Historic board allows Leslie Hotel rooftop policy change; alcohol service and limited holiday hours to be decided by planning board

The Historic Preservation Board on Sept. 16 approved modifications to a long‑standing certificate of appropriateness for the Leslie Hotel at 1244 Ocean Drive, clearing a path for the Planning Board to review a conditional use permit that would allow alcohol service to hotel guests on the hotel’s rooftop terrace and limited, small special events.

The roof terrace and pool were originally approved in an earlier HPB order that included operational restrictions, including a prohibition against serving alcohol to guests on the rooftop and a ban on entertainment without additional approvals. The applicant asked the HPB to remove some of those restrictions so the Planning Board — which has regulatory jurisdiction over rooftop alcohol within 200 feet of residential buildings — can consider a conditional use permit and establish the operational rules.

"We have a beautiful roof terrace with a pool, yet my guests cannot have a beer," said hotel owner representative Juan Pablo Donofrio. He described the hotel as a 35‑room property and said the requested change is oriented to small, private guest functions rather than public nightlife or entertainment.

Neighbors asked the board to limit rooftop impacts. Residents who live immediately west of the site told the board the terrace is directly across an alley from residential windows, and several speakers urged careful conditions if alcohol service were allowed. One neighbor said: "I work from home... I can't have any noise in the background," and opposed extension of hours that would increase late‑night rooftop activity.

Staff emphasized the legal complexity: a recent change in land‑development rules requires that any rooftop alcohol establishment located within 200 feet of a residential building be reviewed by the Planning Board as a conditional use. Staff recommended the HPB modify its order to allow the Planning Board to consider the matter and warned that the city must avoid conflicting orders between two land‑use boards. "You cannot have two land‑use boards maintaining jurisdiction over the same operational conditions without potentially running into some serious conflicts," staff told the board.

The applicant offered a compromise for the HPB order: allow limited rooftop alcohol service to hotel guests and permit limited special events but specifically to defer definitive hours and any broader approvals to the Planning Board. The applicant also proposed a narrowly drawn interim change: allow later hours for two holidays only — July 4 and Dec. 31 — with service to 2 a.m. on those dates; the hotel said those requests are to allow guests to view fireworks from the terrace. The applicant agreed the final hours and any conditions established by the Planning Board would take precedence over the HPB order.

Board members expressed concern about noise and precedent for rooftop uses, with some members recalling past enforcement challenges when rooftop entertainment occurred contrary to prior HPB orders. Staff clarified that the HPB’s modification would not itself authorize alcohol service; rather it would avoid duplicative and conflicting conditions so the Planning Board can issue a conditional use permit (if it chooses).

The board approved the requested modifications with two clarifications the applicant accepted: (1) the limited holidays (July 4 and New Year’s Eve) may have extended hours (until 2 a.m.) for rooftop use in the interim; and (2) if the Planning Board issues a conditional use permit for the rooftop, the Planning Board’s authorized dates and hours of operation control and the Planning Board will maintain jurisdiction over enforcement and any revocation or modification of the permit.

The roll call on the motion recorded affirmative votes from Miss Camargo, Mr. Meyer, Mr. Novick, Mr. Breslin, Miss Lovell, Mr. Hollingworth and Mr. Stewart. The modifications were approved.

Why it matters: The change shifts primary operational authority over rooftop alcohol and events to the Planning Board. That body can set enforceable conditions — including hours and noise standards — and would retain jurisdiction if complaints or violations occur.

Ending: The hotel must still apply to the Planning Board for a conditional use permit before serving alcohol to rooftop guests or expanding rooftop operations; the HPB’s amendment simply removes duplicative HPB restrictions and enables a single authoritative process for rooftop alcohol and special events.