Hey, there! Log in / Register

Bay Village cabaret says a requirement to offer food is such a drag

Jacques Cabaret, 79 Broadway in Bay Village, goes before the Boston Licensing Board on Wednesday for permission to stop serving food - the day after it has to answer charges of not using the food-serving license it has.

The cabaret currently has a liquor license that requires it to make food available to patrons. On Tuesday, Jacques has to explain to the board why BPD detectives caught it on March 2 not offering food to customers, indeed, not having a kitchen or food-preparation area at all.

The next day, the board will consider Jacques' request to convert its license to a "general on premises all alcohol beverages" license, which does not require the sale of food along with alcohol.

The board's hearings begin at 10 a.m. both days in its eighth-floor hearing room in City Hall.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
Free tagging: 

Ad:

Comments

Could this place just keep their food menu and charge $500,000 for every item so now one ever orders food? Or does the Boston Licensing Board have laws/regulations against this?

up
Voting closed 0

No, the board doesn't regulate prices. But the cabaret would have to have cooking equipment and actual food on hand, just in case somebody does order that $500,000 burger - the detectives look for that.

This is an all new board, and I don't think they've considered this issue yet, but in the past, bars were allowed to satisfy the food-serving requirement by installing a popcorn machine or one of those hot-dog turning grill things.

Now why the board cares if a bar has a food-serving license but then doesn't offer food is another matter: It's not like there's a limit on the number of food-serving licenses in the city, so a bar that doesn't serve food isn't keeping another bar from opening up (I'm talking just about bars here, not restaurants that are barred from serving drinks without also serving a meal).

up
Voting closed 0

Funny that today's Globe has a story about Baker ordering state agencies to review regulations to remove 'onerous' ones.

I think I'd put most of our liquor laws in that category. (Though I can't keep track of what stupid crap comes from the state, and what comes from the city).

* All laws should come with expiration dates to force a review every decade or two.

up
Voting closed 0

The law that caps the number of alcoholic beverage licenses can be issued by the City of Boston is a state law. If there's a more pointless and onerous regulation than that one on the books, I've never heard of it.

up
Voting closed 0

I think they've got a food license and they keep it by having a vending machine.

up
Voting closed 0

up
Voting closed 0

That's something I wonder about. If I were thinking of a name for a restaurant (or any other business) these days, I'd skip any type of apostrophe or unique characters for the simple fact it messes up the domain name and/or internet searches.

up
Voting closed 0

Especially since I've long admired James's Gate in JP for their proper use of the apostrophe, even if it does look weird.

up
Voting closed 0

Actually, both uses of the apostrophe ('s or s') are considered correct.

up
Voting closed 0

after second thoughts about this comment, I removed it

up
Voting closed 0

I once witnessed a wager between two parties eating lunch outdoors at James's Gate, as to the proper usage of the apostrophe. The losing party was forced to bake a cherry pie for the winner, after we dug up the appropriate ruleset. He insists to this day, though, that since "James" is a Biblical name (which set of names apparently has its own exception), the bet should have been cancelled.

up
Voting closed 0

when choosing whether to make a proper noun ending in "s" possessive with just an apostrophe, or with apostrophe+s. Generally speaking, AP doesn't like the extra "s", Chicago does.

up
Voting closed 0

We can thank Mike's alcoholic wife Kitty for this anti- Happy Hour relic of Legislation. Even though it would take only a microwave oven and a freezer/fridge to offer cocktail wieners, nachos, dumplings, and the like, kitchen permits and licenses are a hassle.

If not for all these regulations, some state workers might have to find real jobs or real crime.

up
Voting closed 0

Because otherwise, that sounds like the kind of crackpot theory that one only hallucinates under the influence of a *lot* of rubbing alcohol.

up
Voting closed 0

Michael Dukakis, when governor, did do away with "happy hour" or drink specials of any kind, back in the early 80s. It is not too much of a stretch to think that his wife's situation colored his decision at least somewhat.

up
Voting closed 0

Massachusetts' happy hour ban was spurred by a grass-roots movement led by Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

So, yeah, it is a huge stretch to drag Kitty Dukakis into this. A shameful one, I'd add.

up
Voting closed 0

Its astroturf corporate lobbyist empire that advocates for mandatory educational programs for offenders that it happens to be the leading provider of, fueling really comfortable salaries for all employed. Lower alcohol limits means more offenders and more money for them (and lawyers), even to the point where such low alcohol values equal less impairment than many other things like being tired, talking with passengers, talking on the phone, changing radio stations etc. I don't advocate drinking and driving, but just want to be clear that MADD has a self interest that is putting money in its pocket and those of lawyers and lobbyists (and thus politicians).

up
Voting closed 0

Because the notion that MADD was some kind of NRA-style lobbying organization (meaning it exists to siphon millions out of frightened, ignorant suckers for its own profit, not for its self-stated altruistic purposes) in 1984, when it first started pushing for laws to help crimp drunk driving like the MA happy hour ban, sounds like more utter horseshit.

up
Voting closed 0

You can read how MADD was started by Candy Lightner in 1980, grew, and turned into a male- dominated, corporate temperance movement revival that fired her in 1985.

up
Voting closed 0

assertions with data from credible sources, especially given your track record here of talking through your hat.

You can start with this nasty theory that in 1984, MADD was just a devious scheme to reap that sweet, sweet driver's-ed money, not a grassroots movement of actual mothers grieving over kids killed by drunk drivers.

Without a credible citation, you'll just look like you always do: another mean-spirited putz with a hundred tired old right-wing axes to grind, one of which is besmirching Kitty Dukakis (of all people) at every opportunity.

up
Voting closed 0

The facts pretty much tell a tale of MADD morphing from being an anti-drunk-driving organization focused on getting drunk drivers off the road, to being a temperance organization focused on its own expansion and fundraising.
Among its more cringeworthy accomplishments:

  1. Thwarting any kind of fact-based policy making, by screwing up the underlying data collection: pressuring legislators, police, and traffic departments to grossly overstate the number of drunk driving accidents. For example, if you've had one beer in a bar, and then you are walking across the street, with the light, in the sidewalk, and a (sober) driver, speeding the wrong way up a one way street, plows through the intersection and kills you, that counts as an "alcohol-related motor vehicle fatality". (cite)
  2. A combative stance with respect to other traffic safety initiatives: " when a MADD official was asked how traffic fatality statistics involving cell phone use compared to those involving drunk drivers, he tellingly replied "I have absolutely no idea, nor do I care." The reason appears to be that MADD sees other causes of traffic accidents to be potential competitors for money and attention.(cite)
  3. Pretty significant opposition to basic constitutional rights, (same cite as above; lots of cites from there).
up
Voting closed 0

If the problem is drunk driving, then the answer is to ban happy hours in places without good public transit -- not everywhere. A happy hour in the South End or Somerville is much less likely to result in drunk driving than one in Billerica or Acton.

up
Voting closed 0

I can just envision the process it would take to determine what constitutes "good public transit". Don't you think every bar in the Commonwealth with a once-a-day bus would lobby for an exemption on those grounds? And you know, once you open that can of worms, you have to give them all a hearing. So now we have another hearing process for that, and more whining and moaning about bureaucracy, yadda yadda yadda. No thanks.

up
Voting closed 0

could be pretty easily defined as within 1/4 mile of a T station or along one of the 15 "Key" bus routes.

up
Voting closed 0

So this exemption would only be available to bars located in the greater Boston area? I'm sure that will be accepted without question by all the bar owners elsewhere in the state.

up
Voting closed 0

In 1989, Dukakis was briefly hospitalized after drinking rubbing alcohol.[9] In 1991, Dukakis published her memoir, Now You Know, in which she candidly discussed her ongoing battle with alcoholism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Dukakis

up
Voting closed 0

Your dredging up Kitty Dukakis's alcohol problem does nothing to support the nonsense claim that she had something to do with the Happy Hour ban. She did not. Who did? A little Internet searching would give you the answer:

The beginning of the end of Happy Hour occurred in the parking lot of a Braintree mall on the hot, dry, night of Sept. 9, 1983, according to press reports.

On that Friday night, Kathleen Barry, 20, of Weymouth, met her friends at Ground Round, where they had won free pitchers of beer in a “name that tune” game, according to a Boston Herald story and George McCarthy, then chairman of the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission.

After leaving the bar, Barry and a friend climbed on top of another friend’s 1975 Chevrolet sedan for a joy-ride around the King’s Plaza parking lot in Braintree, according to a Boston Herald account. Barry fell under the car and was dragged 50 feet, breaking her neck, arms and legs. The driver had consumed at least seven beers, according to the ABCC.

People on the South Shore were outraged about Barry’s death but the bar had broken no rules, and the local licensing board let it off with no violations, McCarthy said.

At that time, it was common for bars to offer bargain barrel drink specials and pitchers of beer as prizes for bar games, said Dan Matthews, who was then an associate ABCC commissioner, and is now a selectman in Needham.

After the public outcry, McCarthy held meetings, calling the restaurant’s waitresses as witnesses, to determine what led to the fatal incident.

If you keep reading, you'll find Gov. Dukakis's name, but you won't find his wife mentioned, at all. The story does mention that the Governor's brother was killed by a hit-and-run driver. Are you going to blame him for the ban?

up
Voting closed 0

Your dredging up Kitty Dukakis's alcohol problem does nothing to support the nonsense claim that she had something to do with the Happy Hour ban

...but it does give Markkkkkk a chance to make a giggly little gay joke, something he's been doing an awful lot of lately. Kind of like an eight-year-old who just learned about gay people.

up
Voting closed 0

...or of Washington DC, both of which also banned or limited happy hour around that time. I worked in bars & was relieved.

Virginia bars had some particularly asinine happy hour games. I remember a bar in Charlottesville that had a "Beat the Clock" happy hour: from 5:00 to 5:10, beers were a dime, at 5:10 they went to $.20, at 5:20 to $.40, and so on. The drinking age was still 18 or 19, so it was packed with UVA students trying to drink as much as possible until beers became full price.

Yeah, happy hour restriction was pretty much a common sense move.

up
Voting closed 0

Those old happy hours were a blast. I remember two for one night at the old 1270 on Boylston Street. On Tuesdays and Sundays if I recall. People were out and about then, meeting people the old way. No apps needed. I don't drink much now, but it seemed fun back then.

up
Voting closed 0

where there was a mix of all types. One place that called for cracking down on drinking back in the day (when the drinking age was 18) was the Hong Kong Lounge in Harvard Square. One could easily spot young patrons in the square wearing multiple lei's stumbling down the sidewalk or retching in an alley. I was there one time with friends and pointed out a guy at another table who was moments away from passing out into his scorpion bowl, and that's exactly what happened.

up
Voting closed 0

"I was there one time with friends"

up
Voting closed 0

Good Luck with that! I remember the battles over the crowds coming out of Jacques at closing. I don't think all these years later the neighborhood association gives a damn whether it's a gay or straight cabaret; drag queens or Anime costumed weird kids - they've been there done that. That'll be an interesting hearing to sit in on. Thanks for the heads up!

up
Voting closed 0

Minutes/Notes of the most recent Public Meeting and previous Public Meeting of the Boston Licensing Board are available, request at http://www.cityofboston.gov/contact/?id=105

Advocate any and all Minutes of each Public Meeting of each Boston Board/Commission be made available online!
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/pre/prepdf/guide.pdf

up
Voting closed 0

When I posted about the Wednesday hearing, I hadn't checked the violations hearings for the day before - which shows Jacques on the agenda for being nabbed having a food-serving license without any food or way to prepare it.

So on Tuesday, they have to answer the citation, then on Wednesday, they ask for permission to get rid of the food-serving part of their license.

up
Voting closed 0

At one time did many motion picture distributors have their offices in or around Bay Village?... And was there a glass window front building with a radio station broadcasting behind the big window so passersby could watch?

up
Voting closed 0

to both questions. The radio station was WMEX.

up
Voting closed 0

on food serving licenses and that the buying and selling of them was such a lucrative black market. Oh wait, it's just the Licensing Board justifying their bureauracy again with this "you actually need permission to stop serving food" silliness.

up
Voting closed 0

is that if people eat along with their drinks, it will slow the absorption of alcohol and result in less drunkenness, or at least less drunken behavior. But is this supported by evidence?

up
Voting closed 0

If you eat, preferably before drinking, it does slow down the absorption of alcohol. It does NOT prevent the total amount of alcohol from being absorbed eventually, but it probably prevents a lot of stupidity and bad judgment caused by alcohol getting on top of you super-fast. The process of eating probably also slows down the speed of alcohol intake as well, and if you don't have unlimited funds and you spend some of it on food, it will mean you spend less on booze.

up
Voting closed 0

it will slow the absorption of alcohol and result in less drunkenness, or at least less drunken behavior.

I don't think it has anything to do with that, but I'm just guessing.

I think the food requirement is written so that you don't have places that just serve booze. No pure barrooms. Again, just a guess.

Q: Has anybody ever eaten a pork hock from one of those jars that sit on the bar? Or the pickled hard boiled egg?

up
Voting closed 0

Q: Has anybody ever eaten a pork hock from one of those jars that sit on the bar? Or the pickled hard boiled egg?

This is a Thing in bars in upstate New York (where I grew up), where they still get eaten some of the time. I never ate a pickled thing from one of those foodservice jars, but the People's Pint in Greenfield MA used to have a house-made pickled andouille sausage that was one of the best bar snacks ever. I'm sad that it's gone.

up
Voting closed 0

IMAGE(http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/server3300/orh6t6/products/64/images/1269/rs_eggs_gal_front__65750.1405396816.1280.1280.jpg)

up
Voting closed 0

I was there last month and they had a "buffet" of cheese and crackers and cakes. Store-bought, but food was still served during the show.

up
Voting closed 0

ZONING COMMISSION, CITY OF BOSTON
MINUTES
Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Room 900, City Hall, Boston
Attendance
Commissioners
David Marr , Building Trade Employers’ Association Present
Robert L. Fondren, Chairman, Boston Society of Architects Present
Jay Hurley, Greater Boston Massachusetts Labor Council AFL/CIO Present

Vacancy, Neighborhood Representative

Vacancy, Neighborhood Representative

Nelson Arroyo, Mayor’s Selection Present
Jill Hatton, Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce Present
Jane Brayton, Neighborhood Association Present

James C. Clark, Vice Chairman, Mayor’s Selection Absent
John McDonnell, Mayor’s Selection Absent
Jared Wollaston, Greater Boston Real Estate Board Absent

Staff
Jeffery M. Hampton, Deputy Director for Zoning/Advisor to the Commission Present
Kathleen R. Pedersen, Secretary to the Commission Present

PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. Chairman Fondren opened the public hearing at 9:00 AM on Map Amendment Application No. 665 and a petition for approval of the Massachusetts General Hospital 2014 Institutional Master Plan Amendment (“IMP Amendment”), Map 1B, North Station Economic Development Area, by adding the designation “IMP,” indicating an Institutional Master Plan overlay district to the parcel of land located at 125 Nashua Street, Boston, owned by Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH). The proposed IMP Amendment would allow for the renovation of the existing structure for use as a 198,080 square foot administration building.

The following spoke in favor of the petition:
Sonal Gandhi, Project Manager, BRA
Nick Haney, Massachusetts General Hospital
Brian Doherty, Building & Construction Trades Council of the Metropolitan District

Mr. Hampton presented the petition to the Commission and stated that this was a petition to approve the Massachusetts General Hospital Institutional Master Plan Amendment dated December 12, 2014, and to amend “Map 1B, North Station Economic Development Area,” as depicted on “Map 1B/1J/1K/1L, North Station EDA, Bulfinch Triangle, Cambridge Street North, & North End Neighborhood District,” of the series of maps entitled “Zoning Districts City of Boston,” dated August 15, 1962, as amended, as follows:

By adding the designation “IMP,” indicating an Institutional Master Plan area to the parcel of land located at 125 Nashua Street, Boston.

The renovation of the approximately 198,080 square foot existing building at 125 Nashua Street (“the Proposed Project”) is included in the Massachusetts General Hospital (“MGH”) IMP.

Mr. Haney gave an overview of the permitting and redevelopment process of the 125 Nashua Street site. He stated that MGH assumed responsibility for the property at 125 Nashua Street in July 2013 after Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital vacated the site for its new location in Charlestown. The existing building is being renovated for use as a 198,080 square foot (sf) administration building, allowing MGH to consolidate existing administration employees from other MGH-owned and leased locations.

Mr. Haney presented images of the first floor plan, a typical floor plan as well as site photographs. He stated that the Proposed Project includes the interior renovation and a reduction in the building’s gross floor area, from approximately 199,628 sf to approximately 198,080 sf. The uses may include medical record storage facilities, physician and staff offices, accounting and financial offices, other administrative and support space and related accessory uses including but not limited to conference spaces, kitchens and eating areas, parking for up to approximately 98 vehicles (currently existent on site) and loading. The Proposed Project will also include bike racks and a shower (for staff), as well as passive recreational open space and a publically accessible dock (it will remain unchanged after the completion of the Proposed Project).

Commissioner Hatton asked about the water accessible area and the potential improvements and in particular the language used, “work with the City.” She also asked if the area would be accessible to the public.

Mr. Haney stated that the development team is working with the BRA in meeting all Chapter 91 requirements, including activating the publically accessible dock.

Commissioner Hatton requested that a map identifing all MGH owned parcels be submitted, stating that it would be helpful in understanding the context of the Proposed Project, akin to what Boston University generated and submitted to the Commission.

Mr. Haney stated that this would be provided.

Chairman Fondren asked where the employees, which will be working at the new facility are currently working.

Mr. Haney stated that the employees are currently working at two other locations as well as a smaller number from other locations.

Commissioned Marr asked about the construction schedule and subsequent occupancy date.

Mr. Haney stated that the renovation is nearly complete and as soon as the construction is complete employees would be occupying the space.

Brian Doherty spoke in favor of the petitions. He stated he represented the Building & Construction Trades Council of the Metropolitan District and that they were in support of the project, as MGH is a good partner to work with and the project will provide jobs for Boston workers.

Ms. Gandhi submitted a letter from the Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Services in support of the change. She further stated that the Mayor’s Office was happy that Massachusetts General Hospital will be reactivating the old Spaulding building for their employees as well as maintaining the public dock.

Ms. Gandhi submitted a second letter of support from Jay Walsh, Executive Director of the Downtown North Association, stating that the project will allow MGH to continue their mission of providing world-class medical care, research, teaching and giving back to the community. In conclusion he stated that the Downtown North Association strongly urges the Zoning Commission to approve the project.

There was no further discussion

.
Chairman Fondren declared the Petitioner’s case closed.

There was no opposition.

Chairman Fondren declared the hearing closed at 9:00 AM but, the matter could not be taken under advisement, as the requisite number of Commissioners were not present to have a quorum. The matter would be taken under advisement at a Business Meeting that would be scheduled immediately following the conclusion of the Hearing.

Chairman Fondren informed those in attendance of the need for a subsequent meeting and further stated that Notice would be posted by the City Clerk.

____________________Secretary

2. Chairman Fondren opened the public hearing in connection with a petition for the approval of the Fourth Amendment to Development Plan for Planned Area No. 56, The Fenway Mixed Use Project (“Fourth Amendment”) filed by the Boston Redevelopment Authority. Said Fourth Amendment would amend the Development Plan with respect to The Point Project, maximum building height, maximum floor area ratio, and specific language with respect to the affordable housing commitment.

The following spoke in favor of the petition:
Brian Doherty, Building & Construction Trades Council of the Metropolitan District
Tim Fandel, Plumbers & Gasfitters Local 12
Neil McKelligan, Ironworkers Local 7
Leslie Cohen, Samuels, Developer

Mr. Hampton presented the petition to the Commission and stated that this was a petition to approve the Fourth Amendment to Development Plan for Planned Development Area No. 56, The Fenway Mixed Use Project, dated February 26, 2015, and approved by the Boston Redevelopment Authority on February 26, 2015.

Said Fourth Amendment amends the “Development Plan for Planned Development Area No. 56, the Fenway Mixed Use Project”, approved by the Authority on March 28, 2002. And approved by the Zoning Commission on April 24, 2002, effective April 25, 2002. Planned Development Area No. 56 was designated on “Map 1, Boston Proper” of the series of maps entitled “Zoning Districts City of Boston” dated August 15, 1962, as amended, by Map Amendment No. 401, adopted by the Zoning Commission on April 24, 2002, effective April 25, 2002.

Ms. Cohen gave an overview of the permitting and redevelopment process of the Development Plan for Planned Development Area No. 56, The Fenway Mixed Use Project. She stated that the Point Building is anticipated to consist of 390,460 square feet. The number of gross square feet devoted to each use within the Point Project is dependent on the final use mix, but the Point Building is anticipated to include up to 25,000 gross square feet of retail uses and up to 375,000 gross square feet of residential uses. The Point Building is anticipated to consist of 360 residential units (a combination of apartments and homeownership units) above retail uses and residential lobby space on the first two levels. In addition the Point project is anticipated to include approximately 17,000 square feet of pedestrian level open space, a green roof and rooftop open space.

Commissioner Brayton asked where the lot line was moved from and where the residential drop off is proposed to be and if a curb cut would be required. She stated that currently the area is congested and in particular around the light at Boylston Street.

Ms. Cohen stated that the lot line was moved closer to the Trilogy Building.

Commissioner Brayton asked about the particulars of the truck turnaround, as it appeared to be a difficult turn and she also asked where the service area would be located.

Ms. Cohen described the proposed turnaround as being at the rear of the building and stated that the service area would be at the rear of the buildings as well (she identified both on the Site Plan).

Commissioner Hatton asked what the proposed height of the building was slated to be.

Ms. Cohen stated that the previously proposed height was 270 feet at the time that the project originally filed and currently it is designed to be 370 feet in height, which includes the rooftop mechanicals.

Commissioner Hatton asked if the building would now come out more.

Ms. Cohen stated that no the design had not changed in that regard.

Commissioner Hatton asked if there is a proposed increase to the FAR.

Ms. Cohen stated no, but that there is an increase in square footage as well as height.

Commissioner Marr asked if there would be street access and if there is proposed to be a two way street (east and west).

Ms. Cohen stated that Residents would be able to park in the Trilogy garage and would enter off Kilmarnick Street.

Commissioner Marr asked how pickups would occur.

Ms. Cohen stated that cars would circle around the building.

Chairman Fondren commented that he was shocked by the size of the project and that it is a very large building and he is aware of the anticipated views for the pedestrian walking experience, cars driving by and that he thought that the building on this site presented a jewel of an opportunity.

Ms. Cohen stated that when the Fenway area was rezoned that the parcel and deemed to be the “Gateway” parcel, with the intent of adding height at the corner and creation of a step-up in height.

Chairman Fondren stated that the impact that this building is likely to have a greater impact than those that have recently been constructed, as it can be viewed from all directions. He further commented that the design was proposed to be a glass curtain wall and the geometry.

Commissioner Brayton inquired about the Landmark project and a potential increase in height.

Ms. Cohen stated that the Landmark project will not include an increase in height.

Chairman Fondren asked if all of the Community Groups had viewed the project.

Ms. Cohen stated that they all of the Community Groups had viewed the project.

There was no further discussion

.
Chairman Fondren declared the Petitioner’s case closed.

There was no opposition.

Chairman Fondren declared the hearing closed but, the matter could not be taken under advisement, as the requisite number of Commissioners were not present to have a quorum. The matter would be taken under advisement at a Business Meeting that would be scheduled immediately following the conclusion of the hearing.

Chairman Fondren informed those in attendance of the need for a subsequent Business Meeting and stated that Notice would be posted by the City Clerk 48 hours in advance.

____________________Secretary

3. Chairman Fondren opened the public hearing in connection with Text Amendment Application No. 459 and Map Amendment Application No. 664, filed by the Boston Redevelopment Authority.

The following spoke in favor of the petitions:
Brian Doherty, Building & Construction Trades Council of the Metropolitan District

Mr. Hampton presented the petition to the Commission and stated that this was a petition to approve the extension to March 24, 2016, the period of time that Article 27D, governing the Downtown Interim Planning Overlay District, remains in effect; said period of time having been previously extended to March 24, 2013, by Text Amendments No. 144, No. 158, No. 178, No. 207, No. 207, No. 218, No. 223, No. 241, No. 251, No. 257, 264, No. 276, No. 281, No. 291, No. 303, No. 313, No. 323, No. 332, No. 345, No. 358, No. 363, No. 369, No. 379, No. 391 and No. 405, and previously under the provisions of Section 27-2.3 as amended by Text Amendments No. 115 and No. 125.

The extension affects the remaining area of the Downtown Interim Planning Overlay District (IPOD). The reaming area of said overlay district excludes from the original area of the district, as established by Map Amendment No. 211, and Text Amendment No. 98, the areas of the following subsequently adopted districts: established Midtown Cultural District, North and South Station Economic Development Areas, Huntington Avenue/Prudential Center District, Chinatown District, Leather District, Government Center/Markets District, Bulfinch Triangle District, Cambridge Street North District, and Bay Village Neighborhood District as the areas of those districts are shown, respectively, on Maps 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1G, 1H, 1J, 1K, and 1N of the series of maps entitled “Zoning Districts City of Boston.”

There was no further discussion

.
Chairman Fondren declared the Petitioner’s case closed.

There was no opposition.

Chairman Fondren declared the hearing closed but stated that the matter could not be taken under advisement, as the requisite number of Commissioners were not present to have a quorum. The matter would be taken under advisement at a Business Meeting that would be scheduled immediately following the conclusion of the hearing.

Chairman Fondren informed those in attendance of the need for a subsequent Business Meeting and that Notice would be posted by the City Clerk 48 hours in advance.

____________________Secretary

up
Voting closed 0

an establishment that serves liquor to also serve food.

Same reason the phone company used to impose an extra fee for touch tone service long after the lines were already set up for it by default.

Because they can!

up
Voting closed 0