Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sla Application Dispute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors urge board to send 470 Broom Street tavern application back to committee, allege inaccurate SLA filings
Summary
Residents who identified themselves as members of Soho Alliance and a new “Soho Acts and Action” group told Manhattan Community Board 2 they oppose the liquor‑license application at 470 Broom Street, alleging false statements on required SLA forms and asking the full board to return the application to committee for more community review.
Several residents urged Manhattan Community Board 2 to reconsider or return a liquor‑license application for a tavern at 470 Broom Street after testimony during the board’s public session alleged discrepancies in the application materials submitted to the State Liquor Authority.
Rhonda Roland Shearer, who said she represents both the Soho Alliance and a newly formed group called Soho Acts and Action, told the full board that the applicant at 470 Broom Street had misrepresented the business and its operations at a committee hearing. Shearer said the applicant initially described himself as a worker for an existing operator but had been identified in media as a founder and CEO. Shearer further alleged the SLA application contained sworn statements claiming a full kitchen existed on the premises; at a recent committee hearing the applicant reportedly admitted to not having a full kitchen, a fact Shearer said would affect the type of license sought.
Shearer described a wave of neighborhood objections—she told the board committee staff had received 23 letters opposing the application and additional submissions continued to arrive—and asked that the full board send the application back to committee so residents could have more opportunity to be heard and the committee could vet the applicant’s sworn statements.
Board members asked clarifying questions during the public‑comment period to determine whether the documents cited by Shearer were on file. Cormac Flynn, speaking from the floor during the public session, referred the board to the SLA packet (item 7 on the SLA‑1 report, page 10) for the specific application, and staff indicated they had asked the liquor authority to verify outstanding documentation.
Why it matters: The board’s recommendation is advisory but STA applications are reviewed by the State Liquor Authority; sworn inaccuracies on SLA forms can be material to licensing decisions and are subject to party review.
What’s next: Several board members asked staff to ensure the application and the SLA submissions are reviewed for accuracy and asked the SLA committee to consider a follow‑up review. The resident requested the full board return the application to committee; the board did not vote on a return at the full‑board meeting but the issue was recorded for committee follow‑up.
Ending: The board’s SLA committee will include the application in its records and the district manager and SLA staff will follow up with the authority and the applicant to confirm whether the statements on sworn forms match the premises’ actual condition before any final advisory letter is transmitted.
