ORDER-2015-118 : Petition to the Great and General Court to enact a Special Act to authorize the City of Melrose, acting through its Liquor License Commission, to issue licenses to table-service restaurants and function rooms with minimum seating capacities.

Transcript (~43 min @ 17:02)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 16:59 Peter D. Mortimer: Thank you very much, that's public participation, we usually don't get that much, and thank you for that point of order. The order before us is order 2015-118. It is a petition to the great and general court to enact a special act to authorize the city of Melrose, acting through its liquor license commission to issue licenses to table service restaurants and function rooms with minimum seating capacities offered by Mayor Dolan, now in the Appropriations Committee. And the great and general court, just for the listening ordinance, is the state legislature. That's what it's called under our general laws in Massachusetts. It's the state legislature to which this petition must go. We have Deputy Solicitor, excuse me, Deputy Solicitor David Lucas with us this evening. and we have our city solicitor Robert VanCampen as well gentlemen would you like to make an opening statement and if you do choose to make an opening statement perhaps you can address some of the issues raised by the public participants this evening I'd like to thank you mr. please proceed so we were

▶ 18:16 Speaker 4: here a couple weeks ago as you know and we presented this order to the board a a request was made to me to get a lot of information from some of some of our department heads regarding the use of alcohol in the city the effects of it to to to some extent i was able to get that from the city officials i did forward it to alderman Medeiros who requested it i believe she got it i didn't get a response okay good terrific and i sent it to ms harrington probably the most significant statistic that i learned from the police department was that in the last 10 years out of 183 there have been 183 arrests for operating under the influence in the city of melrose those could be people coming through melrose coming out of melrose coming to melrose out of 183 arrests in the last 10 years not one arrestee reported his or her last drink as at a Melrose restaurant. There was one person whose last drink was at a Melrose establishment. It was actually the VFW, one of the private clubs in Melrose, but not one came from a Melrose restaurant, which suggests that our business owners are doing their job for the most part. I think Mr. Van Kampen wants to discuss what happened at Corinthian hall i will note this corinthian hall is not a license holder in the city if a restaurant had done if that had happened at a restaurant without any fault of the license holder that license holder would still have to come before the liquor commission they would most likely be fined their license would most likely be suspended and their hours of operation could be decreased among other things I'll let mr. van Kampen talk about the specifics of Corinthian Hall but I just want to reiterate they aren't a license holder if they were not only would it be addressed criminally but it would be addressed by by the city's Liquor Commission who enforces it also in the outdoor seating arrangement which is a concern of many people it started with one establishment right on Main Street with some elderly housing right behind it that caused some complaints when those complaints arose that restaurant was immediately ordered to stop its outdoor entertainment to keep the noise level down any request for outdoor seating or a renewal at the end of the year that in license renewal that involves any outdoor seating arrangement must be approved by the Liquor Commission ahead of time in a public hearing process so for example let's say that in the Highlands one of the restaurants there gets a liquor license and they manage to come up with some outdoor seating plan in their own minds they still have to come before the Liquor Commission and get that plan approved that is a publicized public hearing where any resident can come before that Commission and say this is what our concern is about this noise level and if there's a come and if if if the commission were to approve the license and a noise complaint happened a few weeks down the road the commission can call that license holder right back before them and require them to address those issues and maybe cancel that outdoor seating plan based on that point of

▶ 21:45 Gail Infurna: information yes all the minutes please and it is a question thank you um would um the petitioner also have to go to the building department to get any sort of um you know for zoning or code

▶ 21:53 Speaker 4: outdoor for outdoor seating most likely yeah yeah most likely that's not now that's in fairness that's not a public hearing process but anybody who's con any member of the public who's concerned about outdoor seating they will have a chance to be heard before the liquor commission and and

▶ 22:07 Peter D. Mortimer: since since the door is open i'll briefly ask and that would have to be on their own private property could not be on a city sidewalk correct thank you please proceed um and to the to the

▶ 22:18 Speaker 5: issue uh regarding corinthian hall i just want to make the members who are in the public aware that this issue came to my office's attention early today and as mr lucas said earlier corinthian hall is not a licensed establishment in the city so this was not this is not a situation where a liquor licensee has fallen outside the bounds of their license this is a very different situation there are multiple city agencies that are looking into this right now and the full weight of City Hall will be brought to bear on the participants as well as the owner of the building as to what happened over the weekend in an effort that it never happens again but just so everyone understands Corinthian Hall does not have a liquor license or an entertainment license from the City

▶ 23:07 Peter D. Mortimer: of Melrose it was a one-day license there it was not even a one-day license

▶ 23:09 Speaker 5: it was a fly-by-night operation mr. chairman thank you any further opening

▶ 23:15 Peter D. Mortimer: comments before we proceed to questions and comments from the alderman I'm

▶ 23:26 Peter D. Mortimer: seeing none which alderman would like to proceed initially president Khan please

▶ 23:35 Speaker 2: yeah I just have a couple of things I think based on our long long discussion last time we met and reviewed this order I think we've created some confusion as it relates to what the public thinks that we're acting on here what we're doing has nothing to do with approving or disapproving of outdoor seating is that correct mr. Van Campen that's correct and is outdoor seating now

▶ 24:01 Speaker 5: currently permissible in Melrose it is within the confines of the existing liquor regulations that were recently revised by the liquor commission and mr. Lucas can speak more intelligently than I can to that issue but that was a very public process I know some of the folks who participated this this evening in public participation also participated in front of the mayor's liquor advisory group that was an issue that was addressed in the liquor regulations as well as a number of other issues that were addressed to accommodate what is now being requested by this board which is to lower the seating thresholds so

▶ 24:35 Speaker 2: So just so everybody's clear, people can apply for and be granted outdoor licenses with outdoor seating as we all sit here today. Is that correct? That's correct. And nothing that we're going to vote on relates in any way to outdoor seating. We're only voting relative to the number of seats.

▶ 24:48 Speaker 5: Correct. Outdoor seating is within the purview of the Liquor Commission.

▶ 24:51 Speaker 2: And I just want to make another thing clear. Nobody has a right to put seats on public sidewalks. Is that not correct? Correct. And I would assume and hope that if seating is placed on public sidewalks, that city officials would tell whoever is doing that to cease and desist.

▶ 25:09 Speaker 5: Correct. If members ever see a seat on a public sidewalk or any other obstruction on a public sidewalk, it is there only with the permission of the Director of Public Works.

▶ 25:20 Speaker 2: Okay. So to the extent that anybody is putting seats on public sidewalks, they're not acting within any license that's been granted by the City of Melrose. Correct. and nothing that we do is going to allow anybody to obstruct a public sidewalk with seating correct and if that's going on it's going to be looked into and will be dealt with i would hope absolutely

▶ 25:43 Speaker 2: okay so um what i wanted to do is make sure that what we do here is focus on the issue that's before us and the issue that's before us is a whether we want to decrease the requirements of seating for beer and wine and all alcohol licenses in the city of melrose we talked about that for a long time last time we were here and b we want to talk about what we think the appropriate number of alcohol licenses for the city of melrose would be and i'm not going to go over what i said the last

▶ 26:21 Speaker 2: time but in brief if we pass the statute and we reduce these numbers as it currently stands 28 additional licenses could be issued for either beer and wine or all alcohol is that correct correct and in my judgment i've said it before i said it from the beginning of this discussion i said it to the mayor before this got to us it's too many it's too many alcohol licenses for the city of melrose at the present time uh 28 licenses in these small business districts where we permit restaurants uh is too much and i do not support this order as currently constituted because of that i think that if we and nobody here can know how many licenses will be granted if we relax the limitations none of us know maybe maybe no licenses will be issued maybe 28 i would believe that it would be closer to 28 than zero but that's the issue and that's why i can't support this order as it was sent down to us is because 28 licenses is too much for melrose restaurants are only permitted along the main street corridor and in the business districts in our squares and 28 licenses is too much for us to handle at this point in time issues that we heard about tonight i believe would be running rampant in the event that we issued that many licenses you know i would support a more moderate proposal but i can't support the order as it's currently sitting before us and i would not vote again i would not vote in favor of the order as as presented.

▶ 28:08 Peter D. Mortimer: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE. Thank you, President Kahn.

▶ 28:12 Speaker 2: MR. That's it for now. CHAIRMAN BERNANKE. MR. Yes, yes.

▶ 28:17 Peter D. Mortimer: CHAIRMAN BERNANKE. MR. I could continue on if you'd like, but I figured I'd give you a break.

▶ 28:19 Speaker 6: MR.

▶ 28:20 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: Oh, I said thank you, President Kahn. Alderman Lehman. MS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Lucas, for all the information that you provided us. It was a lot of information. It was very helpful. They weren't my questions, but I still found them to be very — it helped to confirm my support actually for this change. I think that it showed that the city has been very careful and very thoughtful in the way that it has looked at the licenses that are issued, the compliance checks that are done through federal grants that we have, and the safety measures, which has been confirmed by the information that you just provided with the OUIs in town. The concern about the number of licenses was raised by quite a few aldermen in our last meeting and again now by by President Kahn to have 28 licenses and how many would be used as a result of that change where we have eight only eight being used right now with the number of seating that we have I agree that that's a lot of licenses for the size of our city and for the size of the neighborhoods that we might see more restaurants coming into and the formula that mr. Nevin gave and the information that you provided a restaurant would have to have about 1,300 square feet in order to have 50 seats if I'm doing my math correctly which I believe I am that's pretty that's pretty big and I think that the availability of spaces in Mauro's with that of that size would naturally serve to limit the the number of licenses that could be issued but we don't have to leave it to that chance in case more space is found and and through this home rule petition process we do have the option of reducing the number of licenses that the city has Alderman Wright who couldn't be here with with us in this meeting tonight but he's aware that we've discussed and that I would mention during this meeting that he and I have had discussions about this as an option and and we discussed cutting the number in half to 14 which I believe is the statutory minimum for liquor licenses and then we discussed leaving it around leaving it at six for wine and malt beverages because there are some smaller spaces that might want to have that limited menu so I would actually like to make a motion to amend the home rule petition that we are considering tonight to add two sections please I'd like to make motion to add section two after section one stating notwithstanding the provisions of section 17 of chapter 138 of the general laws or any other general or special law to the contrary the number of licenses for the sale of all forms of alcoholic beverages under said section 12 of said chapter 138 shall be 14. And section 3, notwithstanding the provisions of section 17 of chapter 138 of the general laws or any other general or special law to the contrary, the number of licenses for the sale of wines and malt beverages under said section 12 of said chapter 138 shall be 6. And then creating a section 4 which includes this act shall take effect upon its passage which was already written into the whole room for the petition.

▶ 31:40 Peter D. Mortimer: Very good. Second. Okay, we have a second from Alderman Inferna. Does everyone have that? And most importantly, does our clerk of committees, do you have that all? I have the gist. You got the gist, all right, and you'll be able to get that subsequently. But I think everybody in the room understands the gist, very well put, of what your motion to amend is, and duly seconded by Alderman Inferna. um we're still in general discussion so we can continue discussing um the amendment at this point before we proceed to the order so the discussions are simultaneous and they they run parallel so comments please we'll proceed with alderman Tramontozzi yeah i just have a a question

▶ 32:26 John N. Tramontozzi: directed to alderman Lemmerman your proposal to re reducing the number of liquor licenses to 14 that's full liquor licenses then reducing the number to six for beer and alcohol does that include those currently licensed in that uh calculation or is that on top of that's including

▶ 32:48 John N. Tramontozzi: including and um do we if i can address the um please do um through the chat thank you uh do we does the license holders the uh establishments that are currently licensed holders are they below this number um what do you mean below that number below the number of licenses that right

▶ 33:10 John N. Tramontozzi: that way below okay all right so it's not like it's going to cut anybody out who currently has

▶ 33:15 Speaker 4: one no i think i think the mayor's already heard um has already heard rumor of the proposed amendment he supports it and i would suggest this really is uh an order designed uh to economically benefit the city i don't see any detriment to that amendment to it at all mr van campen if you

▶ 33:31 John N. Tramontozzi: Do you have a legal opinion as to whether or not this can be added into this special act before it's submitted to the legislature?

▶ 33:40 Speaker 5: Yeah, I spoke to President Conner earlier today, and the mayor, as Mr. Lucas said, is fully supportive of the amendment. Currently, Melrose can issue up to 28, as I understand it, section 12 all alcohol licenses and six wine and malt beverage licenses. The all alcohols are based on 1,000th of your population and the wine and malt are based on 5,000 increments. If this passes in the form of the proposed amendment, it wouldn't conflict with state law because it would by itself stand alone as state law as a special act, so there's no issue there in terms of its legality, if that's your question. Yes. And again, as I said earlier, the mayor fully supports it.

▶ 34:22 Speaker 7: Okay, great. Thank you.

▶ 34:25 Peter D. Mortimer: Thank you very much, Alderman Tramontozzi. And just for the sake of clarity, before we proceed, right now, all I can think of, just off the top of my head, is there's one beer and wine license in Melrose, only two?

▶ 34:38 Speaker 4: Ocean Sushi. All right. And Tubas, correct.

▶ 34:41 Peter D. Mortimer: And Tubas, yes. And Tubas is got there. So there'll be-

▶ 34:44 Speaker 4: Oh, and Spice, you're right, Spice Tie of Melrose as well.

▶ 34:46 Peter D. Mortimer: Spice Tie, they only have beer and wine. Correct. All right, so there are three now, so there'd be three more beer and wine available, and then there'd be- There currently are.

▶ 34:56 Speaker 5: three beer and wine available for restaurants under state law with or without any action by

▶ 35:01 Peter D. Mortimer: this board right yeah but with the lower numbers and then there'd be 14 for hard liquor on top of that or eight more for hard and liquor there would be 14 14 more but just to clarify there are

▶ 35:17 Speaker 5: currently eight all alcohol licenses six all alcohol licenses in the city those existing six would be issued within the confines of the 14. so there would be additional licenses available so

▶ 35:27 Peter D. Mortimer: there'd be eight more correct exactly that that's that's what i was thinking so there'd be eight more allowed for that and and that would require the 50 seats correct very good is everyone clear on it i think so uh would any other alderman like to uh ask any questions or make any comments

▶ 35:49 Peter D. Mortimer: the floor is open for a motion okay we'll have we'll have a vote on the

▶ 35:56 Peter D. Mortimer: amendment first discussion mr. chairman yes further discussion on the amendment

▶ 36:08 Speaker 2: thank you so in the event that the amendment passes mr. van Kampen it would reduce the total number of licenses from 28 to 20 within the city correct well if

▶ 36:18 Speaker 5: you look at it in terms of the aggregate wine and malt and all alcohol technically you currently can issue up to 34 28 all alcohol and six wine and malt if the amendment passes the city of melrose would be authorized to issue 14 all alcohol and six wine and malt okay so essentially we'd be

▶ 36:37 Speaker 2: reducing the the full license by almost a fourth correct and is there would be three beer and wine

▶ 36:50 Speaker 2: licenses that would be available right now they currently are okay well one of my principal concerns is if we pass this order um we're going down to a 25 seat minimum relative to beer and wine licenses i was very concerned about a multiplicity of beer and wine licenses being issued based on the 25 seat minimum i agree that the full alcohol license in melrose the criteria would be hard harder to meet because it's more difficult to find buildings that are amenable to alcohol and restaurant use that are large enough to accommodate that um i i can can support the amendment that's been put forward this evening i i was concerned about beer and wine license primarily and i was concerned about uh certain of our neighborhoods having multiple licenses issued within a proximity of one another and of residential neighborhoods this gross number of licenses has been something Something that's been of concern to me since this whole discussion started. I'm glad that the administration is supportive of this compromise. I think that hopefully this will allow us to go forward, maybe give some type of stimulation to businesses within Melrose without subjecting our residents, particularly in residential neighborhoods, some of the neighborhoods that have been discussed, huge problems. hopefully the things that that people in the neighborhoods have discussed tonight are aberrations and that we will not see more of this stuff hopefully the city and the licensing authority will take their obligations very seriously relative to these matters i would assume that if somebody was operating an unlicensed event and serving liquor that that will be dealt with with very severely and i would hope that throughout the city if we have people who are obstructing our public sidewalks with seating that that be remedied forthwith but i'm going to support the amendment i'm happy to see us cut the number of licenses that would be available by eight and if we don't have dire consequences and this works well down the road then maybe some future board of aldermen can revisit this but i think that this is a reason compromise at this point and i'm going to vote in favor of the amendment thank you very much

▶ 39:30 Peter D. Mortimer: president khan alderman mcateer my goal is please um thank you mr chairman i think it's a good

▶ 39:34 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: amendment i just want to make sure i'm clear on it um and i thank alderman Lehman for bringing it forward tonight so currently the 28 licenses that we have are for our full full liquor and we have six beer and wine in addition to that so this is going to reduce that 28 to 14 and remain at 6 for beer and wine and we have three that have been issued now already for beer and wine so there's really only three more available no matter what we did essentially but it is going to take down the number of full alcohol from um 28 to half of that which is significant is that is that i have

▶ 40:27 Speaker 5: my math right 28 to 20. 28 to 14. actually it's 34 to 20 if you use 34 to 20. yeah i get it right

▶ 40:36 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: right right so okay thank you thank you i think it's a great compromise thank you

▶ 40:41 Peter D. Mortimer: Any further Alderman wishing to be heard? On the motion to amend, all in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, hearing none, the order as amended is now before us.

▶ 40:54 Speaker 3: Motion to recommend as amended.

▶ 40:56 Peter D. Mortimer: Second. Second. We have a motion to recommend as amended from Alderman Aferna, duly seconded by Alderman Boycelle. On discussion, Alderman Medeiros please.

▶ 41:05 Monica C. Medeiros: Thank you. you i want to especially thank uh mr lucas for getting right on and asking for the information that we requested at the last meeting and i did receive it and our clerk of committees i know also received it and did forward it on to the board of aldermen just in technicality i didn't realize that that hadn't gotten added to the official order since it had come in our email so i'd like to make a motion first of all to add uh the correspondence from mr lucas that he had obtained from various city officials including our building department our director of health um our police department to the official of the uh mr nevin from liquor licensing commission

▶ 41:54 Peter D. Mortimer: to this order would you like to exert excerpt any of the names of any particular establishments some of those matters weren't convictions they you know they weren't subject to a full hearing maybe we could uh i i react maybe we could redact a couple of names out of the record i think this

▶ 42:09 Monica C. Medeiros: is all part of the public record if i'm not correct from things that were said in in court about different uh very well places where so for instance what uh our chairman is is referring to is um we have a letter from um lieutenant maher at the police department uh mentioning the various arrests that are alcohol related that have happened and occurred within the city and as as our attorney uh sir lucas had mentioned that they didn't mention places within the city of melrose but they did mention by name and i think these these names of nearby establishments

▶ 43:03 Monica C. Medeiros: and some in boston some in malden some in saugus had been and so on had been mentioned in court and

▶ 43:11 Peter D. Mortimer: so that was part of the public record uh very good uh there is a motion on the floor right now to add I'm glad all of the documents very ably provided by, excuse me, Attorney Lucas to the record. And the motion is waiting for a second, if there is one. Second. And it is duly seconded by Alderman Boycelle. And on that motion, I first saw President Kahn's hand. Please proceed, President Kahn.

▶ 43:37 Speaker 2: Yeah, actually I have a question for Mr. Van Campen. Are all these documents, in fact, public records?

▶ 43:44 Speaker 5: If they are utilized as part of this meeting, which I presume Alderman Medeiros is proposing be done, then they would become part of the official record of this meeting and therefore would be public record.

▶ 43:57 Speaker 2: I mean, as they exist prior to any action by this board.

▶ 43:58 Speaker 4: I would say even prior to action by this board, if I may answer, Mr. Conn. These are subject to a public records request, regardless. There's not confidential information in it.

▶ 44:10 Speaker 2: They're presumed to be public records. random alcohol purchases that were not part of any court proceeding are you

▶ 44:20 Speaker 5: referring to the memo from lieutenant Maher I'm referring to the memo relative

▶ 44:23 Speaker 2: to checks to see whether underage individuals were there are no names and

▶ 44:29 Speaker 4: in there are no names involved in the report the only the only thing that's been reported that names any person or any establishment is which establishments served someone their last drink before the person was arrested for operating a motor vehicle under the influence that's all very good Thank You

▶ 44:52 Peter D. Mortimer: President Kahn we have this motion to add the documents provided by attorney Attorney Lucas, to the jacket, to the record of this order. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, those documents will be added to the record. And you do still have the floor, Alderman Medeiros, so proceed with any further comments.

▶ 45:17 Monica C. Medeiros: Thank you. I wanted to, some of my concerns last week

▶ 45:33 Monica C. Medeiros: I have been in particular in regard to enforcement, and I'm glad to see that we do have some information here that we see that there have been checks. Let's say it's about twice a year, and that from Ms. Clay, and I believe that that's underage

▶ 45:49 Speaker 4: drinking checks.

▶ 45:53 Monica C. Medeiros: My question is, what happens to ... Is anybody checking ... And I know Mr. Nevin's correspondence referred to maybe establishments sometimes not adhering to our rules not necessarily in regard to underage drinking but in terms of you know some of the rules and regulations that the Liquor License Commission has

▶ 46:13 Speaker 8: promulgated like you know food or whether or not say whether or not a

▶ 46:17 Monica C. Medeiros: restaurant is serving an individual food and up until a few weeks ago that was supposed to be a full meal now that's just something off the menu item is Is anybody, is anybody in, like who regulates that? And is anybody going into these establishments and checking to see if this is happening?

▶ 46:41 Monica C. Medeiros: And if so, is there any kind of check? Is it, I know we had this discussion years and years back when we were looking at the first change in the number of seats. And I really recall being told it was the police department, but

▶ 46:59 Monica C. Medeiros: don't think that they're there I don't think that they're doing that so whose responsibility is that to do that well it's the liquor excuse me it's the

▶ 47:05 Speaker 4: Liquor Commission's responsibility to enforce it now obviously we can't expect each liquor Commissioner to go to each restaurant exactly go to each restaurant every single night to check these kinds of things I will tell you that we've invited every license holder I may have mentioned this two weeks ago we've invited we've mandated every license holder to come to City Hall for a meeting on May I was why I was I wasn't playing with my phone and texting while you're talking I was looking for the date May 4 on Monday to all come here so that we can go over with them very clearly what the new regulations are that have been adopted so that they understand that these things will be enforced and keep in mind they many business owners came to us confidentially with concerns that they felt that some things were not being uniformly enforced others were very surprised to hear what the rules were and when they found out posted signs right up in their restaurant that said you may not drink here unless you order a meal I can think of one in particular so I think you'll find that whether or not checks are done by the Liquor Commission I think you'll find that the license holders after May 4 given all the attention that this has gotten are going to do a darn good job in following the rules that's my hope but I'll put my reputation on it and I don't think we

▶ 48:27 Monica C. Medeiros: quite got to I do think that the amendment that Alderman Lehman proposed I think that will certainly help some of this now certainly should this order go

▶ 48:40 Speaker 8: forward the businesses that have the beer and wine only licenses right now

▶ 48:44 Monica C. Medeiros: would be eligible to apply to receive a full liquor license correct so different places possibly correct so we just keep that in mind but you know certainly is that I've gone back and forth on this because I you know I've I've had certainly had concerns that 25 seats is very very small and I know that this is going you know the the goal in many ways is to bring this these kinds of businesses and restaurants into our residential neighborhoods so it will make some of the smaller business districts more vibrant and of course part of vibrancy is just that vibrancy if we can and you know if we're allowing

▶ 49:38 Monica C. Medeiros: allowing and addressing outdoor seating, we know that there may be more opportunities for

▶ 49:53 Monica C. Medeiros: restaurants, especially as we may have some new construction for outdoor seating. The number of seats required for these licenses,

▶ 50:04 Monica C. Medeiros: is there, there's nothing in our laws that say they have to be indoor seats.

▶ 50:10 Speaker 4: Is there? There is. There is. outdoor seating cannot be included as part of the minimum seating yeah is that

▶ 50:14 Monica C. Medeiros: in our liquor license Commission regulation yes and I am tempted and

▶ 50:26 Speaker 4: would like to have because that's a very good point that's something that that we came up with was that concern that some restaurants may have five seats inside and have a sprawling table outside so we made it very clear in the regulations excuse me the Commission made it clear in the regulations that outdoor seating cannot be counted as part of the minimum seating for the purposes of

▶ 50:45 Speaker 8: establishing that minimum I would like to see that if possible in in our orders

▶ 50:48 Monica C. Medeiros: and I'm considering making an amendment to this in section 1 where it says function rooms having a seating capacity of to amend that to say instead of a to make it an indoor seating capacity would that limit my only concern with with

▶ 51:19 Speaker 4: putting it into the general law would be requiring a definition of what is indoor a definition what is outdoor where the indoor seating must be what we tried to do with the liquor Commission's regulations was define it sufficiently enough that we know that the seating has to be within perfect view of the inside of the restaurant and all the employees of the restaurant and how they can enter and exit and it took a long process to get there generally speaking I don't see anything wrong with putting in the general law but I think if you do that you will end up with you you could I shouldn't say you will you could end up with a business trying to figure out a loophole of how to get around that if

▶ 51:58 Speaker 4: something's a covered seat does that outdoor indoors you know I mean that's my only concern but like I said any outdoor seating has to go through the liquor Commission after a public hearing and it's crystal clear in their regulations that you can't use outdoor seating as part of your minimum it

▶ 52:18 Speaker 4: didn't say that before it does now since they amended it and I and I thank the

▶ 52:21 Monica C. Medeiros: Commission for addressing that because that's something is that's been coming

▶ 52:32 Speaker 8: up on that note how about can we go back to ours and what happened so right now

▶ 52:42 Monica C. Medeiros: our regulations do not allow liquor licenses the restaurants with liquor licenses to operate beyond 11 p.m. that's 12 a.m. Thursday through Saturday

▶ 52:58 Monica C. Medeiros: 12 a.m. Thursday through Saturday and if we have a situation where you know we

▶ 53:03 Monica C. Medeiros: have a restaurant that has a license that allows them to stay open and

▶ 53:17 Speaker 8: serving alcohol until 12 a.m. and you know let's say there's noise coming from

▶ 53:22 Monica C. Medeiros: either within or without with you know either within or from the patrons in

▶ 53:29 Monica C. Medeiros: directly outside of this establishment that you know especially after say 10 p.m where our noise ordinance cuts off what can we do to but what kinds of protections are in place to make sure

▶ 53:46 Speaker 4: that this doesn't disturb our neighbors if people are disturbed they call the liquor commission or they call they call city hall they call the law department and you know i mean obviously in the

▶ 53:54 Speaker 4: evening they're not working i just and one i just want to qualify what i said if it's a beer and wine license the hours are only until um 10 p.m for beer and wine only i think to your larger

▶ 54:06 Speaker 5: point though alderman if a licensee has a problem in their establishment and it's prior to closing time is that where you're going is that what your question was yeah i think the recourse if it's a saturday night and it's 10 30 and patrons are being loud is to do what any reasonable person would do and call the police department and have that issue address addressed by the police department which i assume is what obviously happened at corinthian hall this weekend i i

▶ 54:34 Monica C. Medeiros: happen to have a constituent call that not with us this evening

▶ 54:43 Monica C. Medeiros: who was told that there was really by the police this is of course in his words that there was nothing that they could do because the business could stay open until midnight um but what i can

▶ 54:55 Speaker 5: what i can tell you is not to get into too many details the issue that happened over the weekend will be addressed by multiple city agencies and any city agency that didn't act appropriately

▶ 55:11 Monica C. Medeiros: will be addressed just just to make you know make things clear because these are the kinds of things

▶ 55:20 Monica C. Medeiros: that that can happen I know I so I I thank you very much I've been on a hunt to go out and and I have to say I honestly I don't think we're going to get too many places that really have 25 seats even if we we do do this I've been kind of on a hunt to I think I mentioned at the last meeting I've been counting seats everywhere I go and I found that you know I get to a certain point and I get to 25 and I said geez that's not very big but then I realized that I haven't yet been to a place that only had 25 seats and I can't seem to find one even in our surrounding communities although I'm sure that there are so I tend to think that it's probably not that economically viable for too many restaurants to operate with so few seats um i'd still like to think about this a little bit more

▶ 56:14 Monica C. Medeiros: but i i do appreciate the information and welcome some suggestions if anybody can find some restaurants to check out and before our next meeting thank you thank you alderman medeiros

▶ 56:31 Peter D. Mortimer: further amendment in order mr chairman a further amendment is in order at this time mr president

▶ 56:34 Speaker 2: I would move that prior to passage of the order that we have an opinion from the city solicitor indicating that this is in fact a lawful action by the board. I want to make sure that whatever we pass is legal and not subject to challenge.

▶ 56:52 Peter D. Mortimer: Would there be a second on the president's motion please? Duly seconded by Alderman McAteer-Margolis. No. Alderman Medeiros. I'm sorry, we're both so close together. couldn't discern who spoke the motion was seconded for the record by alderman medeiros and the motion is that we get a ruling on the record from our city solicitor that the action we are about to take here is in fact a proper and legal action for this board of aldermen to make uh could you affirmatively state that for the record i can i'm not sure if alderman president

▶ 57:29 Speaker 5: khan wants that in writing from my office uh yeah i would like it can i if assuming pat assuming the If the committee recommends this to the full board for Monday night, can I present that written opinion on Monday evening? Certainly. Okay, I can do that.

▶ 57:38 Peter D. Mortimer: So we'll have that in the jacket for the May 4th meeting of the full board of aldermen. If this motion does get recommended for passage at that full board. The order as amended twice, everybody understands the amendments. They've been made abundantly clear.

▶ 57:58 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: Are we voting on the amendment?

▶ 58:03 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: amendment has been voted on the first amendment was voted on president Kahn's

▶ 58:07 Peter D. Mortimer: amendment all in favor please say aye aye any opposed hearing none the order as twice amended is now before us is there any further discussion or

▶ 58:23 Monica C. Medeiros: commentary Alderman Medeiros please one more thing I did see that mr. Johnson had mentioned that he didn't have the information in terms of the number of restaurants that were currently had the seating capacity regardless of their type but he had suggested that the city clerk does have that can we please request that information from the city clerk's office sure I think that what

▶ 58:52 Speaker 4: would mr. Johnson was trying to suggest is that it comes through victual er's license so this board would actually be the ones that would have the record of it so uh you know

▶ 59:00 Monica C. Medeiros: through through you then mr chairman if we can request that our city clerk obtain that information and present it to us very good thank you thank you madam clerk of committees we can

▶ 59:19 Peter D. Mortimer: arrange that to get that from our city clerk the motion has twice amendment as twice amended with both amendments made this evening passing is now before us is there any further discussion or commentary seeing none we are now ready for the vote to recommend this order for passage

▶ 59:36 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: i don't know that anyone really motion or recommend is amended second okay we have a

▶ 59:39 Peter D. Mortimer: motion to recommend as amended yep that's what i was getting through is uh and we have the motion to recommend the order as amended from alderman mcateer my goal is that you alderman lemmerman who seconds the motion seeing no further discussion all in favor please say aye aye aye

▶ 1:00:00 Monica C. Medeiros: any opposed hearing none i'd like to abstain for the time being and we have one abstention

▶ 1:00:02 Peter D. Mortimer: so we have one two three four five six seven eight uh recommending this order for passage this order will be recommended for passage at our full board uh the next full board meeting is on may 4th so that is the gravelman of the business for this order this evening and we are concluded with this order thank you thank you very much gentlemen for coming and thank you for standing by lady and gentleman mr nevin from the liquor commission kelly cargerman from the liquor commission is there a motion to adjourn please second we have a motion to adjourn from mary beth That's McAteer-Margolis. Second. Duly seconded by Alderman Boycelle. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, we are now adjourned. Thank you, one and all.