##VIDEO ID:FG4tFZOp6GM## good morning we're going to give just a moment to clear the waiting room just one moment we've lost the chairs having connection issues so give just one moment while the chair of the board uh reconnects I'll pause the video for a moment good morning and thank you all for being with us we'll just give one more moment to clear the waiting rooms folks are still coming in good morning this is the voting hearing of the licensing board for the city of Boston today is Thursday December 12th 2024 this morning's hearing is being recorded and will be posted to the city of Boston's website while the public is encouraged to attend there will be no additional testimony accepted this morning begin with the licensed premise inspection hearing which occurred on Tuesday December 10th 2024 item number one H and H LLC doing business as Harbor Side in located at 185 to 187 State Street date of the incident May 18th 2024 intoxicated Patron in violation of Mass General Law chapter 138 section 64 and assault and battery Patron on employee in violation of Mass general laws chapter 138 section 64 and chapter 265 section 13A thank you Danny um as far as the two um issues before us I don't think either of them were foreseeable so I don't see a violation I had no violation as well I agree no violation item number two Pier 50 LLC doing business as committee located at 50 Northern AV date of the incident June 9th 2024 assault and battery Patron on Patron in violation of Mass general laws chapter 138 section 64 and chapter 265 section 13A and failure to call 911 in violation of Mass general laws chap 138 section 64 and board's rule 1.14b taking a look at the assault and battery uh first uh I did review the video the actual assault in battery did appear to be out of the blue so for that I see no violation I Sor yeah it appears so um I do W to um note that failure to call 91 911 um is an issue that um I think we shouldn't be dealing with this issue right now this board issued an advisory in April um having to do with the responsibilities um of a leny when it comes to something like this and the need to call 911 the testimony on Tuesday was that they felt like this neighborhood um basically it sounded like they felt like you know they shouldn't call the police unless it's something more serious but as chairman of the board here um I want to remind lenes of their responsibilities to call 911 I want to note I would like to note this in their docket that they did not call 911 I don't think it rises to the level of a violation but I would like to um reissue April's advisory to the people that appeared on the board on the hearing on Tuesday and I want confirmation that they've um read it that they've received it read it and they've reviewed it with staff yeah I their explanation that they you know maybe it was a miscommunication sounded plausible enough so I agree that it doesn't it's not acceptable but I agree that it doesn't rise to the level of violation docketing sounds reasonable so no violation we'll dock it that they failed to call 911 we'll resend April's advisory and ask them to confirm in writing that they have read and reviewed it with staff okay item number three Smith and walinsky Atlantic Warf LLC doing business as Smith and walinsky located at 290 Congress Street date of the incident June 11th 2024 assault and battery employee on employee in violation of Mass General Law chapter 138 section 64 and chapter 265 section 13A um the staff was very Cooperative I don't believe that this incident was foreseeable I do not see any violation both employees were fired um I agree uh I appreciated their cander and um I commend their interpretation of the video because um you know it was clear that that manager was a part of the problem um do I did I did note at the hearing about really the issue here is foreseeability and you know I think we talked a lot of lenses about this um the relevant video probably would would have been the video inside to see if they kind of were carrying on before it actually came to blows so I don't know if um if what I said during the hearing was enough or or should we do correspondence that that's that would be my only question yeah I support correspondence for sure yeah I think correspondence um regarding the managerial duty of maintaining composure deescalation making sure that you know clients and and staff are safe and fine so no violation correspondence regarding deescalation uh managerial Duty and also uh preserving video of what could have been the precursor to the incident okay item number four Lucy Management Group doing business as Lucy drink and dine located at 120a Huntington a date of the incident July 13th 2024 assault and battery Patron on employee times 2 in violation of Mass general laws chapter 138 section 64 and 265 section 13A the testimony at the hearing was that this Patron had one drink in it apparently there's video of him not even finishing that drink um the suspect wouldn't leave the hotel bar um I don't believe this incident in my opinion was foreseeable I don't see a violation okay so this one um the yeah I the one question that I got to that kind of had me at no violation was their awareness of what might have occurred between the uh woman and the man trying to near the bathroom right I'm on the right one here right this was what ultimately was an indecent assault and battery yes yeah so they testified that they that it was a a brushing and and not a slapping and the and the police report is a slapping so maybe the maybe the story kind of got more refined with when she was speaking to the police um I I I'd like correspondence that if they had been informed of an indecent assault and battery initially then that would have been the time to call the police and then maybe because this guy carried on for some period of time outside and where some of the the a assault and batteries happened uh and so kind of theoretically if the police had been called right away they might have been there and and maybe the assault and barriers wouldn't happen um but I except there's testimony that they weren't fully aware of the allegations so maybe police shouldn't have been you know wouldn't have been called at that moment so I would just support um correspondents as as to if they were aware of the allegations as stated in the police report then that would have been the moment to call the police that's all I definitely agree there was U no fory ability so it sounds like no violation correspondents reminding them of their duty to to call the police had they been aware of the allegations in the Police Court item number five Concord entertainment Inc doing business as bills bar the landown pub located at 9 lands down street date of the incident July 13th 2024 assault and battery employee on Patron inv violation of Mass General Law chapter 138 section 64 and chapter 265 section 13A um I want to note on the record that the lcy did provide video that showed um the assault and battery um which is what we're trying to get to as a board I I don't want lenses to feel like they have I want them to submit video to us I want them I if I don't want them to feel as if they submit video and there's clear evidence of a violation that perhaps they shouldn't submit the video next time so that is something I want to note on the record it goes um in a positive way towards a leny that they were able to preserve and provide the video to the board that being said um I do see a violation um and um I would like I don't know if they have a history of this Danny there yes there was a violation for employee on Patron with a first warning um for an incident that occurred last September I believe okay so to me this is a clear violation it um it is a second warning in my to me but because the fact that they did share this video It Doesn't mitigate the circumstances in any way but um I my vote would be to um ask the leny for um confirmation that they've performed deescalation training with their uh staff it's clear to me that the staff here was out of control control or acting um outside what the the training would be for a place like this but we're not getting feedback from lenses that they have done um this type of training I I want to know that they when they did the training who participated in the training and the type of training that was done people are coming we're getting um testimony on these hearings that it was a rogue employee like employees should know that they shouldn't be um acting like this when they're on duty and uh management should be doing everything they can to um ensure that staff is properly trained um so that that's what those are my thoughts and my comments that this would be a second morning um and I would want confirmation and writing from bills bar from the leny of the type of training they did and who participated so I agree uh I would also add on top of that that regarding the video we've kind of dealt with this before that this this place in the coverage of the video the incident be begins you know way in the back of the frame um you know they would have us to believe that um the patron was the aggressor and you know this was necessary but the video doesn't show that if they had better coverage maybe the video would have shown it and I'm not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt with this video uh especially considering their recent history um we've had a couple of no violations but they've kind of been not due to um nothing going on but more due to like um a lack of evidence and we did give them the benefit of the doubt um here I'm not willing to give him the benefit of Doubt the the initial you know grabbing of this guy was very aggressive um and like I said it's not clear that it was necessary and then right in the middle of the frame as they're bringing him out um this one of the employees strikes him very hard in the chest with the forarm um so I saw a clear violation um they provided some video and you know some of it was clear but other parts weren't if they had better coverage in there maybe they could have helped themselves even more but it it wasn't there so I I had a very clear violation very much agree with um the need for deescalation I think that there's kind of a pattern here so I'm very concerned with this leny I'm very concerned with the fact that they try to defend it as well um um I kind of don't get that at all so I'm very concerned with that as well so going forward um yeah I have some concerns about this licensing and I hope they get their back together yeah I there's really nothing to add I agree with the uh the second warning and the correspondence that would cover deescalation and Camera coverage violation second warning correspondence about the coverage of the video deescalation and we are going to request that they perform training and provide confirmation and writing of uh exactly the details of the training who was trained who did the training what was covered is that everything thank you item number six Irish village Inc doing business as Irish village located at 224 to 226 Market Street in Brighton date of the incident August 26th 2024 assault and battery outside premise in violation of Mass general laws chapter 138 section 64 and chapter 265 section 13 a I want to note that one of the reasons why we scheduled this incident was because the police report said that the one of the patrons was extremely Intoxicated The testimony at the hearing from the staff was that um in their professional opinion he was not extremely intoxicated um this assault and battery was Patron on Pat it happened outside the licensed premise I don't see a violation here yeah just there wasn't enough to find a violation here just it was wasn't enough evidence three no violation item number seven brood intentions LLC doing business as the fourth wall located at 228 Tremont Street date of the incident September 7th 2024 assault and battery employee on Patron in violation of Mass General Law chapter 138 section 64 and chapter 265 section 13A the lcy did provide video that was helpful um in the video I did see the off duty employee in the white sweatshir um punch the um Patron but what was also telling or the 17-year-old that never was allowed inside so he wasn't a patron but what was also telling was that there was another staff member there watching it um so for those reasons I see a violation I agree once again once again I would add on that I felt like they weren't forthcom I mean I could be wrong but I felt like they weren't forthcoming about you know uh the details of it I mean the person who was there watching it was on the call and did before I asked the question about it didn't testify to that um you know the in the police report the the off-duty employee claims that he only swung once he clearly swung twice so he was you know minimizing what he had done um and yeah there was no inter prvention especially closing time that's you know that's very much an expectation that uh an employee is outside kind of managing uh dispersal so yeah for all those reasons I saw a violation yeah I agree with the violation I think um correspondents about the duty of intervening would be reasonable violation correspondence about duty to intervene as to the disposition of the violation um I I see a first warning I would also like um training done with correspondence from the board and then from the leny confirming when the training was done who participated in the training and what that training was I agreed great and this is sorry training on the the prior R was deescalation training what training on what specifically are you asking for uh this would be deescalation as well okay and when I mean by the type of training sometimes we receive correspondence where it's literally a sentence staff was trained in deescalation I want to know exactly what kind of training modules or um whether it's online or in person training and who did the training okay so similar to uh item number five we will request in writing that there is training and that they confirm uh what type of training who uh gave the training and who was present uh from staff how how about um justes anything regarding a security plan for dispersal at the at closing I like that I agree security dispersal and and deescalation great item number eight Castillo beer Wine and Liquors LLC located at 2371 Washington Street in Roxbury date of the incident July 4th 2024 licenses not posted conspicuously in violation of Mass General law chter 138 section 64 did not call 911 in violation of Mass general laws chapter 138 section 64 in board's Rule 1.14b and assault and battery Patron on Patron inside in violation of Mass general laws chapter 138 section 64 and chapter 265 section 13A so we did receive um pictures that the licenses were posted uh and the police officer also noted that she just didn't see them as well they were up high whereas they really should be easily accessible to anyone who comes in and does an inspection but I don't see a violation on that um as far as not calling 911 I would like to send correspondents about their responsibilties um including our April advisory I don't believe our advisories are being read by management and management is not communicating that to staff there is a responsibility here as far as the assault and battery Patron on Patron um I wasn't able to get to a violation here um but I I do have other issues um we have since received corresponden from the lcy that they've upgraded their video I want to make it very clear it's not okay um in the eyes of the board to say we didn't preserve the video because the police weren't filing we're impressing charges this is a licensed premise what happens inside a license premise is um regulated by this board should something like this happen where there is questionable Blood on the ground and a punch or or a stabbing um whatever the case might be the video would be helpful to the lensey in all cases it's helpful to the bo the board there is a responsibility to preserve that video it's not okay um I'm I'm not going to accept we didn't preserve the video because we didn't think the police were going to press charges in the future so I do see responsibility here it appears that they have upgraded the video and they are going to preserve it um so I want this noted in the file as along with um The Advisory on responsibilities um as far as calling the police yeah just I agree with everything just I wanted to add again um just factually it didn't it didn't make sense to me that they wouldn't preserve the video based on they knew very early on that that there was an allegation that there had been a serious assault there with blood on the ground and so therefore if if you have if you don't believe that happened and you want to protect yourself then you should you would keep the video um regardless of of of you know you didn't believe that the police were pressing charges um so it just it didn't make sense to me it if the if they have video in there and it showed that it was a minor incident as they wanted us to believe I feel like they definitely would have saved it so um for all I agree that I didn't get to the level of a violation but um I seriously question their choices so I agree yeah I think that was a an an urrent of misjudgment Poe judgment you know the preserving the video is not about notification of the violation or about pressing charges it's about the incident itself so do I understand correctly the the vote is for no violation across the board okay in addition to correspondence resending the April advisory asking for written confirmation that they have read The Advisory reviewed it with staff and also noting on the record that the ly had failed to preserve the video in this case yes item number nine Harvard convenience Inc doing business as Harvard convenience located at 157 Brighton a in Alon date of the incident May 31st 2024 selling and drinking alcohol on premise in violation of Mass General Law chapter 138 section 64 casino slot machines and bedding on premise in violation of Mass General Law chapter 138 section 64 so this is a fairly new licy who has been opened since November 23rd and this violation happened um May 2024 not even a year into them having their um their license um as far as the selling and drinking alcohol in the premise I see a violation there were 10 people 8 to 10 people in the back room uh drinking cans of beer while they were um on casino slot machines so taking them one at a time um the selling and drinking alcohol in the premise I see a violation yeah U not to mention they were in an area of the that was not open area shouldn't have been open to the public so I mean yeah clear violation on that one I agree um I'm going to just so I'll continue along this line these lines here so my vote for for this particular violation um they have no history but the fact that they haven't even been open a year and they were they were blatantly violating the law um and it seemed to be known in the area that they were doing this um my vote given the fact that they don't seem to have even tried to follow the law in the short time they're open my vote would be for a 10-day suspension uh are we talking just on the selling and drinking just on selling and drinking okay um yeah I mean the there can be no question that that's not allowed on a retail premises so it's it's not a little thing it it seems to be a very deliberate act so I could see um you know a quick harsh penalty here um I don't know how it it's going to you know slot in with with the the next violation I guess but uh yeah for me they're kind of related in that sense that you know this this is a a choice upon by the lcy to basically act in illegal manner so would you like to take them together commissioner it it feels it feels like it yeah because if this if this was just the one thing and without the other I don't know if I'd be jumping the 10 days but it it isn't one thing without the other it was it was kind of a combined activ back there in the back room you know yeah and and not to interrupt you but the reason why I'm not going with our traditional Progressive discipline of first violation second violation shutting down is given the fact that this like you said was open and deliberate and it seemed to be well known I don't think this was you know accidentally someone bought a beer a sixpack of beer and was standing outside drinking this was um clearly permission given by the L to allow this to happen it was a way they were trying to make money in my opinion um so to me this was uh egregious and like you had stated is deserving of a quick and harsh penalty oh I'm I'm in full agreement I just kind of Sor as combined situations so yeah yeah like feeling like they're separate doesn't like like I said if this this had only been some drinking in a back room W without basically running a Gambling Hall I don't know if I'd be throwing 10 days at them so I want to be clear about that for maybe if there's another incident down the down the road I very much agree with the idea of like skipping a warning skipping one day because of what was going on here but I I see it more as a combined thing so that's that's all I want to be clear about yeah I can uh I think we can talk about things in uh in the totality of the circumstances that being said um I want to do I would like to propose putting conditions on their license um that they can't have any gambling devices um on the premise moving forward um and no Amusement um games as well I mean doesn't have to be Express I mean it's sure absolutely it shouldn't be but I think it's it's important to spell these things out because it doesn't seem to be clear with some lenes but they can and can't do yeah um definitely part of the the message is is like they need to review their rules and regulations and despite the fact that they're new they do make an a affirmative statement as they as they got the license and as they were getting their their manager on duty that they understand the rules and regulations that's part of the affirmative um statement that they make so they definitely need to review them uh so chairman Jo you've made statements about the first violation do you have anything to say about the the second the casino slot machines the betting on premise um if we are considering them together or even if we're considering them separately yeah I see a violation there um illegal activity happening on the licensed premise yeah I mean so that's what I wanted to get to I I saw it as you know definitely more likely than not that they were using these machines for gambling purposes I don't think we had a plausible alternative explanation the idea that it could have been anything is very much more a criminal defense where where the burden of proof is much higher um I think all with all the evidence we had and clearly the evidence we didn't have because of uh Fifth Amendment issues uh I didn't once again I think I said it but I'll say it again I did not accept that I didn't consider that affidavit not no part of it um I I didn't I didn't accept that she could make some statements and not not others not be fully available to us a ly is required to be to be available to us to answer questions um she has every right to Asser or fifth but we have every right to basically find a negative inference um so for those reasons I in the totality I had serious questions about them car carrying on at all so I'm clearly on board with something like a 10day but what I want to throw out there is do we do we really question their Fitness to considering they've just started and probably went into this with intentions of doing this from the very beginning um do we have any serious questions about their ability their Char commission car you just went on mute for a second at the end yeah I don't know why I went on mute there but I think I there yeah do we have any questions about their character and fitness to to carry on as a licing so that that's all I would say so when when I hesitated at 10 days I wasn't saying that was too much I just in the totality um I have serious question questions about this licensing I think 10 days does reflect a question about their their Fitness and I I maybe those because of because all of them happen out of one event or one circumstance uh those the two violations can run concurrently for those 10 days so given the questions that both of you have raised we would normally call perhaps call the manager record in for a hearing on the character and fitness I'm not quite sure she'll be able to participate or be willing to participate but um we could request um an informational hearing um on the character and fitness of the manager record if you'd like yes that that actually makes sense and maybe it's a requirement that the manager record be changed based on how that um hearing turns out yeah Ju Just if we brought them in maybe we could notify them that we would want some sort of sort of plan of action yeah I mean what I would like is some sort of acknowledgement of something happening first because they were in denial and if they're willing to acknowledge it in some way that they can acknowledge it at this moment because of the potential criminal issues a plan of action to redeem themselves you know some sort of assurances to us that they can run this in illegal manner so to summarize it sounds like there's a violation on both counts here that the board is taking together for a 10day suspension to run concurrently and additionally the board would like to call an informational hearing um to assess the character and fitness of this manager of record and of this lcy the LI yeah in I don't know how the the the the principles of the coroporation are you know organized whatever but yeah in to yeah everyone involved in it whether it's just this manager of record or yeah of the licy and the manager of record right I support that all right anything further on this one moving on to the transactional hearing which occurred yesterday Wednesday December 11th 2024 item number one GTI Properties Inc doing business as the power station located at 530 Harrison Aven Roxbury has petitioned to change the manager to jalo Donado Nicosia I vote to approve Mr nikosia manager record I believe he has the appropriate character and fitness to serve I agree I agree item number two Trinity Stewart concessions LLC doing business as the Raffles hotel located at 40 Trinity Place has petitioned to change the manager to pavl nenov I vote to approve the change of manager record I believe Mr nenov has the appropriate character and fin to serve I agree item three JJ Donovan Inc doing business as Donovan's Tavern located at 27 Clinton Street has petitioned to change the manager to Carl Krebs I vote to approve Mr krebs's manager record I believe he has the appropriate character and fitness to serve I agree item four for the 15 lra Street Corporation doing business as the glass slipper located at 22 lra Street has petitioned to change the manager to William Bennett Jr I vote to approve Mr Bennett as manager of record I believe he has the appropriate character and fitness to serve I agree items five six and seven are the same transaction Massachusetts Sports Service Inc doing business as Legends as TD Garden and as Viva Victory Den all at 100 Legends way has a petition for a change of officers on all three licenses I vote to approve the change of officers I agree item number eight the Pearl group at Boston Landing LLC doing business as the Pearl located at 67 to 91 Guest Street in Brighton has petitioned to pledge the license to rail yard Sports LLC I vote to approve the pledge I do as well items nine through 14 uh all also concern the same transaction seport Hospitality Inc located at 42 summer summer Street Northern Avenue Hospitality Inc doing business as gather at 75 Northern AV gallway Inc doing business as the harp at 85 Causeway Street dunboy Inc doing business as MJ o Conor's Irish pub at 27 Columbus AV 150 Canal Street Inc located at 150 Canal Street and a dare Inc doing business as Ned divines located at 2201 feno Hall Marketplace uh of six 7day all seven six comit 7day all alcoholic beverages licenses I to pledge all six to Eastern Bank vote to approve all the pledges I do as well it is a ton Mr Danny I agree thank you very much appreciate that item number 15 grn a GB of M L LC doing business as Gordon Ramsey Burger located at 120 John F Fitzgerald surface Road has petition to change manager to Alandra Rivera as petition for a change of officers directors LLC managers a change of ownership interest and a change of stock interest I vote to approve all the requested changes I do as well I agree item 16 grn RK of MC doing business as Ramsey's Kitchen located at 776 Boon Street has petitioned to change the manager to Adam Christian has petitioned for a change of officers directors LLC managers a change of ownership interest and a change of stock interest I vote to approve the change of manager of record and the additional changes requested I agree item 17 fog to choraria Boston LLC doing business as foga tocaria located at 200 Dartmouth Street has petitioned to change the manager to Maria Martin Mendes has petition for a change of ownership interest and a change of stock interest I vote to approve Miss Mendes as manager of record I believe she is the appropriate character in Fitness to serve and I also vote to approve the other requested changes I agree agree item number 18 Arjun Inc doing business as Vine and barley located at 326 suar Street in East Boston has petition for a change of officers directors and a change of stock interest I vote to approve the changes requested I do as well item number 19 Sophie's restaurant Group LLC doing business as Sophia's Grotto located at 18 Corinth Street in Rosendale as a petition to amend the description of the license premise to total 1,768 square ft first floor main dining room number one two entrances exits at 22 rear bir Street barge seating for six dining room seating 42 kitchen and Center three bathrooms located in Connected hall room number two Corinth Street two entrances and exits with bar seat seating for 12 seating for six 1,281 ft basement kitchen prep and storage Annual Outdoor dining on private property with seating for 65 from the hours of 12:00 P P.M to 12: am closing hour 12: am. I vote to approve the amended description I agree item 20 Mara Corp doing business as Jo resturante located at 355 Handover Street has petition to amend the description of the license premise to restaurant space a 3 355 Handover Street entrance in one room on ground floor with kitchen and rear and dining area with seating for 25 patrons storage and kitchen work area and basement and in one additional room on second floor with seating for 20 patrons restaurant space b at 351 Handover Street entrance in one additional room on ground floor with additional dining areas with seating for 28 patrons and additional restroom restaurant space a and restaurant space b are contiguous and connected through the interior of the premises all together comprised of approximately 2400 square feet with two entrances and four exits 12 o'clock closing hour I vote to approve the amended description I agree three item 21 top tier Enterprise Inc doing business as Home Market located at 165 Belgrade AV in Rosland Dale has petitioned to change the category of the license business to a retail package store all alcoholic beverages license I want to um note that the LI the applicant um submitted supplemental materials last night which were very helpful to me uh they went into great detail about the layout of the license premise um also what their offerings would be and their inventory where they be where they will be purchase purchasing their inventory um they noted how their offerings in their opinion complement the um license seed that's directly across the street that they plan to be a niche market not to duplicate what's being offered across the street um so I do believe that they um met the elements of public need and my vote would be to approve this application yeah I agree um yeah second everything you said I I vote to approve the materials were helpful yeah I agree thank you uh tman Joyce would you like the condition on this one as we have with prior package doors about the layout not to change without board approval yes please is there a condition for like nips or singles or uh it was not discussed they do not currently have that condition as they uh currently are mline only anything uh to say on that chairman Joyce or commissioner Curran yeah we did we weren't able I forgot I put that on the record um we can talk to the Li and see about it but if they don't voluntarily agree I don't think we can put it on at this point so granted no changes to the floor plan on file or to the amount of floor space dedicated alcohol without approval by the board and the floor plan must be on site at all times yes item number 22 immersive Art Space Boston LLC located at 130 Columbus AV has petitioned to transfer the license and the location to my isaka LLC doing business as my located at 31 Northern AV a Kevin EU manager 1:00 a.m. closing hour and is also petitioned to change the license type to a section 12 restaurant um sorry this is the immersive space Boston correct um I vote to approve the transfer and to approve the proposed manage of record I believe he has the appro appropriate character and fitness to serve and um I vote to approve the change in license type I agree agre item number 13 kbg Inc doing business as Kell herbar and Grill located at 1410 to 1420 Center Street in Rosendale has petitioned to transfer the license and the location to flick International Corp doing business as flick located at 200 Clarendon Street Corey templehof manager 12 a.m. closing hour has petitioned to pledge the license to btrs Services LLC um we have been in touch with the applicant and have notified them that they will need to uh submit a new application and re-advertise um to also correct the change of type for a club license um the board cannot vote on it without the correct type so this will reappear on later agenda items 24 25 and 26 Treehouse Brewing Company Inc doing business as Treehouse Brewing Company located at 800 Boon Street has applied for a 19c farmer Brewery pouring license has applied for a 19e farmer Distillery pouring license and has applied for a combined 19h Brewery and Distillery pouring license all to be exercised on the above manager law laner Closing Time 10 p.m. I vote to approve the changes requested I do as well three all three are granted the remaining items from the transactional agenda yesterday are all new license applications um ter would you like to deliberate on these or hold until after all of the applications that have been in since December until December 6 they're heard um I propose deferring all of these deliberation will be deferred moving on to non- hearing transactions the following are applying for a new common vict license at a previously licensed location item one SE latte Cafe LLC doing business as coffee shop located at 197 8th Street in Charlestown manager Raina malara hours of operation 7:00 a.m. to 4 p.m. vote to approve I do as well item two 242 Cambridge Street LLC doing business as anas Taria located at 242 to 246 Cambridge Street uh manager Anthony aill hours of operation 10: am to 11m I vote to approve I do as well three item three Kaya Corporation doing business as Kaya restaurant located at 79 Hancock Street in Dorchester manager elisar Crispen hours of operation 10: a.m. to 10: p.m. I vote to approve I agreed item number four Hong Kong eery Inc doing business as Hong Kong eery located at 79 Harrison AV manager Henry Wong hours of operation 9:00 am. to 10 p.m I vote to approve I agreed item five kudoba company restaurants LLC doing business as kudoba Mexican Eats located at 101 Causeway Street manager Juan Logan hours of operation 10:30 a.m to 10: p.m. vote to approve I agreed agre item six anest takaria LLC doing business as Hest takaria located at 359 Huntington AV manager Rob fauza hours of operation 10: a.m. to 10 p.m. I vote to approve I agree age item Seven senur Inc doing business as Istanbul donor burrito located at 4117 Washington Street manager beur senet hours of operation 9:00 a.m. to to 700 p.m. I vote to approve I agree I agree item eight dig in Boon Street LLC doing business as dig located at 557 Boon Street manager Richard Katy hours of operation 11 am to 12 am I vote to approve I agree I agree item 9 cam beastro Tha Cuisine Inc doing business as cam beastro Tha Cuisine located at 151 Pearl Street manager adisorn weat Yukan hours of operation 11:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. I vote to approve I agree I agree item 10 SI corporation doing business as Aurora market and bakery located at 570 tront Street in Roxbury manager rabiel Islam hours of operations 700 am to 10 p.m I vote to approve I agree agree item 11 La Mesa mark Boston Corp doing business as La Mesa Market located at 744 Dudley Street in Dorchester manager Leslie Mahia hours of operation 11 am to 11 pm I vote to approve I agree I agree item 12 laa ASA restaurant doing business as laa ASA restaurant located at 888a Morton Street in Dorchester manager Mary ladies Cabrera hours of operation 7:00 a.m. to 12: a.m. hi vote to approve I agree great item 13 SAU Boston LLC doing business as sauce located at 33 Union Street manager Tanya Walker hours of operation 11:30 a.m. to 10 p.m. I vot to approve I agreed item 14 Colo Dorchester Inc doing business as yanes Berger and social located at 39 sa Hill Aven Dorchester manager F fam I of operation 9:00 a.m. to 10: p.m. I vote to approve I agree three and item 15 my Diner Inc doing business as my Diner located at 455 East 1 Street in South Boston manager Oscar VI Portillo hours of operation 6:00 AM to 2m how about to approve I agree following have applied to make changes to the existing common Victor licenses item number one chop Corp doing business as Charlie's House of Pizza located at 1740 Dorchester AV in Dorchester has petitioned to update the capacity from zero seats to 21 seats uh based on updated certificates from ISD vote to approve I agree item two Pressed Juicery Inc doing business as pressed located at 148 Brookline a has petitioned to change the manager to Gary cooperman to approve I agree item three M Inc doing business as Al's South Street Cafe located at 179 to 185 essic Street has petitioned to change the operating hours to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. I vote to approve I agree I agree item four M Le Inc doing business as Al Street Al's State Street Cafe located at 114 State Street has also petitioned to change their operating hours to 7:00 a.m. to 7: p.m. vot to approve I agreed item five Mario's restaurant Corp doing business as Mario subs and salads located at 28 and a Half warrren street in Roxbury has petitioned for a change of location uh to 651 Warren Street in Dorchester which is also a previously licensed location with a capacity of zero seats takeout only vot to Pro I agree agree following have applied for a one amendment to their existing licenses item one The Catered Affair Inc doing business as The Catered Affair located at 700 Boon Street in the Boston Public Library has petitioned to amend their license for a later bar closure of 1:30 a.m. for a wedding on January 18th 2025 I vote to approve I agree I agree and item two AHF Speedway Holdings LLC doing business as the Charles River Speedway at 1420 to 1440 Soldiers Field Road in Brighton has a applied for a one-day amendment to include the contiguous Annex space for a holiday party on December 20th from 5:00 to 9:00 p.m. I vote to approve I agreed I agree the board has before them a list of applications for special one-day alcohol beverage applications which have been administratively reviewed by staff and approved by the board and on old and new business item number one for a vote the board had deferred disposition of uh this violation to allow for the submiss of video evidence and supplementary materials which have been submitted big Causeway LLC doing business as Big Night Live Studio B and play located at 110 Causeway Street date of this incident was October 19th 2024 assault and battery Patron on police times 2 in violation of Mass general laws chapter 138 section 64 and chapter 265 section 13d and assault and battery on an EMT in violation of math general laws chapter 138 section 64 and chapter 265 section 13d oh thank you one of the reasons why we or I requested a deferral was we wanted additional video which the ly did submit to the board and which I did have an opportunity to review in reviewing that additional video it appears that the ly did have a smooth dispersal um what happened between dispersal and the chaos in the street I not clear um so I don't see a violation there however I would like to request a meeting with the property manager or security team in big night to discuss the roles and responsibilities testimony was there was no written agreement but I think there needs to be clear understanding of who's responsible for what and when um and there's also an issue doesn't come under this board but it comes under my responsibilities as executive director on the entertainment side um that a promoter was used here for this particular event and um I want a clearer understanding what big Knight's um role is with promoters um what their what they believe their responsibilities are with promoters um in some cases we ask lenses to notify the board every time they use a promoter I don't know if that's the case here but um something went wrong that night I I don't see a clear responsibility on the side of big Knight but I think there could be more work there's more work that could be done here as far as uh cooperation um with security and the Landlord on dispersal um I'm not sure what that is but I would like to have a better understanding of that uh yeah I totally agree I think I mean really what we need here is Clarity because it seemed like they weren't clear on what we expect of them um if they're handing off to a third party it doesn't absolve them ultimately they their duty to us and and to you know the public as as far as um the sidewalk in front uh I the one thing I would add is um additional Clarity on how what our expectations are as far as how far it stretches um down that sidewalk you know towards that that parking garage area that was an issue and um my initial feeling is that we would include that because they had clearly had patrons going towards that parking garage um uh so I'd like to hear what their plan is and if they have any objections to having that be includ like if if we're going to like that's my feeling and so if they have a different interpretation of the law and our rules i' I'd like to hear it and hopefully we can get on the same page on that so that's all I would add yeah whatever comes of that meeting um that clarifying meeting if it could just be in the file in the docket so that we can all see it and just to clarify chairman you're envisioning an informational hearing before the board on this is this a a a a meeting um with you as chair and executive director of Mel with the leny and the security firm um what what like to sit down with them and have a meeting about it I think we could get more done in person and talk through some of the issues that we see some of the issues that they see dealing with the security and the Personnel some of the issues that they see dealing with promoters this was really serious um the police response was serious I I think they're good operators I just want to see how we can improve um moving forward all right in the meantime it sounds like no violation on these yeah correct no violation we'll work to set up a follow-up meeting um with the leny and the security contractor to um clarify the relationship and their responsibilities and how far that extends beyond the license premise ad number two uh the board had deferred uh this common vular license application Cantina Hospitality LLC doing business as Taco Bell located at 10 Maverick Square in East Boston has applied for a common Vic license to be exercised on the above manager Louisa Maria aspa vas hours of operation 8:00 a.m. to 2: a.m. and the applican had agreed to a midnight closing hour inside uh with a 2 am. close for pickup and delivery only thanks Danny um this is an application for a fast food Mexican restaurant in East Boston I it's located directly across the street from the train station which I think is a good location for a um lensey that has 10 seats I I think this is distinguishable from other um Mexican restaurants in this neighborhood that are offering sit down dining there's a good amount of their business plan that includes um takeout and delivery the ly has been working or trying to work with the neighborhood um they've adjusted their hours um I see no issues here I think it's a good location my vote would be to approve I I agree I and finally item number three uh the board has received correspondence from food Fiesta Group LLC doing business as casabonita Mexican Grill at 1033 Massachusetts Avan Roxbury requesting administrative approval to increase their capacity of the Interior from 42 to 142 um they've received updated certificates from ISD and fire no construction has occurred uh this was just a change of the Interior layout is it correct it's from 42 to 142 that is correct um the space was quite empty previously okay I vote to approve sounds good there you thank you all those are all the items before the board uh this morning uh so with that that will'll adjourn this morning's hearing so thank you all enjoy the rest of your day and if we don't meet again Happy Holidays thank you you too you thanks all