
do
just
for
the
record-
and
I
think
I've
done
this
at
every
meeting
when
we're
voting
is
that
the
high
goals
are
very
aspirational
and
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
are
supporting
our
equity
applicants
with
whatever
technical
assistance
and
whatever
is
available.
I
know
that
all
the
applicants
know
that
I
just
want
to
say
that
again
for
the
record
that
we
really
want
to
support
each
of
these
equity
applicants
in
achieving
those
aspirational
goals.
B
F
No,
no
questions,
no
comments.
They
were
good.
It
was
a
good
application.
As
the
chairwoman
said,
they
were
strong.
I
appreciated
their
updating
their
their
information.
I
was
hugely
impressed
with
the
traffic
study
that
they
did
that
really
stood
out
for
me
that
they
really
took
the
time
to
to
do
this
and
to
see
how
their
business
would
affect
the
flow
of
traffic
and
the
community
in
the
times.
So
I
was
very
impressed
with
that,
so
I
think
they
did
a
very
good
job,
strong
application.
F
My
only
concern
was,
I
believe,
the
rare
where
they
abutted
another
business
about
the
the
security
of
them
loading
and
unloading,
but
they
did
a
great
job
of
explaining
that
and
making
sure
that
their
bay
was
just
for
them
and
that
it
was
very
secured.
So
I'm
not
very
good
very
pleased
with
it.
G
C
A
A
The
applicant
is
cypress
tree
management
inc.
The
proposed
license
premise
is
1114
boylston
street.
In
the
back
bay,
the
proposed
license
type
is
a
retail
recreational
cannabis.
Dispensary
license
proposed
hours
of
operation
are
monday
through
saturday
10
a.m,
to
9
00
pm
sunday
10
a.m
to
6
p.m.
This
is
a
non-equity
applicant.
The
date
of
initial
application
was
july.
25Th
2018,
the
date
of
filing
with
inspectional
services.
Department
was
february,
28
2019
and
the
date
of
the
community
meeting
was
april.
B
Thank
you
leslie.
I
want
to
acknowledge
the
fact
that
there
was
opposition
and
there
was
support.
I
also
want
to
acknowledge
the
fact
that
even
some
of
the
opposition
spoke
out
in
favor
of
the
operators.
I
find
this
to
be
an
appropriate
location.
The
applicant
application
adequately
addressed
the
concerns
on
impacts.
B
I
think
they
had
high
scores
as
far
as
the
their
overall
plan,
the
diversity,
inclusion
and
their
employment,
the
location
and
safety
and
security.
In
my
opinion,
I
have
no
other
issues
with
this
applicant.
E
Thank
you.
I
agree
with
chairwoman
joyce.
I
had
very
high
scores
on
diversity
and
inclusion.
In
particular,
I
know
that
some
of
their
consultants
have
have
really
high
respect
in
the
community.
I'm
glad
that
they're
using
them.
I
also
wanted
to
highlight
I
I
really
want
to
hold
them
to
this
quarterly
meetings,
commitment
that
they
have
to
have
with
their
with
community,
just
because
there
was
some
opposition.
So
would
really
like
to
see
that
commitment
followed
through,
and
I
also
think
it's
just
a
overall
strong
application.
Thanks.
A
A
F
I
do
it
was
a
great
application,
although
I
I
do.
I
guess
I'm
the
only
one.
I
do
have
a
little
concern
about
the
location.
It's
such
a
dense
area,
but
I
think
we're
going
to
run
into
that,
no
matter
what
community
we're
into
so
I
for
myself,
I
don't
know
how
to
change
my
feeling
about
that,
but
other
than
the
location.
I
think
everything
else
they
had
was
fine.
G
Thank
you
yeah.
I
agree
with
commissioner
holmes
other
than
the
location.
I
thought
it
was
fine.
Some
of
the
community
voices
I
listened
to
really
closely
so
just
have
some
concern
and
then
really
keeping
abreast
of
the
community
abreast
of
things
that
are
going
on.
D
I
agree:
I
thought
it
was
a
very
strong
application.
I
did
hear
the
residents
of
the
fenway
and
also
encourage
regular
meetings
quarterly,
if
not
more,
to
really
be
able
to
address
the
issues
that
they
have
very
empathetic
to
an
area
that
is
just
rapidly
growing
and
it's
long-term
residence
there.
I
was
very
impressed
with
the
25
commitment
to
people's
quarries.
D
I
thought
that
was
extremely
high
and
also
the
pathway
to
home
ownership
for
employees,
particularly
given
their
commitment
to
diversity
and
working
with
people
with
quarries
and
having
people
stay
in
the
city
of
boston.
I
feel
like
it
was
a
good
forum
to
be
able
to
produce
equitable
results
across
the
board,
so
overall,
very
strong
application.
Thank
you.
D
C
A
All
right
we
have
commissioner
smith
seconded
all
in
favor.
A
Conditionally,
pending
obtaining
a
buffer
zone
variance
and
we
will
reach
out
to
the
inspection
services
department
to
have
their
refusal
letter
reissued
granted
got
it.
Thank.
F
A
Three
applicant
is
the
heritage
club
llc.
The
proposed
license
premise
is
116
cambridge
street
in
charlestown.
The
license
type
is
a
retail
recreational
cannabis.
Dispensary
license
proposed
hours
of
operation
are
monday
through
friday.
10
30
am
to
9
pm
saturday
through
sunday
9
a.m
to
9
00
pm.
This
is
a
certified
equity
applicant.
The
date
of
the
initial
application
was
august.
13
2020,
the
date
of
filing
with
inspectional
services
was
september.
14
2020,
the
date
of
the
community
meeting
was
october.
29
2020
for
the
record.
A
B
B
I
also
want
to
point
out
the
applicant
our
staff
reached
out
to
the
applicant
before
the
hearing
and
offered
them
a
deferral
before
they
even
appeared
before
us
last
week.
B
They
have
met
the
requirements
of
our
rules
and
regulations
for
a
complete
application.
They
filed
all
the
materials
with
us
by
the
last
business
day
of
the
preceding
month
and
it's
our
charge
as
the
board
to
ensure
the
equitable
siting
of
these
establishments,
both
in
the
individuals
that
are
granted
a
license
and
in
the
geographic
distribution
of
these
establishments.
B
That
being
said,
they
did
have
a
complete
application,
but
I
feel
strongly
that
this
application
needs
more
work.
There
are
already
significant
concerns
in
this
neighborhood
about
traffic.
I
have
even
more
concerns
about
an
emerging
industry
like
this
and
the
impact
it
will
have
on
this
neighborhood.
These
are
real
quality
of
life
issues.
B
I
think
this
application
presents
an
opportunity
to
get
a
better
understanding
of
what
those
impacts
would
be
on
this
neighborhood,
and
I
think
that
would
be
solved
by
a
traffic
study.
Not
all
applicants
appear
before
us
need
to
have
a
traffic
study,
but
this
location,
the
traffic
that
we've
heard
about
the
traffic
that
we
I
know
about
in
this
area.
I
think
it's
absolutely
within
our
purview
to
request
that
the
applicant
go
back
and
do
the
traffic
study
in
in
aware.
B
I
have
no
doubt
I
do
not
question
their
their
certification
as
an
equity
applicant,
but
I
do
think
the
process
that
they
went
through
in
the
last
three
months
can
be
improved,
and
I
think
that
requires
more
community
process
and
I
think,
there's
real
significant
differences
between
what
we're
this
application
that
we
heard
last
week
and
some
of
the
other
equity
applications
that
we've
had
before
us
in
the
last
couple
of
months.
E
Yeah,
I
would,
I
would
agree
with
most
of
what
chairwoman
joyce
put
out.
I
I
actually
was
gonna
ask
about
the
transportation
study
just
because
we
haven't
required
before,
but
it
does
sound
like
there's
a
need
for
it.
Given
all
of
the
public
comment
on
it
and
actually
wanted
to
talk
to
the
commissioners
about,
can
we
require
that,
and
is
that
a
good
thing?
So
you
answered
my
question
on
that
chairwoman
joyce
and
there
was,
I
do
feel
like
there
were
some
really
good
highlights
of
the
application.
E
I
thought
we
were
great.
I
liked
the
supplemental
information
and
explanation
about
the
experience
in
the
real
estate
industry
and
offering
that
the
closing
costs,
and
all
that
that's
that's
all
great
and
aspirational
and
again
we'd
love
to
support
it
and
figure
out
a
way
to
utilize
the
technical
assistance,
given
that
it
is
an
equity
applicant
to
do
that.
But
I
also
have
some
just
concerns
about
the
process
and
and
want
to
make
sure
that
people
feel
really
good
about
moving
forward
with
it.
E
So,
similarly
to
the
chairwoman,
I
think
it
would
be
good
to
even
go
back
to
talking
to
some
more
of
the
community
partners,
in
particular
the
counselor
as
well.
So
I
I
would
agree
with
the
chairwoman
here.
F
D
Yeah,
I
agree
I
mean
I
thought
there
were
a
lot
of
great
aspects
of
the
application,
but
definitely
thought
that
in
a
location
like
this,
a
traffic
study
would
be
necessary
and
I
wonder
moving
forward-
and
this
might
be
something
that
the
council
has
to
decide
as
to
how
who
and
when
or
where,
when
traffic
studies
should
be
required.
I
think
they're
just
certain
areas
in
boston,
a
lot
of
areas
in
boston
that
it
would
just
it
it
would
be.
D
What's
the
word,
we
would
have
to
have
a
traffic
study
to
make
sure
that
that
would
that
would
work
for
the
community.
So
I.
D
Of
deferring
until
such
information
was
provided.
B
Leslie,
can
I
just
add
one
more
thing
that
I
brought
up
at
other
with
other
applicants.
I've
always
questioned
whether
equity
and
non-equity,
but
specifically
the
equity
applicants.
The
ownership-
and
I
know
the
applicants-
went
into
that
in
detail
at
the
hearing
last
week,
but
I
want
to
be
sure
that
the
community
understands
who
is
before
them
who's
going
to
be
operating
this,
whether
it's
investors
that
don't,
whether
or
not
the
investors
have
an
ownership
interest
is
one
thing
whether
they're
part
of
an
incubator
program.
B
I
think
that's
helpful
to
us
and
I
think
the
applicants
could
supplement
that
to
us
in
writing.
We've
gotten
some
great
submissions
from
other
applicants
moving
forward
when
we've
asked
these
questions
and
I
think
the
more
transparency
we
can
have
the
better,
it
was
confusing
to
me
with
what
they
submitted
to
us
compared
to
what
they
testified
at
and
compared
to
what
the
community
heard-
and
maybe
it's
all
the
same,
but
it's
just
a
matter
of
choosing
the
right
words,
but
I
think
we
need
to
get
that
fleshed
out
in
writing
as
well.
A
Thank
you
and
for
the
record
as
a
certified
equity
applicant,
they
can
access
funds
that
have
been
set
aside
pursuant
to
the
ordinance
for
something
like
a
traffic
study,
so
that
that
is
entirely
possible.
Chairwoman
joyce.
B
Okay
and
I
I
want
to
make
a
motion,
but
I
want
to
explain
my
motion:
this
is
more
than
just:
can
you
some?
Can
you
submit
a
new
security
and
operations
plan?
I
feel
very
strongly
that
they
have
to
go
back
and
meet
with
the
community
again
about
this
location
and
take
into
consideration
what
we
find
out
from
the
traffic.
B
They
were
given
an
opportunity
to
defer
until
they
had
that
information
before
they
did
not
choose
to
differ,
and
I
think,
based
on
those
things
and
it's
not
in
a
punitive
way,
but
I
really
feel
strongly
about
the
community
meeting.
Therefore,
I
make
a
motion
to
reject
it
without
prejudice
and
to
let
you
know
that,
because
they
are
equity,
they
will
they
could
be
back
before
us
as
early
as
december.
They
just
started
this
process
in
august,
so
I
just
think
process
wise.
That's
my
motion.
F
Okay,
once
again,
I'm
confused,
I'm
sorry
we're
we're
rejecting
this
with
prejudice
or
without
without
without
okay.
Thank
you
and.
E
B
B
The
other
information
we
have,
the
other
applicants
we
have
too
this
does.
This
does
require
them
to
submit
a
new
application
with
the
board,
but
where
they
submitted
this
one
three
months
ago
and
were
before
us
today.
I
think
the
rejection
without
prejudice
triggers
the
community
meeting,
which
is
very
important
to
me
absolutely
and
I'm
not
convinced
that
this
location
is
right
for
this
type
of
business,
some
of
the
ones
we
deferred.
I
had
no
problem
with
the
location
I
just
wanted
more.
B
A
E
A
Absolutely
they
are
still
eligible
to
access
any
funds
set
aside
for
certified
equity
applicants,
and
if
they
choose
to
do
so,
we
will
make
sure
to
connect
them
item.
Four.
The
applicant
is
hvv
massachusetts
inc.
The
proposed
license
premise
is
1937
beacon
street
in
brighton.
The
11th
type
sot
is
a
retail
recreational
cannabis
dispensary
license.
The
proposed
hours
of
operation
are
10,
am
to
9
pm.
This
is
a
non-equity
applicant.
The
date
of
filing
of
the
initial
application
is
july.
27
2018,
the
date
of
filing
with
the
inspectional
services
department,
is
october.
A
B
Thank
you.
I
just
need
to
get
my
notes.
B
B
They
were
taking
into
account
the
concerns
about
the
proximity
to
the
college.
I
still
think
it
has
a
very
strong.
It
scores
very
strongly
for
me
with
location
safety
and
security
and
as
well
as
parking
and
transportation.
E
Yeah,
I
don't
have
much
just
that.
I
did
think
it
was
a
pretty
good
dni
plan
and
pretty
good
employment.
E
Unfortunately,
the
the
community
support
score
for
me
was
very
much
low
word
because
of
the
opposition
and
who
was
in
opposition
that
does
matter.
I
agree
with
the
chairwoman,
and
I
just
had
some
questions
it
does
sound
like
that.
Sherman
chairwoman,
joyce,
is,
is
comfortable
with
the
transportation
plan,
wanted
also
check
in
with
lisa
and
others
about
that.
E
F
Well,
commissioner,
lombos,
I
they
submitted
some
supplemental
security
information
that,
with
the
concerns
that
I
have
particularly
about
talking
about
the
non
the
medical
for
people
under
18,
and
you
know
letting
a
21
year
old
escort
an
18
year
old,
that's
like
giving
the
firecracker
a
match,
but
they
they
supplemented
it
and
said
that
you
know
it
really
wasn't
for
here
and-
and
I
read
that
over-
I
am-
I
am
very
familiar
with
this
area
and
I
know
the
proximity
to
to
bc,
and
I
I
hear
their
concerns.
F
But
again
just
like
I
said
about
the
other
one
down
by
berkeley.
I
think
that's
going
to
be
something
that
we
really
can't
do
too
much
about
it
being
in
a
college
community
if
they
don't
go
here
to
beacon
street
they're
just
going
to
go
up
the
street
to
come
out.
So
I
mean
other
than
you
know
some
of
the
lack
of
support
from
the
community.
F
I
think
everything
else
they
they
did
and
what
they
supplemented.
I
think
they
they
put
together
a
strong
application
and
they're
just
really
really
going
to
have
to
work
hard
to
ensure
that
they
become
somewhat
cordial.
Neighbors
would
be
seeing
and
work
out
some
kind
of
plans
with
them
or
just
keep
the
lines
of
communication
open,
but
other
than
that,
I
I'm
satisfied
that
they
presented
a
a
strong.
G
Yeah,
I
think
the
same
thing
concerned
a
little
bit
like
commissioner
llamas
about
the
parking
around
there,
but
well
since,
what's
in
a
college
town,
so
I
mean
there's
lots
of
colleges
around
here.
So
it's
very
difficult
to
talk
about
those
impacts,
so
you
know
felt
that
you
know
I
think
they
would
be.
It
would
have
to
work
hard
with
that
community
because
the
community
is
impacted
by
it,
but
other
than
that
I
felt
they
were
fine.
D
Thank
you
so
I
had,
I
thought
it
was.
You
know
stronger
application.
We
had
approved
these
applicants
in
these
fosters,
I
think
the
operators
are
are
clearly
qualified
and
so
forth.
I
just
and
really
serious
concerns
about
the
community
engagement
and
the
community
notice.
I
think
that
you
know
what
became
clear
to
me
during
testimony
was
that
the
community
felt
like
they
didn't
get
enough
notice
on
this,
and-
and
you
know,
the
applicants
submitted
their
first
application
in
2018.
D
So
I
imagine
there
was
a
lot
more
done
at
this
at
the
front
end
and
I
would
just
say,
moving
forward.
You
know,
as
applicants
come
before
us
to
really
think
about.
D
If
you
had
a
community
meeting
two
years
ago
that
went
or
even
a
year
or
so
that
it
would
be
really
important.
I
think
their
community
meeting
was
generous
in
2019,
so
I
think
that
could
also
be
contributing
to
what
feels
like
a
sense
of
not
being
noticed
or
given
enough
notice,
and
so
I
you
know,
I
just
really
want
to.
D
Employ
upon
this
applicant
to
to
go
back
to
community
asap
and
have
that
conversation
and
really
engage
consistently,
and
I
and
I
encourage
applicants
moving
forward
that
you
do
the
same.
I
know
we
can't
require
an
additional
community
meeting,
but
I
really
feel
like
I
don't
want
any
community
to
feel
like
they
just
their
input
didn't
matter.
I
agree
that
it
is
a
college
town
and
so
it
is
going
to
be.
It
will
be
impossible
to
place.
D
D
So,
as
we
think
about
you
know,
establishments
that
we
approve
moving
forward,
I
think
it's
going
to
be
a
stricter
lens
given
if,
if
this
one,
if
this
one
does
move
forward,
but
but
I
do
want
to
recognize
the
community
their
feelings
and
understand
that
they
don't
feel
that
they
were
fully
included
in
the
process,
at
least
in
the
most
recently,
not
necessarily
in
the
beginning.
B
And
commissioner,
I
appreciate
that
I
had
the
same
reservations.
Of
course,
if
someone
supports
an
application,
they're
going
to
be
the
first
ones
to
follow
the
process,
and
sometimes
it's
that
opposition
that
falls
off
and
may
not
get
the
message
that
there
was
another
step
in
the
process.
So
I
think
that's.
I
think
this
has
pointed
out
some
deficiencies
in
what
has
occurred,
because
some
of
these
applications
have
been
around
for
a
couple
years,
and
I
appreciate
that
leslie
should
I
make
a
motion.
B
Yes,
please
go
ahead
based
on
that,
because
I
do
think
it's
very
important
and
I
don't
want
people
to
feel
disenfranchised
and
put
upon,
especially
since
this
is
a
neighborhood
and
it's
in
bce
is
a
big
neighbor.
I
would.
I
would
vote
to
still
grant
this
license
to
this
applicant
with
the
conditions
that
they
continue
to
meet
with
the
community
and
their
community
partners
as
they
go
through
the
next
steps
of
the
process
and
and
continuing
even
as
they
open.
I
think
it's
very
important.
C
A
Item
five,
the
applicant
is
rooted
in
llc.
The
proposed
license
premise
is
2177
washington
street
roxbury.
The
license
type
is
a
retail
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
was
september.
10Th
2020.,
the
date
of
the
community
meeting
was
september,
15th
2000,
I'm
sorry.
The
date
of
filing
with
inspectional
services
was
july,
20th
2020
and
the
date
of
the
community
meeting
was
september.
15Th
2020.
B
Thank
you
leslie,
so
this
is
another
example
of
an
equity
applicant
that
started
the
process
just
a
few
months
ago,
and
here
they
are
before
us
compared
to
some
of
the
other
applicants
we've
had
today
that
have
been
in
the
queue
for
a
couple
of
years.
This
was
a
very
good
application
in
many
of
the
value
evaluation
criteria.
They
got
a
perfect
score.
I
did
take
off
a
couple
of
points
because
of
they're
not
giving
a
veteran's
preference.
That's
up
to
them.
B
I
understand
their
reasons,
what
the
rationale
lie,
but
that
stood
out
to
me
as
a
little
different,
that's
their
business
plan,
and
I
respect
that
there
were
concerns
raised
in
some
of
the
correspondence
we
got
with
this
being
located
close
to,
I
think,
madison
park
high
school.
B
I
think
we
took
a
look
at
that
and
they
actually
are
over
a
thousand
feet
from
the
playing
fields
of
the
school
and
even
further
from
the
actual
school.
So
I
just
wanted
to
raise
that
to
let
you
know
we
do
read
the
correspondence
and
I
have
no
other
issues
with
this
application.
E
Yeah
this
this
I'm
actually
excited
about
this
application.
I
I
really
liked
the
pieces
around
the
high
goals
that
then
were
obviously
backed
up
with
a
track
record
of
the
businesses
that
that
are
part
of
that.
I
liked
how
it
was.
It
saw
themselves
as
a
part
of
a
larger,
larger
ecosystem
in
the
in
the
neighborhood
of
businesses
there
with
a
coupon
program.
These
were
all
creative
things
that
I
thought
were
about
a
larger.
You
know
neighborhood
a
larger
business
community,
just
I.
E
I
was
excited
to
see
that,
and
I
am
a
big
fan
of
the
haley
house
model.
I
think
it's
a
really
successful
model
so
having
them
cite.
That
is
very
important,
in
my
opinion,
on
how
it's
it's
a
success.
Again,
it's
a
successful
model
and
should
be
replicated
so
I
I
really
am
excited
about
this,
and
I
do
think
that
their
aspirational
goals
are
high,
but
given
the
track
record
of
the
businesses
that
they've
that
they
have
experience
in,
I
I
do
think
it
could.
F
Again,
I
think
it
was
a
strong
application.
I
too
was
very
excited
about
the
coupon
program
and
to
bring
some
more
vibrancy
back
to
the
dudley
shopping
area.
I
think
that
was
a
very
selfless
idea
that
they
thought
of
to
help
stimulate
the
other
businesses
by
giving
coupons
from
their
business.
So
I,
like
my
former
commissioner-
I
mean
my
fellow
commissioner.
I
was
very
excited
about
that
again.
I
love
the
hailey
house's
model.
This
set
up,
how
they
work.
So
I'm
agreement
with
that.
F
The
questions
that
I
had
with
them
about,
where
security
and
their
proximity
to
the
liquor
store.
They
submitted
some
supplemental
information
which
addressed
that
so
I'm
willing
to
give
them
a
chance
to
see
if
it
works
and
to
work
it
out
so
other
than
that.
I'm
a
very
strong
application.
G
D
Not
much
more
to
add,
I
I
agree
with
my
my
fellow
commissioners
and
also
really
loved
the
idea
coupon
program,
and
that
is
an
innovative
way,
as
we
think
about
placing
these
establishments
in
areas
that
there
are
a
lot
of
other
businesses
and
being
able
to
use
an
app
to
be
able
to
pick
up
at
the
appropriate
time.
So
there's
not
so
much
lining
up
outside.
So
I
thought
that
that
was.
D
That
was
a
a
great
way
to
really
to
really
accomplish
multiple
goals
at
one
one
time
so
so
I
thought
it
was
really.
B
Thank
you,
so
I,
because
of
the
buffer
zone
conflict,
I
make
a
motion
to
grant
this
conditional
on
the
pending
buffer
zone
variants.
A
All
right,
none
opposed
and
again
we
will
reach
out
to
the
instructional
services
department
to
revise
the
refusal
letter
to
also
reflect
the
buffer
zone
conflict.
A
Item
6
617,
the
applicant
is
617
therapeutic
healthcare
inc.
The
proposed
license
premise
is
144
bowden
street
dorchester.
The
licensed
type
is
a
retail
recreational
cannabis
dispensary
license.
The
proposed
hours
of
operation
are
monday
through
thursday
8
am
to
8
pm
saturday.
10
am
to
8
pm
sunday
12
pm
to
6
pm.
This
is
a
non-equity
applicant.
The
date
of
initial
application
was
october.
10
2018,
the
date
of
filing
with
the
inspectional
services
department
was
october,
26
2018
and
the
date
of
the
community
meeting
was
february.
19
2019.
B
Okay,
thank
you
leslie.
This
was
a
strong
application
and
I
just
want
to
also
note
again
for
the
record
that
this
application
began
in
2018..
So
here
we
are.
We
have
some
applications
that
began
three
months
ago,
some
that
have
been
in
the
queue
since
2018.,
they
scored
very
high
for
me
they're.
B
They
could
have
scored
higher
in
the
community
feedback
and
public
support
category,
but
I
still,
I
don't
think
that
diminishes
from
the
application
as
a
whole.
B
They
testified
at
the
hearing
that
they
now
realize
that
the
id
scanners
are
best
practices
and
they
spoke
to
being
committed
to
using
those
best
practices
which
I
think
are
very
important,
and
they
also
several
times
at
the
hearing
said
that
they
can.
They
are
committed
to
evaluating
their
systems
and
practices
to
make
adjustments
to
those
things
as
needed,
especially
the
security
and
operations
plan.
B
And
I
have
no
other
comments
right
now.
C
E
Thanks,
I
think
this
was
a
fine
application.
The
one
thing
that
I
wanted
to
state
for
the
record.
I
did
ask
the
question
about
the
10
full
time
10
part
time
and
while
that's
part
of
a
business
model,
and
certainly
other
businesses
do
that
as
well.
E
I
just
want
to
note
that,
while
that
can
be
seen
as
flexibility
for
the
worker,
it's
really
sometimes
important
to
look
at
not
just
the
lack
of
benefits
that
part-time
workers
don't
have,
but
also
we
really
should
be
ensuring
that
in
this
industry,
one
job
is
enough
should
be
enough
part-time
workers
having
to
piece
together.
Two
three
jobs
is
not
the
kind
of
thing
that
we
want
to
see
in
this
industry.
E
So
I
just
want
to
encourage
that
for
applicants
to
really
think
through
that
and
make
sure
that
we're
not
just
providing
higher
wages
and
benefits,
but
thinking
about
full-time
work
as
well,
that
one
job
should
be
enough
in
the
city
and
in
all
industries.
And
then
I
did
note
that
there
was
some
community
opposition
or
not
as
positive,
and
I
wanted
to
just
note
that
they
did
in
the
supplemental
letter
talk
about
how
they
are
addressing
it.
So
I
did
appreciate
that.
F
A
strong
application-
and
I
agree
with
commissioner
lombos
I
my
issue
with
them-
was
that
they
didn't
really
have
a
lot
of
community
interaction
and
they
hadn't
really
worked
with
some
of
the
with
those
community
groups
up
there,
which
I
know
to
be
very
strong
and
and
engaging
so
they
did
supplement
us
with
some
plans
on
how
they
were
going
to
do
better
with
that
so
other
than
you
know.
I
think
their
lack
of
reaching
out
to
some
of
the
community
members
and
I
thought
that
they
had
a
very
strong
application.
G
D
Just
second,
the
comments
of
my
fellow
commissioners
thought
it
was
a
strong
application
and
I
would
love
to
see
more
community
engagement.
B
I'm
going
to
make
a
motion
to
grant
this
license,
I'm
going
to
ask
that
the
applicant
update
us
on
their
final
employment
plan
as
they
roll
out
the
opening
of
this
business,
because
I
think
commissioner
lombos
raises
some
interesting
questions
that
I
haven't
thought
through,
but
and
it
sounded
like
the
applicant
was
willing
to
re-look
at
that
as
the
business
model
took
shape
and
also
asked
them
to
continue
to
work
with
the
community
and
to
update
us.
B
I
would
no,
I
think,
that's
a,
I
think,
that's
a
business.
I
think
that's
a
business
operations
choice.
I
don't
want
to
force
them
to
change
their
business
model
for
us,
but
I
would
I
would
like
to
see
that
as
they
think
this
through,
I
realize
getting
a
great
being
granted
a
license
and
a
host
community
agreement
triggers
other
things
that
they
can
start
to
think
about
specifically
the
parking
and
perhaps
how
they're
going
to
organize
their
staff.
So
I
still
would
vote
to
grant
the
license,
but
I
would
ask
them
I
guess
it's.
B
I
don't
think
we
need
to
approve
the
employment
plan,
but
I
think
it
would
be.
It
would
be
good
to
have
that
on
record.
A
If,
if
the
license
is
granted,
we
will
put
a
note
in
the
docket
that,
prior
to
the
issuance
to
request
an
update,
so
the
motion
is
to
grant
the
license.
Are
there
any
questions
on
the
motion?
A
The
first
is
sun's:
mass
inc
has
requested
reconsideration
for
its
application
for
a
co-located,
co-located
recreational
cannabis,
dispensary,
medical
dispensary
and
manufacturing
license
to
be
exercised
at
931
hyde
park
avenue
in
hyde
park.
The
applicant
is
a
non-equity
applicant
and
there
is
a
buffer
zone
conflict
for
the
record
staff
did
reach
out
to
the
cannabis
control
commission
to
inquire
regarding
their
process
for
vetting
applicants
that
have
alleged
violations
in
other
states.
That
is
something
that
the
ccc
vets.
A
However,
under
the
law,
they
cannot
consider
a
violation
in
another
state
that
has
been
resolved
so,
regardless
of
how
that
violation
was
resolved,
whether
it
was
a
payment
of
fines
or
whether
it
was
ceasing
to
operate
a
certain
license
if
the
violation
has
been
or
the
alleged
violation
has
been
resolved.
That
is
not
considered
if
there
is
an
open
violation
that
would
be
considered
and
would
go
to
the
suitability
of
the
applicant
when
they're
being
evaluated
by
the
ccc
chairwoman.
B
This
is
an
example
of
an
application
that
we
had
before
us
in
september,
and
I
believe
that
the
applicant
heard
us
and
their
supplemental
material
was
very
strong,
and
I
want
to
point
out
that
their
I
think
their
minimum
wage
is
they
boosted
up
to
18
and
50
cents,
which
is
really
stands
out
and
something
I
look
at
at
every
single
applicant
and
also,
I
know
there
are
questions
about
the
community
space.
I
actually
think
that
lens
itself
from
distinguishing
this
application
from
the
other
one
within
the
buffer
zone.
B
This
this
is
a
larger
operation,
they're,
actually
carving
out
space
within
their
within
their
business
to
let
the
community
meet,
and
I
think
what,
overall,
what
they're
proposing
is
very
different
than
the
location
that
we've
approved
down
the
street.
I
don't
think
will
have
a
negative
impact
on
the
neighborhood.
E
Yeah,
I
agree
with
the
with
our
chairwoman:
joyce.
Definitely
stronger
application
really
heard.
I
I
really
do
think
the
applicant
was
listening
to
all
of
our
comments
in
fact
addressed
all
of
them
in
very
positive
ways,
so
I'm
I
am
glad
that
they
came
back
and
glad
that
that
they
heard
us
and
glad
that
they
addressed
for
me
every
issue
that
I
had
so
I
appreciate
that.
F
Again,
I
agree
with
my
fellow
commissioners:
they
did
listen.
They
came
back
very
strong,
particularly
with
the
partnering,
with
the
union
of
hiring
a
minority
construction
firm
to
do
the
renovation
yeah.
I
mean
yeah,
okay,
nothing
else.
I
can
say.
G
Sorry,
I
agree
with
my
fellow
commissioners.
Thank
you.
I
think
they
hit
their
marks
when
they
in
their
responses
to
us.
Thank
you.
D
I
agree
with
my
fellow
commissioners,
and
I
think
you
know,
as
as
applicants
come
before
us,
and
particularly
those
that
are
very
well
financed
and
experience,
that
you
have
the
opportunity
and
ability
to
do
more
and
and
provide
more
and
really
set
the
standard
as
to
in
terms
of
wages
in
terms
of
labor
peace
agreements
in
terms
of
hiring
in
terms
of
contracting.
D
First
came
before
us
as
really
unfortunate
for
not
doing
for
not
doing
those
things
from
from
the
beginning,
because
I,
but
I
deeply
appreciate
that
they
really
took
our
what
we
said
into
consideration
and
are
moving
forward,
not
just
in
with
words
but
actual
actions.
And
so
I
encourage
any
future
applicant
that
comes
before
us
to
take
that
into
consideration
into
consideration.
B
Thank
you
and
leslie.
This
does
have
a
buffer
zone
issue,
so
the
motion
would
be
to
grant
this
license
conditional
upon
resolving
the
buffer
zone
conflict.
A
B
Joyce,
thank
you,
and
this
is
another
application
that
was
heard
in
our
september
meeting.
I
want
to
point
out
they
did
submit
additional
letters
of
support.
Those
letters
of
support
were
from
local
businesses
around
the
general
area
and
not
necessarily
from
members
of
the
community
which
stood
out
for
me
from
me.
It
was
very
strong
opposition.
B
This
isn't
a
reflection
necessarily
on
the
operator,
but
I
think
this
is
just
not
a
good
location.
It's
very
small.
I
think
it's
going
to
lead
to
people
pouring
into
the
sidewalk.
I
just
don't
think
it's
a
good
location
at
the
spot.
E
I
would
I
agree
chairwoman
joyce
I
just
wanted
to.
I
had
some
questions,
I
mean
they
did
come
back
and
I
still
had
questions
about
it
so
on
the
they
did
talk
about
these
using
flow
hub
and
the
appointments
ahead
of
time
to
to
decrease
some
of
that.
What
you're
talking
about
I,
I
honestly
just
would
love
to
hear
what
other
folks
are
thinking
about
that
just
because
they
did
come
back.
It
wasn't.
You
know
definite
strong,
stronger
application,
but
I
do
still
have
some
concern.
F
Again,
the
location
I
agree
with
the
chairwoman,
this
the
location
is
questionable,
and
I
also
feel
that,
even
though
they
came
back,
I
kind
of
felt
like
it
was
a
rushed
comeback
that
he
could
really
I
mean,
he's
a
one-man
operation
and
I
really
think
he
could
use
a
little
bit
more
polishing
up
on
the
application
just
to
give
us
a
few
more
definitive
answers.
F
So
again,
I
I
just
wanted.
I
think
we
this
needs
more.
I
just
think
it
needs
a
little
bit
more
refining.
G
I
agree
with
my
fellow
commissioners
yeah,
and
I
think
that
you
know
I
think
full
hub
takes
care
of
some
of
the
issues
doesn't
answer
for
all
the
community
issues
that
are
there
but
which
I
think
is
good,
but
location,
wise.
I
think
it's
problematic.
C
Commissioner,
I
think.
D
You
know
I
I
also
I
agree
with
my
fellow
commissioners.
I
think
they
they
came
back
definitely
with
the
stronger
applications,
but
still
with
some
lingering
questions
and
concerns,
and
I
and
in
terms
of
location,
I
don't
know
that
those
have
been
addressed.
I
do
appreciate
that
this
is
you
know
he
is
self-funding.
He
is
not
necessarily,
you
know.
The
opposition
political
opposition
was
strong.
D
I
think
all
of
the
electeds
came
out
against
it
and
bc,
so
I
yeah
I'm
just
struggling
a
little
bit
because
when
we
look
at
different
applications,
this
understanding
that
different
people
have
different
access
to
to
resources
and
to
and
you
know
and
to
elected
officials,
and
so
I
don't
want
to
overly
weigh
that,
but
I
also
can't
wrap
my
head
around
the
the
location
actually
working
under
any
circumstances,
so
yeah.
B
Leslie
what
he
supplemented
to
us
was
is
actually
very
different
from
what
the
community
heard
and
what
we
heard.
I
still
don't
love
the
location.
I
think
it's
very
small
and
I
would
I
would
have
to
see
more.
He
and
I
agree
commissioner
holmes
was
saying-
was
kind
of
thrown
together.
They
heard
what
we
said,
but
I
actually
think
if
they
go.
They
had
mentioned
specifically
that
they're
going
to
change
the
hours
they
weren't
operating
during
when
kids
were
at
the
pool
and
nearby.
B
I
actually
think
they
have
to
go
back
to
the
community
and
discuss
that
they
can't
just
unilaterally
unilaterally
change
that
without
feedback
from
the
community.
I
was
inclined
to
reject
it
with
prejudice,
because
I
just
don't
like
the
location,
but
it
sounds
like
the
other
commissioners
are
open
to
letting
them
resubmit
after
a
community
process.
Is
that
what
I'm
hearing
commissioners?
B
So
I
want,
I
don't
know
I
my
motion-
is
to
reject
it
with
prejudice,
I'm
open
to
another
motion,
but
at
the
very
least
I
don't
think
we
should
re-hear
this
until
there's
another
community
process
or
a
new
location
for
this
operator.
Again,
I
don't
think
it's
the
operator,
I'm
not
comfortable
with
this
location
as
the
application
with
everything
outlined
in
the
application
and
the
supplemental
materials
would
have
to
go
a
lot
further.
B
As
far
as
you
know
how
they're
going
to
take
into
consideration
lines
online
ordering-
maybe
that
has
to
be
all
the
time
or
at
the
beginning
and
the
hours
that
they
plan
to
be
open
and
how
they
interact
with
how
other
parts
of
the
neighborhood
are.
F
B
F
B
A
With
prejudice,
the
operator
cannot
come
back
at
this
specific
location
for
one
year.
They
could
petition
the
board
for
an
exception
to
that.
It's
at
the
board's
discretion.
B
Yeah,
I
I'm
not
I'm
not
convinced
this
is
a
good
location
at
all,
so
my
motion
would
be
to
reject
it
with
prejudice.
If
he
wants
to
come
back
in
a
year
with
a
new
application
and
a
new
community
process,
I
would
reconsider
it
given
the
size
of
it
and
its
location
to
some
of
these
other
things
that
were
raised
in
the
community
process
and
again
it's
true.
The
support
came
from
the
restaurants
and
the
businesses
right
in
the
general
area,
not
from
the
people
that
live
there.
D
You
and
I
just
just
to
clarify
and
a
question
about
delivery.
That
is
something
that's
still
being
discussed
at
the
state
level.
Is
that
correct.
A
Yes,
it
is
that
there
are
rumors
that
we
might
hear
something
on
that
tomorrow,
but
the
the
regulations
have
not
been
codified.
D
Yeah
yeah.
Another
reason
why
I
think
a
year
it
makes
makes
more
sense
if
he
wants
this
location.
If
the
operator
wants
this
location,
because
that
would
make
more
sense
if
there
was
some
significant
delivery
aspect
to
it,
but
we
don't.
We
don't
know
that
yet
so.
A
E
A
And
all
in
favor
aye
none
opposed.
We
have
one
item
on
old
and
new
business.
This
is
a
motion
to
post
the
draft
amendment
to
the
board's
rules
and
regulations
regarding
the
holiday
schedule
for
cannabis
establishments.
That
language
is
as
f
that
draft
language
is
as
follows:
the
boston
cannabis
board
shall
issue
annually
a
holiday
schedule
permitting
days
and
hours
of
operation
of
licensees.
The
annual
holiday
schedule
shall
replace
any
existing
restriction
regarding
holidays
in
any
existing
host
community
agreement
currently
previously
executed.
A
Host
community
agreements
have
a
provision
that
licensees
cannot
be
open
on
federal
holidays
or
suffolk
holiday,
suffolk
county
holidays,
and
this
will
give
the
board
the
option
to
review
the
holiday
schedule
and
also
look
at
when
retail
package
stores
are
allowed
to
open
and
operate
chairman
joyce.
Do
how
can
you
make
a
motion?
Please
a.
B
Motion
to
approve
this
change
in
hours.