Success!--- after-dinner edit
Jan. 26th, 2009 07:57 pmAfter a somewhat contentious hearing, the Armory received its entertainment license! Score!!!!
The big concern of opponents- ok, maybe not necessarily opponents, but concerned neighbors- was noise.
Debra, the head of the arts organization for the Armory, did a good job of laying out for the Board the process that was undertaken to bring the project to fruition. There were numerous meetings with members of the community/neighbors, consultants, the local Alderman, and the various city agencies.
In the end, there was a list of 41 Conditions drawn up as operating guidelines for the Armory governing hours of operation, (until 10pm for the Armory and a cafe which still sounds like is being planned and must be further licensed by the Board of Health) parking, and noise.
The Board heard opponents first. One woman just wanted to say she was opposed but did not wish to speak. Then, 2 gentlemen spoke. One was a "Mr Sullivan" and I believe his name is John Sullivan. (In an article that popped up on Google, it mentioned Sullivan, a former candidate for the Ward 5, as an opponent of the project who has right from the get-go questioned Joseph's intentions for the project.) Tonight's hearing was no different.
He and the other gentleman (never caught his name- I think his first name was Jimmy) accused Debra and Joseph Sater (co-owner of the Middle East in Cambridge and owner of the Armory) of reneging on an earlier pledge that there would be no bands playing amplified music at the venue. Joseph said that there was never any agreement of the sort. Another neighbor complained about the "loud classical music" coming from the yoga studio in the Armory. One other woman was not happy that concerts might attract as many as 300 people and that after the show, there would be.... well, she didn't exactly say.
In considering their decision, the Board looked over the 41 Conditions and noted that I believe it was 9 of them (it was extremely difficult to hear since--- ha ha ha-- there were no microphones at the hearing and the heating system was ungodly loud.) dealt strictly with noise. Joseph had also pointed out that after earlier concerns were made about noise, he spent $16,000 to install soundproofing (fireproof, for those who are wondering/concerned) to cut down on the noise. Also, Debra pointed out that just this past week, a sound company conducted tests on the noise levels.
All the while I was doodling in my notebook "You darn kids and your rock and roll music!!!"
There was another issue brought up- Mr. Sullivan accused Joseph of running unlicensed events in the space. Apparently, a couple of groups jumped the gun and sent out invites for events long before the space was ready to go. Joseph seemed a tad bit exasperated at that one, holding out his arms and telling the Board that he has too much experience to risk running afoul of the law like that.
The Board listened to supporters and there was some brief back & forth before the vote was taken and the license granted. The Board did advise opponents that if they feel the Armory is stepping outside the agreement or is in some way violating the law- excessive noise, for example, that they can call the police, notify the city, or file an official complaint.
So, it was a victory, but an uneasy one, and the Armory folks are really going to have to be on their toes because they will be watched very closely by their neighbors.
The big concern of opponents- ok, maybe not necessarily opponents, but concerned neighbors- was noise.
Debra, the head of the arts organization for the Armory, did a good job of laying out for the Board the process that was undertaken to bring the project to fruition. There were numerous meetings with members of the community/neighbors, consultants, the local Alderman, and the various city agencies.
In the end, there was a list of 41 Conditions drawn up as operating guidelines for the Armory governing hours of operation, (until 10pm for the Armory and a cafe which still sounds like is being planned and must be further licensed by the Board of Health) parking, and noise.
The Board heard opponents first. One woman just wanted to say she was opposed but did not wish to speak. Then, 2 gentlemen spoke. One was a "Mr Sullivan" and I believe his name is John Sullivan. (In an article that popped up on Google, it mentioned Sullivan, a former candidate for the Ward 5, as an opponent of the project who has right from the get-go questioned Joseph's intentions for the project.) Tonight's hearing was no different.
He and the other gentleman (never caught his name- I think his first name was Jimmy) accused Debra and Joseph Sater (co-owner of the Middle East in Cambridge and owner of the Armory) of reneging on an earlier pledge that there would be no bands playing amplified music at the venue. Joseph said that there was never any agreement of the sort. Another neighbor complained about the "loud classical music" coming from the yoga studio in the Armory. One other woman was not happy that concerts might attract as many as 300 people and that after the show, there would be.... well, she didn't exactly say.
In considering their decision, the Board looked over the 41 Conditions and noted that I believe it was 9 of them (it was extremely difficult to hear since--- ha ha ha-- there were no microphones at the hearing and the heating system was ungodly loud.) dealt strictly with noise. Joseph had also pointed out that after earlier concerns were made about noise, he spent $16,000 to install soundproofing (fireproof, for those who are wondering/concerned) to cut down on the noise. Also, Debra pointed out that just this past week, a sound company conducted tests on the noise levels.
All the while I was doodling in my notebook "You darn kids and your rock and roll music!!!"
There was another issue brought up- Mr. Sullivan accused Joseph of running unlicensed events in the space. Apparently, a couple of groups jumped the gun and sent out invites for events long before the space was ready to go. Joseph seemed a tad bit exasperated at that one, holding out his arms and telling the Board that he has too much experience to risk running afoul of the law like that.
The Board listened to supporters and there was some brief back & forth before the vote was taken and the license granted. The Board did advise opponents that if they feel the Armory is stepping outside the agreement or is in some way violating the law- excessive noise, for example, that they can call the police, notify the city, or file an official complaint.
So, it was a victory, but an uneasy one, and the Armory folks are really going to have to be on their toes because they will be watched very closely by their neighbors.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-27 01:06 am (UTC)Antonia's is changing format and reopening (under the same owner, different manager) as 'Boston Burger Company'. I didn't hear details; perhaps someone else who was there can say more.
Dave's Fresh Pasta got the official approval to expand into the next storefront over.
Somerville Local First will have some sort of Valentine's Day event at Poor Little Rich Girl on February 12.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-27 01:31 am (UTC)The Armory part was quite a circus but I'm grateful that reason (and what's actually in the 41 conditions) prevailed.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-27 01:54 am (UTC)Laurinda?
From:Re: Laurinda?
From:Re: Laurinda?
From:no subject
Date: 2009-01-27 01:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-27 01:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-27 01:50 am (UTC)I am concerned that the hours listed in the agreement don't seem to allow for matinees. I hope they'll amend it soon for that.
No actual unlicensed events have been held in the Armory. The neighboring opponents brought leaflets that had advertised such events (one of which was to be the 150th? anniversary of a local Catholic parish, with Cardinal O'Malley attending), but the events did not actually happen.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-27 01:50 am (UTC)Now to land a decent part-time job so I can afford to go to events there.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-27 01:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-27 02:18 am (UTC)I'm wondering if the space has central AC.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-01-27 04:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-27 04:23 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:solution
From:Re: solution
From:(no subject)
From:Should we care?
Date: 2009-01-27 04:18 am (UTC)Re: Should we care?
Date: 2009-01-27 04:54 am (UTC)Re: Should we care?
Date: 2009-01-27 04:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-27 02:29 pm (UTC)I think the neighbors are right to be concerned. And 'in advance' is the only way they have to go. Once the permits are granted, it is next to impossible to change them, much less abolish them. Trust me, I've been involved with a similar situation. Someone reported above that the neighbors were told to call the police if the noise levels are excessive. That's great, are you supposed to call the police every Friday night, and hope they'll come and ask nicely that the amps be turned down? Those houses are extremely close to the Armory, and calling the police or filing an official complaint doesn't really help if you can't sleep, or if noise has waken your infant or toddler. I wonder did the meeting address the issue that arose last summer? The new owner of the building was found by city inspectors to be installing cooking equipment, which was well outside of the bounds of their permit. Thankfully, they were made to remove it, but this doesn't bode well for them following the other 41 conditions, in my mind.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-27 02:39 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:Why are permits required for that equipment?
From:no subject
Date: 2009-01-27 03:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-27 05:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-27 10:41 pm (UTC)Well, since the Armory is now a neighbor, can Joseph go house-by-house, determine if there are any unpleasant fumes, oh, say, from cooking cabbage, and demand an end to it?
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-01-27 03:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-27 06:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-27 03:50 pm (UTC)Well, if people don't show up to complain...
Date: 2009-01-27 04:44 pm (UTC)Re: Well, if people don't show up to complain...
From:no subject
Date: 2009-01-27 07:15 pm (UTC)The Licensing Commission has three members, but only two showed up for the hearing, chairman Andrew Upton and John McKenna. Upton seemed to do most of the talking; I recall hearing from McKenna only towards the very end.
The woman who complained about loud music from the yoga studio seemed to have a valid point to make. She said she was hearing the studio's music over her own, even with all of her windows closed, and that it took two months to resolve the issue.
Yoga studio noise
Date: 2009-01-27 08:36 pm (UTC)Just to be clear, we did not take two months to resolve the noise issue about the yoga studio. It appears the neighbors in question waited two months before they decided to make a complaint.
We responded to the neighbors on the same day we were notified of the complaint. We immediately took measures to address it.
We did follow-up and as of last week, they were satisfied that the issue had been resolved.
Just to set the record straight.
Re: Yoga studio noise
From:Re: Yoga studio noise
From:Re: Yoga studio noise
From:Re: Yoga studio noise
From:Re: Yoga studio noise
From:Re: Yoga studio noise
From: