Bronx Community Board 11 committee backs letters of no objection for three liquor-license applications, with conditions on missing paperwork and school-proxmity

Juan Luciano, chair of the Economic Development Committee of Bronx Community Board 11, led a July committee session that reviewed three on‑premise liquor‑license applications, and the committee voted to send letters of no objection to the State Liquor Authority (SLA) for each application, conditional on applicants providing missing paperwork by a meeting deadline.

The committee, convened jointly with the Public Safety and Leadership committees, addressed a new application for Gustitos at 2132 Kruger Avenue, a first‑time applicant for an Albanian cuisine operation (name not specified in committee records), and a renewal for KIRAKU Japanese Restaurant Inc. The board’s action for each application was to transmit a letter of no objection to the SLA rather than to grant or deny a license; the SLA retains statutory authority to verify compliance with distance, notice and other rules.

The Gustitos application generated the most discussion. Community member Roxanne Delgado said she measured the distance between the restaurant and P.S. 105’s new addition and concluded the nearest entrances were “less than 200 feet,” a proximity that could trigger SLA review under the 200‑foot school‑proximity rule. Delgado provided photographs and said she used Google Maps and on‑site checks to measure the distance. Committee members repeatedly emphasized that the SLA is the agency that verifies the 200‑foot measurement; the committee asked that the SLA explicitly confirm the distance in any letter it receives.

Cynthia Rodriguez, chair of the board, and staff member Chris (community board liaison) told the committee Gustitos had previously applied but failed to provide required questionnaire materials and did not appear at an earlier meeting; Gustitos had since resubmitted an application but remained missing some documents in the committee’s file. Committee members noted the application to the board had been received on June 25 and that the board must file any letter of objection within the SLA’s notice window if required by the timeline. The committee set a deadline for Gustitos to provide outstanding materials (menu, floor plan, certificate of occupancy and other requested attachments) by the board’s stated Friday deadline; the committee agreed to send a letter of no objection if the documents arrived and to send a letter of objection if they were not submitted before the deadline.

The second, first‑time applicant (applicant name not specified in committee records) described having restaurant operations in its home country and said the family was trying a location in New York. The applicant told the committee the application materials had been emailed that day and that the applicant sought a neighborhood restaurant beer‑and‑wine license and a sidewalk/cafe understanding was discussed. Committee members confirmed receipt of photographs, a questionnaire and that the applicant reported a temporary SLA permit had been issued; the committee asked staff to confirm full paperwork was on file.

For KIRAKU Japanese Restaurant Inc., at a separate address the committee recorded as 1948 (transcript reference), the application was a renewal and committee members reported no precinct complaints. The committee moved to send a letter of no objection for the KIRAKU renewal; committee members added standard conditions that outstanding items (menu, floor plan, certificate of occupancy) submitted by the stated Friday deadline would complete the file.

Public commenters urged caution and stronger community notification. A community member, Diana, read a public social‑media post critical of board procedures and said local residents wanted more transparent notice of committee meetings and applications; the committee chair responded that the committee had circulated application materials to committee members prior to the meeting.

Votes at a glance - Gustitos (2132 Kruger Ave): Committee approved sending a letter of no objection to the SLA conditioned on Gustitos submitting outstanding documents (menu, floor plan, certificate of occupancy, questionnaire) by the committee’s Friday deadline; if materials were not received, the committee said it would send a letter of objection. Outcome: approved (subject to documentation). Motion text (as read in meeting): “send a letter of no objection to State Liquor Authority.” - Second applicant (first‑time Albanian cuisine applicant; name/address not specified in committee record): Committee approved sending a letter of no objection conditional on the applicant providing missing documentation (questionnaire, photographs, certificate of occupancy). Outcome: approved (subject to documentation). - KIRAKU Japanese Restaurant Inc. (renewal): Committee approved sending a letter of no objection to the SLA; staff reported no precinct complaints. Outcome: approved (renewal; subject to submitting any remaining requested documents by the committee deadline).

What the committee did and did not decide - The committee only voted to send letters of no objection (or to condition such letters on receipt of required documents). It did not grant or deny liquor licenses—final licensure is determined by the SLA. Committee members repeatedly said the SLA will verify distance measurements (the 200‑foot rule) and other statutory requirements. - Committee members did not identify a formal vote tally by named member roll call; the meeting record shows motions were made and the chair announced the motions passed without a recorded roll‑call vote.

Next steps and deadlines - Applicants were asked to submit missing materials (menu, floor plan, certificate of occupancy, questionnaire) to the community board staff email; the committee set a firm deadline (repeatedly referenced in the meeting as the coming Friday) for documentation to arrive. The board said it would send letters to the SLA reflecting whether applicants complied by that deadline. The SLA was asked in committee to verify any school‑proximity measurement as part of its review.

The meeting closed after the three applications were addressed and additional public comments were heard. The committee repeatedly told applicants the board’s role is advisory to the SLA and that final licensing decisions, including verifying a 200‑foot school proximity, rest with the State Liquor Authority.