SoHo residents oppose planned members’ club and event space at 45 Howard Street

Neighbors and the applicant spent more than two hours debating a liquor‑license application for 45 Howard Street on the meeting agenda of Community Board 2, with residents urging the board to press for acoustical studies, clarified hours and separate notices for two distinct license requests.

The applicants sought liquor authority approval for two separate uses at 45 Howard: a third‑floor catering establishment for third‑party events, and a private members’ club to operate on the fourth and fifth floors (and provide member access to a roof area). The organization filing the applications described itself as a nonprofit cultural center and said the rooftop would not be used for alcohol service in the current filing.

Residents said the building’s historic, cast‑iron construction transmits sound to adjacent apartments and that earlier events at the address already damaged skylights and triggered calls to police. “We don’t need any more outdoor dining. We definitely don’t need more drinking in the area,” said Bruce Williams, who told the board he has lived on Bond Street for 30 years and described sustained noise and safety problems during earlier outdoor uses. Several other neighbors described broken skylights, repeated late‑night noise and incidents that made them feel unsafe walking home.

Those public complaints prompted a long discussion about the applicants’ outreach, the accuracy of the municipal notices and whether the filing properly separated two different license types. Laura Tenenbaum, who said she had helped coordinate local outreach, said the applicants had not shared a full application with neighborhood groups in advance and asked for an acoustical report and clearer limits on hours and amplified sound. “It’s really about keeping the noise out of the community,” Tenenbaum said.

The applicants responded that the nonprofit would host a mix of member salons, meetings and third‑party events and that they intended to keep hours and operating details in line with community requests. An applicant representative, identified at the hearing as an architect presenting the proposal, said the nonprofit planned a larger kitchen on the first floor and separate, quieter member spaces above. The representative said the rooftop was removed from active liquor service in the current filing and that the group would provide additional outreach materials and a revised municipal notice.

Committee members pressed the applicants about capacity, soundproofing, egress and whether the two license requests had been combined improperly in notices. Board members and several public commenters flagged inconsistencies between architect drawings, Department of Buildings filings and the materials posted for neighbors; one commenter also said the plans submitted to the Landmarks Preservation Commission showed a different use for a large gathering space than the applicants described.

After extended public comment, the applicants agreed to revise the paperwork and split the filing into two separate municipal notices — one for the third‑floor catering establishment and one for the members’ club — and to return to Community Board 2 with the separate notices, additional outreach documentation and requests for a sound study. The board recorded broad neighborhood opposition at the hearing and asked for clearer, stamped floor plans, a more explicit noise‑mitigation plan and proof of direct outreach to adjacent residents before any final recommendation.

What’s next: The applicants told the board they will amend the municipal notices and return to the committee with separate agenda items and additional documentation. The board will re‑examine the revised filings at a future meeting before determining whether to recommend approval or denial to the state liquor authority.