Good morning. Thank you all for joining. We'll give just a moment to clear the waiting room. Good morning. This is the voting hearing of the licensing board for the city of Boston. Today is Thursday, December 18th, 2025. While the public is encouraged to attend, there will be no additional uh testimony accepted this
morning. Today's hearing is being recorded and will be posted to the city of Boston's website. We'll begin with the license premise inspection hearing which occurred on Tuesday, December 16th, 2025. Item number one, 175 Ipsswitch Street LLC located at 175 Ipsswitch Street. Date of the incident,
October 1st, 2025. assault and battery patrons on police in violation of match general law chapter 138 section 64 and chapter 265 section 13D >> thanks Danny I don't see any violation here >> I agree >> I agree
>> item two the same lency 175 IPS street LLC at 175 Ipsswitch street date of the incident October 6th 2025 assault and battery patron on staff in violation of mass general laws chapter 138 section 64 and chapter 265 section 13A.
>> I had some concerns about this alcohol compliance company and their use of it and not knowing what led up to this, but um I could not get to a violation here. >> Uh I saw it the same way. Yeah, >> I agree. >> No violation.
>> Item three, Mile 22, Inc. doing business as Cityside in the Circle located at 1958 to 1960 Beacon Street in Brighton. Date of the incident, uh September 14th, 2025. assault and battery, the dangerous weapon, a gun, patron on employee in violation of mass general laws, chapter
138, section 64, chapter 265, section 15A. Um, this is the number three. Okay. Um, I don't think it was foreseeable that this person would pull out a gun. I think he had a lot to drink. I don't
know how long he was there, but I wasn't able to get to an assault and battery, so I see no violation. Uh, >> I agree. I agree. Um there could be some correspondence about um uh contact with
patron. I I the video does show that the um the dorman does push the um the the person the patron. So maybe there's just um correspondence about deescalation or no contact. >> Sure. >> No violation with correspondence
regarding deescalation. >> Item four, Little Haiti International Cuisine LLC. Doing business as Little Haiti International Cuisine located at 1184 Hyde Park A in Hyde Park. Date of the incident September 20th, 2025. Over capacity in violation of Mass General
Laws chapter 138, section 64 in boards rule 1.03J 1.06A and F. And patrons fighting outside the establishment in violation of Mass General Laws chapter 138 section 64 and chapter 265 section 13A.
>> This is a fairly new lency. Uh, I think he needs to do a better job um familiarizing himself with his responsibilities um as a license holder. I don't understand how they didn't didn't have a better um command of our rules and regulations. He was unclear
about his own capacity. He was unclear about what time people had to leave. Um but I was not able to find a violation for either over capacity or patrons fighting. >> I I saw it the exact same way. Yes, I agree. I whether they need
correspondence about our rules. I I think just a reminder of reviewing them. I don't know. >> That's a good idea. We'll send correspondence again. >> Great. Then no violation in correspondence regarding their capacity
and uh their closing time. Item number five, lency did not appear will be rescheduled to the next available hearing date. Item number six, 61 Brookline Restaurant LLC. Doing business as Loco Takaria and Oyster Bar located at 61 Brookline A. Date of the incident, October 12th, 2025. Assault
and battery patron on patron in violation of Mass General Law chapter 138 section 64 and chapter 265 section 13A. >> Um, I see no violation here. >> I agree. >> I agree.
>> There was no transactional hearing yesterday. We'll move on to non-heering transactions. Item the following are applying for a new common license at a previously licensed location. Item one, Y and Z business LLC doing business as Star Bakery located at 136 Harvard A in
Alustin. Manager Mangveh hours of operation 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. >> Um I vote to approve. >> Sorry, I agree. >> I agree. Item two, Guanla Northstation LLC, doing
business as Cafe Nudu, located at one Nasha Street, manager, U Chen, hours of operation 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. >> I vote to approve. >> I agree. >> I agree. >> Item three, Great Taste Bakery and Restaurant, Inc. doing business as Great
Taste Bakery and Restaurant, located at 61 Beach Street. Manager Chiao Xiawan. Hours of operation 6:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. >> I vote to approve. I agree. >> I agree. >> Item four, Shishan Lelay, doing business
as Mixum Bakery, located at 36 Beach Street. Manager Lelay Shishan. Hours of operation 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. >> I vote to approve. >> I agree. >> I agree. >> And item five, Grace Westy, Inc. doing business as Yanis, located at 1761
Center Street in West Roberry. Manager Jason McKinnon. hours of operation at 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. >> I vote to approve. >> I agree. >> I agree. >> Following have applied to make changes to their existing common vigor licenses.
Item one, Gins Neutra LLC doing business as Fufu Bakery, 274 Franklin Street, has petition to change the capacity from takeout only to eight seats. Um they've gotten certificate of inspection showing the eight seats. >> Vote to approve. >> I agree.
>> I agree. Item two, Essential Body Herbs, Inc. doing business as Essential Herb and Juice Cafe located at 501B Washington Street in Dorchester. Has petition to change the capacity uh from 19 seats to a takeout only.
>> I vote to approve. >> I agree. >> I agree. >> And item three, Holly Crab Boston, Inc. doing business as Holly Crab 1098 Commonwealth A has petition to change the closing hour from 11 p.m. to 10 p.m. >> I vote to approve. >> I agree. I agree.
>> Following is applying for an inholder no alcohol license at a previously licensed location. Coin Management Inc. doing business as the Midtown Hotel at 220 Huntington A manager Adam Rabbit. >> I vote to approve. >> I agree.
>> I agree. >> Who following has applied for a one-day amendment to their existing license? Adair Inc. doing business as Ned Divines, located at 2201 Faniel Hall Marketplace, has applied to extend their license to the contiguous space of the Upper Rotunda of Quinsey Market for a
wedding reception on December 30th from 6:00 to 11:00 p.m. >> I vote to approve. >> I agree. >> I agree. >> Uh the board has before them a list of applications for for special one-day alcoholic beverage licenses which have been administratively reviewed by staff
for approval by the board. >> Okay. And on old and new business, four items. Item number one for a vote. The board is in receipt of correspondence from Sugar Bowl Cafe LLC doing business as the Sugar Bowl located at 857 Dorchester A in Dorchester requesting
approval to increase the capacity from 19 to 46. No construction has taken place. A previously employeeonly area has now been repurposed for patron seating. So they've gotten new documents with the increased capacity. >> Acknowledged.
Approve the capacity. >> Thank you. Item two for acknowledgement. Uh the board has received a written dispersal plan that was requested from Facility Concession Services LLC doing business as Spectrum at 89 Guest Street in Brighton, otherwise known as Roadrunner. Um as requested by the board on November 20th.
>> Acknowledged. Knowledge will be placed on file. Item number three for discussion. The board held anformational hearing on October 21st to receive public feedback from lences regarding chapter 138 section 12D which would permit the board to allow licenses permitted to sell only
wines and malt beverages pursuant to chapter 138 section 12 to trade in said license and be issued a non-transferable all alcoholic beverages license. Board held an open comment period which was extended to December 3rd has now formally closed. This is an opportunity
for the board to identify any specific areas uh to be adopted in uh draft and final regulations. J any comments? >> Sure. Excuse me. I appreciate
um I appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion on the record. I think the comment period was very helpful to hear from people, businesses, community members, attorneys, um, about what some of their,
uh, concerns were with this upgrade, um, opportunity and what some of their what we what I see as some, you know, really good outcomes from being able to do this. Um, excuse me. So
once the comment period closed, we I was we were able to take a look at the comments that came in and um come up with three proposals that I'd like to discuss on the record and to get um Commissioner Saxon and Commissioner Karns input on. Um the first
policy proposal um would be whether or not we should have a minimum holding period for beer and wine licenses prior to upgrading. We heard from several people giving real life um circumstances of where they
thought that this could have unintended consequences to lences that have um held on to licenses or have had licenses for longer period of times. Um, one of the things I was taking into consideration,
um, was what this would mean for our small neighborhood restaurants, not wanting to create additional, um, barriers to them, but also keeping in mind the fact that um, I guess what it is I to me, I see two buckets. I see
licency holders that have had beer and wine licenses for a very long time and that are now waiting for this opportunity to upgrade and then a bucket of licenses that are more speculative that want to go get a beer and wine license and then immediately upgrade to sort of bypass the normal um process we
have to do so. So trying to find that balance between removing barriers for businesses but not harming the existent all alcohol licenses and not harming the market too much. Um, so one of the things I had mind had in mind was a grandfathering provision. Anyone that
holds a beer and wine license prior to a date that we come up with would be allowed to apply immediately to upgrade and then anyone after that date would have to hold on to their license for a period of time. Let's say like one year before they apply for the upgrade. So what is your comments and feedback on
that? Um, yeah, I my I think I've stated before, my concern is really trying to um react to the private market, which we don't control and we didn't create. Um, and
the legislature really, you know, they did this without any incumbrances on it. So I'm a I'm somewhat hesitant to put any um restrictions on it e even for new people. I'm inevitably
the market is going to change with this change the that private market. I don't think we can control people's business decisions as to how much they think the all alk is worth versus the beer and wine. Um, and I don't think we should
try to. >> Um, I don't see the a huge difference though for waiting a year. I'm not like 100% against it. I'm just not naturally inclined for it. I I could be convinced either way. I'm kind of on the fence.
But those would be my concerns um for putting, you know, like a year on it. I mean, I don't think it would be the end of the world for any new person um picking up a beer and wine to have to wait a year. Um but also, I don't see a
great benefit to it either. So, it might not be necessary. Might be like a a tiny difference maker in the in the market, which once again, I'm not I'm hesitant to try to put my thumb on. So, those are
my concerns. I think when we talk about um like the possible intention behind um the upgrade, the ability to upgrade, I think it's about uh being able to
help businesses, but then also that there's a public need for it. I think there I think public need is sort of embedded or should be embedded in in the ability to upgrade. So once there's a public needs that has been established for beer and wine, I think
it makes the case automatically at least in my mind that there would be a market for um additional additional options. So, I don't think I'm I don't think I'm against the um being able
to require new businesses to hang on to their beer and wine for a year to establish a certain amount of record or proof that that that they're eligible for the the upgrade. And I don't mean eligible in the legal sense, but in the in the kind
of, you know, I guess they've established that there's a need for it. So it sounds like I mean I think we all take our role um seriously. We realize we have a responsibility to find that
public need in all circumstances. Um whether we come down with a bright line of one year or we build in some regulatory flexibility like we always um try to do anyways without it being
written down. um is something I'll I'll um we can still continue to talk about, but I would like to get this process going for those that already hold beer and wine licenses. I do think um you know,
we should move judiciously with the automatic upgrade for anyone after, I don't know, let's say the first of January 1st, 2025. Um, I just I think maybe we could try to find some language, draft language. Danny, we can work with Danny to come up
with language that gives us the discretion in those special circumstances, but maybe we start with like, you know, um, a presumption of what would the presumption be? like know that you can't up you can't upgrade right away, but if you show a special
circumstances, um I'm kind I'm kind of like getting back to the opposite of what Commissioner Car was saying, but I do think this is an opportunity for us to sort of like see how this all shakes out. Um and again, yes, if someone has public need for beer
and wine, do they have the public need for all alcohol? To be determined, but probably yes. But you also want to make sure they're able to it's going to come with a lot more cost too. Um per se cost, insurance costs. So I want the business owner to realize what they're
getting into when they decide to do this as well. And again, not to just speculate in the market. Um you know, and assume that it's going to be the golden ticket for them to to succeed. So, we'll put together some
language that we can vote on, but I think we've been able to flesh that one out. Um, and >> just to see if I can parrot that back really quickly. It sounds like we're looking for language that does establish that any beer holder, a license holder who has held that license since January
1st of 2025, um, can absolutely apply immediately to move forward with an application. For others, um the the board is looking for language that allows some discretion, flexibility to find public need um for uh an upgrade for license holders who have not held
their license for a full year. >> Does that sound right? >> That sounds about right. Yeah. >> Okay. Next, uh we're going to move on to the next one. So, one of the things we were asked to
consider was whether or not we would put in policy that would um have a minimum time that someone has to stay at a location following an upgrade before they can transfer. Um,
I think the policy comes from a place or the proposal comes from a place of they don't want to see someone that has opened up a business in one of our neighborhoods is now able to upgrade and then move to an already saturated area whether it's
downtown or the seapport. So, I think that's a that's a a concern that has been expressed to us. Um, I don't know if we can actually regulate something like that in a way
that is fair to a business. You know, there's all these variables about why someone would want to move. Um, I think we could come up with a strong a policy that we have a strong preference that someone stays in their location.
um that um we would want uh I had written down some um ideas here. We do something similar on the cannabis side where if there's a buffer zone, it we can pierce the buffer
zone if someone shows you know circumstances that are special or that are um exceptional. Um, so for this one, I would have a hard time coming up with
a a bright line a number of years, but I would I could come around to some language where there was a presumption that they could not transfer the location unless they demonstrated an exceptional public need or this new desired location
is in great need of this type of license. And again, in my in my opinion, that's what we do when we hear these applications before the board. We ask those probing questions. Um what are your intentions? What what's you know, is there a need for this location to
change? Is this just going to be for you to um immediately move to another part of the city? I think the request for this policy consideration comes from a place of they want these licenses to stay um in particular
neighborhoods to see growth there. Okay. So um when my when these uh licenses are upgraded they become non-transferable right and and that is in in ownership and in
location is that right? >> That is an ownership >> only as as an ownership. Okay. Um, so they wouldn't be to in order to change locations, they wouldn't be required to do the downgrade and then they would only be required to do a downgrade if
they were changing ownership. Right. That's correct. So to change it would be an application for a change of location. Um, what Terminal Joyce is saying is whether there should be additional regulations for someone doing a change of location, but as the legislation is written, that's not required. >> Yep.
Um and so something you said madam chair before which is essentially when we're dealing with public need for
like a beer and wine and then the idea of public need to to go to all alcohol. I think in practice there's it's a very limited circumstance where we're going to say that there in a particular location
there's public need for beer and wine but not public need for all alcohol. >> Right. >> Mhm. >> So >> so if we're approving any move that the the circumstance of a difference between those two licenses
will be very very specific and very limited. Right. >> Yes. >> Like someone in a conversation I had said, you know, there may not be the need for another American pub in, I don't know, insert
neighborhood Brighton or South Boston, but there might be a public need for an Ethiopian cafe in South Boston. And so we have to look beyond maybe the category of the license and take a look at the concept. Um, and I think we do that every day in our roles.
But by the same token, but with the same example, there it's hard to imagine that there wouldn't be we would say, "Oh, there's not a public need for another American pub in this area with an allout, but we we would accept another American pub with only
beer and wine, right? Because that's really what we're dealing with here. Not whether >> Yeah. A restaurant with any alcohol deserves to be in a particular location, but whether the distinction between their all alco or or beer and wine
should be >> Yeah. I guess going back towards the intent of the legislation at the state level was to help our neighborhoods grow and not like cluster these restaurants in certain areas. And again, I don't want to get in the way of an American
dream to succeed and to be that, you know, small business owner that's now able to open up their a new location in Seapport or wherever downtown. But um and I don't think that's our role is to get in the way of business growing, but
I do I guess we don't want to see all these licenses from the neighborhoods like flood the downtown market. So what do we do? And again, these these may these may not become an issue we have to ever deal with because when someone does get a license in the neighborhood,
often times they're they're tied to a lease that they can't get out of anyways. You know, I don't it's not like it's a letter of intent. Um get your license open. Um and go for it, you know, like there's usually more more of a
commitment there. Um but those are the concerns I think. the policy behind the legislation is to help the neighborhoods grow. >> We've never we've never had um like a a policy mandate that we look at um public
detriment, you know, of losing a le license in a particular neighborhood. Um we've only looked at the public need of a of a license being added to a particular neighborhood. So um it I mean it would be really disappointing if we if we finally got you know a couple of
licenses in Madapan and then they upcons with them and go to the north end. I mean I think that but um I think we we look at the north end then we look at to see whether um adding yet another license in the north end makes sense. So
I I don't think that I think you know in the in the end looking at public need I think on balance um would enable us to come to the right decision without having to look at
public detriment but um you know as we do it is on a case-by case basis so I'm not sure that there's a bright line that we can add. >> All right. again, we'll we'll draft something um to be voted on.
>> Great. It sounds like we're really looking at public need of uh any uh upgraded lency uh trying to change location. But >> the the other concern I think is and I
agree with Commissioner Saxon that you know it it makes sense to look at the detriment of like having a license leave but a lot of times that the person selling that license or moving that license from from the neighborhood is telling us that
it hasn't worked where where they were. you know that and that gets into like us regulating more business decisions than public public need. So it once again drafting new regulations
could hem us in where public need the our public need analysis really is adequate. That so that's my that's my fear. >> Understood. That that makes sense to me.
Um the last policy um proposal has to do with community process um for those that have applied and already gone through a community process for an all call license. We've had a number of um
applications from restaurants that did not qualify for our zip code restricted licenses, North End in particular, that um would like to take advantage of the upgrade immediately. And whether or not we should require another community process,
my thinking is no. I think anyone who's applied for an all alcohol license in the last 2 years does not need to go back for an additional public meeting. I think the impact's the same and those are things we discussed when we um those things were discussed with the community
the first time around. >> Yeah, from our I think from our perspective that's an easy answer that we we wouldn't require it. Um but public need is usually, you know, or public process is usually dictated by the mayor's office as well.
like the applicant reaches out to the mayor's office and they're told what they want from them. But I think from our perspective, I wouldn't be asking for someone who something like yeah, two years is definitely within a window where everything's been as long as the
proposal is really no different. But yeah, >> yeah, I don't think that um neighborhoods shift that quickly. So I agree >> that's clear. We'll make sure that uh language includes uh that any applicant who has applied for an alcohol license
within the past two years would not need any additional community process required by this board to apply for an upgrade of that that same license. Anything further on um uh upgrade draft regulations from German Joyce or
Commissioner Carver Saxon? Um, I'd like to get I'd like to work on these in the next couple of weeks and have something for us to consider in writing for January. >> Perfect. We can do that to have a draft for review by the board and possible
approval if we can get there uh for the January 8th voting hearing. Thank you all. Uh, moving on. If there's nothing further in this discussion, we'll move on to item number four, final item on this morning's agenda. um which is a discussion and deliberation by the board on applications for new
unrestricted on premise all alcoholic beverages licenses. Uh the board has a list of all applications which were submitted and complete prior to the December 6th 2024 and May 23rd 2025 application deadlines. Um with that I'll I'll turn it over to Chairman Joyce for
any additional comments. >> Just a quick recap. I mean we all know the legislation created these 12 new unrestricted allcall licenses. um and they were created and um I think our intention was to phase them out to
phase them over a span of three years. Um last year we had a discussion on the record and we came to the conclusion that the unrestricted licenses should also be issued not all at once but over a period of time so as not to flood the
market um and to be able to respond to the changing uh market conditions throughout the city. So today I find public need to issue three unrestricted all alcohol licenses and I do anticipate that we will issue the remainder of them
in the coming year. um in determining public need today. I want to focus on how these licenses um would be put to use or I'm choosing to focus on how these licenses will be put to use, the role they establish um in their neighborhoods and whether the
license advances our broad goals of vibrancy, balance, and responsible operation. The three applications I'd like to vote on reflect different neighborhoods, different concepts in different community needs, but all demonstrate um a thoughtful intentional use of these unrestricted all alcohol
licenses. I think the concepts complement each of the three neighborhoods. And with that framework, I will briefly summarize the applications that I propose we consider today. Uh the first application would be for Grace Note at 108 Lincoln Street, which is in the Leather District. We
heard this at a public hearing on June 25th. This is an established cafe concept in the leather district with a um demonstrated record of community engagement through curated listening room programming. The applicant proposes a limited allout call service to
complement a music focused seated experience with no late night bar operations and a midnight closing time. I believe the proposed use supports downtown workers and visitors, enhances the cultural offerings of the area, and allows the business to operate more
efficiently without reliance on one-day licenses consistent with the intent of the legislation. Um, I don't know if you have any comments about that application. >> Uh, I second everything you said and uh want to add that just even the geographical location that you know
there's not as many licenses right in that leather district area. So even another reason to um favor this application. So I agree. >> I agree with all said. >> Thank you. Um so Danny, do we have to make a motion?
>> Yeah. Is there a is there a vote to approve this license? >> I vote to approve. >> I do as well. >> I agree. >> Unrestricted all alcohol license granted to Coffee Coffee LLC. Doing business as Grace Note Coffee Boston.
>> All right. The second application I'd like us to consider today is Morangi Express at 14:15 Tremont Street in Mission Hill, which we heard at a public hearing on June 25th. This is a neighborhood serving uh this is a restaurant serving the neighborhood
of Mission Hill seeking to enhance the dining experience through alcohol service that's complimentary to its Latin inspired menu. The applicant has been actively involved in the community and has stated clearly that the license is not intended to support late night or bar ccentric use. I find public need
based on the establishment's role in the Mission Hill Business District, its community support and its contribution as an anchor restaurant in this Roxberry Crossing area. Um, do you guys have any comments about this application? Uh just to second everything you said
and um note that it is right on the T-top which I think is a another good thing about the location. >> I agree. So I I would vote to approve this application. >> I do as well. >> I agree.
>> A license a uh unrestricted all alcohol license is approved for Cilantro Kitchen Latin Kitchen Corp. doing business as Minga Express. Uh, the final application I'd like to consider today is Comfort Collective at 100 Western A in Alustin, which was
heard at a public hearing on July 16th. Um, the owners of Comfort Kitchen are opening a location in a new Alustin development. Um, these are the same owners as the Comfort Comfort Collective
is pro is proposed by the owners of Comfort Kitchen. Um, the application reflects an expansion of a proven community oriented concept into a growing neighborhood area. I find public need based on the location, the applicants demonstrated experience and
track record and the role the establishment is expected to play in supporting the neighborhood and its vitality as part of this new development. Do you have any comments to add? >> Nothing to add. Just second everything you've said. >> Yeah, the traction has been clear.
Didn't they get some sort of nomination or something? >> James Beard. >> There we go. Yes. >> New York Times who, right? I'm assuming. I think. Yeah. Among others. >> Um, so I vote to approve.
>> I agree. >> I agree. >> And unrestricted alcohol license is approved for the Comfort Collective LLC doing business as AMA. And so I would like now that we are talking about these um applications and
I would propose that we set a new deadline um for the next round of applications and um I'd like to propose January 16th any application that was submitted between May 23rd. Danny, is that correct? >> May 23rd was the last deadline. Correct.
And then we would close the deadline at January 16th and we would immediately start to um vote on those applications. >> Sounds good. Thank you. >> I agree. >> Next application deadline will be January 16th and the board can uh
consider applications as soon as uh as soon as that deadline passes. Uh anything further from the board on any of these items that we've discussed today? There being none, those are all the items before the board today um that will adjourn this hearing. This being
our last hearing of the year. Happy holidays and we'll see you all in the new year. Thank you all. >> Happy holidays. Thank you. >> Thank you. Happy holidays.