The meeting was prompted by an incident on August 7, 2025, where The Mix hosted a DJ performing outdoors without the necessary license. The board members were joined by representatives from The Mix, including J. F., and members of the Boston Police Department, who read a detailed police report on the incident. Det. Gallagher noted that although The Mix had a temporary entertainment license, it was restricted to indoor performances, leading to a violation notice issued to the establishment.

Mr. Faul, representing The Mix, addressed the board, expressing frustration over the narrative surrounding his establishment. He highlighted previous discussions with the local police captain regarding noise complaints, during which productive conversations about community concerns took place. Faul argued that his establishment was being unfairly targeted compared to other venues like Ashmart Grill, which regularly hosted outdoor events without similar complaints. He questioned the fairness of the restrictions imposed on The Mix and emphasized the need for clear communication during the licensing process.

They emphasized that business owners must understand the limitations of their licenses, which are often based on neighborhood conditions and previous noise complaints. The board maintained that the restrictions were necessary to protect community interests and that a one-time entertainment license did not guarantee approval for all requests.

Faul pushed back against these restrictions, stating that The Mix was being treated differently from other establishments in the area. He highlighted the demographic of patrons at The Mix. Despite the board’s insistence on following licensing protocols, Faul expressed his frustration at being unable to utilize the outdoor patio, which he estimated could accommodate around 60 seats.

The conversation underscored ongoing tensions between business interests and community concerns regarding noise and entertainment in urban settings. The board members stressed the necessity of considering the broader context of neighborhood dynamics when granting permissions for outdoor events.

In another discussion, the applicant for The Mix addressed previous complaints about noise, asserting that they had never been cited for noise violations. They argued that their business was unfairly singled out, particularly when compared to nearby establishments like Ash Grill, which operated under similar conditions without facing the same scrutiny. The applicant recounted hosting an event for the mayor, which involved using a microphone, a potential violation, yet felt that other establishments were not held to the same standards.

A board member sought clarification on a submitted application for August 3, which included a DJ inside and a TV outside. This led to a discussion about misunderstandings regarding the conditions placed on their license. The applicant acknowledged not fully understanding the stipulations added by the board and expressed a willingness to take responsibility for this oversight, while also highlighting a desire for more proactive communication from the board.

The board member explained that the stipulations were a response to previous complaints, emphasizing the need for clearer communication about what was allowed under the license. They reiterated that entertainment licenses are typically meant for special events and that frequent applications could complicate the board’s approach to licensing.

The applicant expressed a commitment to being a good neighbor, stating, “We would have worked with you,” pointing to a missed opportunity for collaboration in addressing noise complaints. The board member clarified that the public hearing process allowed for vetting complaints and stated, “When you get written up, that’s the first step in having your say.”