[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6512025,"mediaKeyId","5120568-1b3dbb123458b808fe3a7cbeef9e1127","parentId",5120568,"title","Neighbors, board raise enforcement concerns after DOT approves 194–196 Spring Street roadway seating","audioSeconds",1305,"startMs",15035000,"endMs",16340000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5120568-1b3dbb123458b808fe3a7cbeef9e1127&start=15035&end=16340","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5120568-1b3dbb123458b808fe3a7cbeef9e1127/thumbnail_15035000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6512025/Manhattan-City/New-York-County/New-York/Neighbors-board-raise-enforcement-concerns-after-DOT-approves-194196-Spring-Street-roadway-seating","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6512025-cd4127ab242c0fe47bb140e777cc7367/orig.mp4?Expires=1770442898&Signature=BWDuhq~MqTcQ1tMtzpp1wqws-rqibAHSgM7urunw3Pn0MJsWDa0pK1esOixDwgR03nvqf54uuc0Qm2QZx7QwG8UzpH4uvNRsgoo96Otago6P55q5hUf1jKXhDNtfgT~US9yItFfCCDOgUrF4MJpC3gXUkgb~W7PP5oHU5a-8Io8WHYi4Y5VzG3JRCY~zxnYKkH4LSpI~-tCZ-TNtjEIopJ6R3YRtxoRCEbBADc2lOsEqjKmFEnsTij2UX70v4QSiE5ERaumG3dl~g9BeGq8f3j-yuQ6B-XxEe2MoV31r8A6UB5MsetpedCpEJwxy1LtK5-Y0-0olRK1SWixWsri0RQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Manhattan, NY","date","2025-07-02T14:36:58Z","article","The SLA committee discussed an application related to roadway and sidewalk seating connected to premises at 194–196 Spring Street. Neighbors and residents told the committee they had evidence that seats and other furnishings were being placed in the curb and sidewalk area without required approvals; one longtime resident presented photos she said showed the structure under construction while approvals were still pending.

Those opposing the application said the property has a long history of code and noise complaints and that prior promises to the community were not kept. A long-time resident, Paula Nadian, and others said DOT had approved a roadway cafe application and that the operator had nevertheless continued to alter the curb and sidewalk areas without further permits or clear community notice. Neighbors said staff and police showed differing responses when they attempted to report violations.

Why it matters: Sidewalk and roadway cafes require coordination among the property owner, DOT and the Community Board, and residents said the recent sequence of approvals and on-the-ground construction did not follow the expected process. Committee members expressed concern about compliance and enforcement and the impression that some operators are not following CB2 stipulations.

Committee guidance: Committee members asked the applicant to provide written evidence of DOT approvals, details of the curb-line layout, proof that the license holder or operator has authority to place chairs in the furnishing zone and a timetable for remediation where unauthorized furnishings were installed. Several residents urged the board to recommend denial of any SLA expansion until the operator demonstrates consistent compliance with sidewalk, roadbed and building permits.

Outcome at meeting: The committee recorded residents’ concerns and requested documentation from the applicant and DOT before advancing any SLA application. Members emphasized enforcement of existing stipulations and urged staff to coordinate with DOT inspectors and the SLA.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Manhattan CB2 July 1, 2025 - SLA 1 Committee Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Residents and committee members told the SLA committee that roadway/sidewalk seating at 194–196 Spring Street was installed or used before community and building approvals were complete; residents asked for enforcement and clearer documentation from the applicant.","taxTitle","Manhattan City, New York County, New York","taxId",3586,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6512030,"Groom Hotel seeks hotel liquor license; neighbors press for rooftop/courtyard limits and sound study",2940,11100000,14040000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5120568-1b3dbb123458b808fe3a7cbeef9e1127&start=11100&end=14040","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5120568-1b3dbb123458b808fe3a7cbeef9e1127/thumbnail_11100000.jpg","/articles/6512030/Manhattan-City/New-York-County/New-York/Groom-Hotel-seeks-hotel-liquor-license-neighbors-press-for-rooftopcourtyard-limits-and-sound-study","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6512030-44eb6171a11fb704c5f69238aed34c51/orig.mp4?Expires=1770442898&Signature=ap58AfANYVblmnF6oKsYPMw2PoOFcN66I5B55CJPGfOgnVExef18Zj0axlJ~htWyljiKUtwwPKHzVUNLQBBN72gHVg2cb~GmHvEeJgbp7YhRf5MERYLS~NuS635BxgGMTQpWNI4MJdAQB2YulVI7n6kO5Rj-l~bJMzI7WwOFthj1Ghm0jo9fagEUSkqBslFRAv9rv2tnvEp~VeGh7-KaNpbeL~fBBYzw8IDyJgLKjNjeAOP0Px9Ri96XfBxI3HFMXlCbg8otUa-f74JeeKLMPlk8tsKqHT9Grf91cMK-HWD6ld2qwq4vmfWSINfif3TL8vYzfwvWBn8m4rTm040rAQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Groom Hotel representatives told the SLA committee they are converting an existing beer-and-wine operation to a hotel liquor license to cover a new French-Mediterranean restaurant and its enclosed courtyard. Attorney Max Bookman, representing the hotel, said the hotel has 14 guest rooms and a total occupant load of about 92 people; the operator proposed a 1 a.m. closing hour for the restaurant and a retractable pergola system to reduce courtyard noise.

Neighbors and nearby residents testified that previous events held in the courtyard caused repeated nighttime disruptions, and that the brick-canyon geometry amplifies sound. One resident said the hotel had previously been fined for noise and urged an independent study and stricter limits; another noted that routine ambient levels measured near Meyer Park would be difficult to meet if amplified music were played in the courtyard.

The applicant presented a consultant’s sound study that modeled noise projections and the pergola’s effect. The hotel offered a mitigation package: (1) limit outdoor seating to the Certificate of Occupancy number (22 people including staff), (2) stipulate to no amplified live music in the courtyard, (3) extend the pergola at 8:30 p.m. nightly and close courtyard service at 10:30 p.m., and (4) reduce indoor hours to midnight. The hotel’s acoustical engineer said their modeling found that the pergola reduced projected incremental noise from about 7 decibels to near 0.2 dB in modeled receptor locations when closed.

Why it matters: Residents said the courtyard sits in a tight cast-iron block where sound echoes and argued that only independent measurement—ideally in residents’ units—would prove whether the pergola would prevent code violations. The committee noted the applicant already holds a temporary beer-and-wine license covering part of the ground floor and that the change to a hotel liquor license would expand alcohol service across more hotel areas.

Committee guidance and next steps: The hotel agreed to several conditions the committee recorded: limit courtyard occupancy to the TCO number (22 total, including staff); require pergola coverage beginning at 8:30 p.m.; close the courtyard by 10:30 p.m.; indoor operations to close by midnight; background music only; no DJs or live amplified bands in the courtyard; and the applicant will deliver the architect’s DOB clarification about courtyard inclusion in the building’s approved use group. The committee asked for a copy of the full sound study and for the applicant to provide a plan to monitor and promptly respond to noise complaints.

Outcome at meeting: No formal vote was held. Committee members said they will include the stipulations in any resolution forwarded to the SLA and that the applicant must supply the additional documentation before the matter advances.","The Groom Hotel told Community Board 2's SLA committee it seeks a hotel liquor license to cover a new Mediterranean restaurant and enclosed courtyard; neighbors urged limits on courtyard hours and independent sound verification after past complaints.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6512034,"Neighbors oppose Lighting Society plans for 45 Howard Street; fears about scale, noise and access",2111,8864000,10975000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5120568-1b3dbb123458b808fe3a7cbeef9e1127&start=8864&end=10975","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5120568-1b3dbb123458b808fe3a7cbeef9e1127/thumbnail_8864000.jpg","/articles/6512034/Manhattan-City/New-York-County/New-York/Neighbors-oppose-Lighting-Society-plans-for-45-Howard-Street-fears-about-scale-noise-and-access","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6512034-dd7af3a64fc8b72ae7ff54858f587595/orig.mp4?Expires=1770442898&Signature=Kzarlq4cPsouy1nwVRvG~sGIku2iimZIJk8KXPo~19sBf9O0pSSGUj68uN7~uTJP2gJGVc-CHRUceeqAqvjjnsKYt5luTP6k~-ahkzXQl2kKnfcUcyGVUSPBSmubRTdG50zGUuzGgVPfbGTzF5mnXay91IvIVMVyYH-3ntC4CtvOZBoM0c8wWTMqY1jsIBBtzGwh4dZRCnC-QtTuQVSCPhwYxrPTrbmIP~raU00-oUkDlb0oyq-VyZIHiOzy2q4qDVun92Gbr9OfVK3saIGylLPkQQIjte-Nhfj-XkwHSwcjrCS~45fBZJHpRK2zAezKA0pW~Im7wXAT1oIgXZQPmA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A nonprofit called the Center for Emerging Culture, doing business as Lighting Society, sought liquor and catering permits for multiple floors at 45 Howard Street, drawing vocal opposition from residents who said the proposals would overwhelm a mostly residential block.

The proposals cover a members club on upper floors, a catering/event operation on another floor and rooftop space; the applicant told the committee the concept blends arts programming and private-member events. Lighting Society founder Timothy Phillips said the group will add numerous safeguards, including on-site monitoring and sound controls: “We’re putting layers and layers and layers of protections in order to make sure that we’re not disturbing community,” Phillips said at the meeting.

Residents said the plan’s scale and some outstanding permits present public-safety and quality-of-life risks. “This proposal is absolutely destructive to everything we’ve built,” said Marie Doris, a longtime neighbor. “Please vote it down. Vote both of them down. There’s no way to mitigate it.” Others highlighted past complaints about the building, questions about egress and the number of people the applicant says it will serve; critics also noted that some Landmark Preservation and DOB filings had been withdrawn and requested clearer documentation before any licenses are considered.

Why it matters: The application would convert a large, multi-floor building into a combination private-members space and a catering/event venue. Residents and the Community Board urged clearer, written assurances about the building’s legal ability to host large events, how crowds would enter and exit, and how rooftop and outdoor activities would be limited.

What the committee heard: Phillips said the organization intends to host arts programs, salons and ticketed events and to require member referrals for full membership; he emphasized partnerships with arts organizations and consultants. Silver Art director Shannon Bunger said her organization supported Lighting Society’s arts programming. Neighbors said they were not approached adequately during the planning process and pointed to a history of loud uses at the site. Multiple residents described narrow stairways and a shared elevator and questioned how large events would safely ingress and egress.

Committee concerns and next steps: Members flagged three immediate areas for follow-up: (1) documentation of building approvals from the Department of Buildings and, where needed, the Landmarks Preservation Commission; (2) a detailed crowd-management and egress plan (including whether temporary place-of-assembly approvals would be required); and (3) a sound mitigation plan and limits on rooftop use. The committee requested the applicant provide written responses and technical documentation before the SLA filing proceeds.

What’s next: The committee did not vote on the applications. Members said they would consider any new documentation at a future meeting and recommended the applicant complete in-person outreach with the directly impacted residents. The concerns raised at the meeting — noise, traffic at closing time, and building safety — will be forwarded in any community resolution.","A proposed multi-floor private club and catering operation at 45 Howard Street prompted dozens of residents to urge Community Board 2's SLA committee to deny or limit the applications, citing noise, crowding, building safety and lack of neighborhood outreach.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Neighbors, board raise enforcement concerns after DOT approves 194–196 Spring Street roadway seating

Groom Hotel seeks hotel liquor license; neighbors press for rooftop/courtyard limits and sound study

Neighbors oppose Lighting Society plans for 45 Howard Street; fears about scale, noise and access