Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Compliance And Outdoor Dining topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Extended debate on Sosos/Tiger sidewalk seating and separate-license structure; committee requests compliance materials
Summary
Representatives for 1 Tiger LLC (SOSO's and Tiger South Soho Bar) sought sidewalk seating approvals and method-of-operation changes. The committee spent extensive time on whether the two spaces are separate businesses, past noncompliance with stipulations, and requested updated diagrams and photos before final action.
Representatives for 1 Tiger LLC appeared to request sidewalk seating and method-of-operation changes for two adjacent venues — SOSO’s (Center Street) and Tiger (1 Howard Street). Matt Borwick, representing the operator, and principal Eddie Buckingham outlined plans for sidewalk seating at both locations and said the properties operate as two separate licensed establishments with separate kitchens and accounting for liquor ordering and payroll.
Committee members pressed the operators on a history of noncompliance at SOSO’s, mismatches between earlier preliminary DOT layouts and the seating applicant currently uses, planter placement and the need for a consistent perimeter and 10-foot clear path. Neighbors and a board member — identified in the transcript by first name as Anthony — described seeing more tables and different planter placement than the applicants’ diagrams showed and questioned why the businesses had operated out of compliance for an extended period.
Operators said they had recently made revisions, reduced table counts, removed some planters and obtained conditional DOT approval based on updated drawings that were circulated the afternoon of the meeting. The committee and operators discussed how two liquor licenses can exist for adjacent spaces with 1 employer/EIN; applicants said Department of Health and DOT had advised that a single DOH permit had been issued while liquor licensing was split because patrons do not move between spaces.
Given the history and evident discrepancies between diagrams and on-the-ground setup, committee members agreed to give the applicants time to provide final, stamped diagrams and photos documenting the exact outdoor layout and perimeter barriers. The committee directed staff to ask the applicants to supply the requested materials within approximately 10 days and said that if the materials were not provided the committee would deny the sidewalk applications; the committee agreed to lay the item over to the October meeting for final action.
