SoHo Felix Roast & Co. presentation draws neighbor concern over liquor, noise and outreach

Felix Roast & Co. representatives Joseph Levy, Matthew Moynian and Reagan Petrin presented a proposal for a coffee and dining venue at Green Street seeking an on‑premise liquor license and hours that would run weekdays until 10 p.m. The applicants described a two‑level layout (ground floor plus a small mezzanine) with roughly 1,800 total square feet split about evenly between the two areas, background recorded music only, seating for about 62, and a menu centered on coffee with a small curated cocktail program that the applicants called “low‑ABV” (examples offered included an espresso tonic with a splash of Campari and an Aperol spritz). The applicants said their Park Avenue location currently holds beer‑and‑wine privileges and that they had explored a full‑liquor upgrade there before the pandemic.

Neighbors and committee members pressed the applicants on three recurring issues: a lack of direct outreach to building residents, potential noise and late‑night activity, and deliveries on Green Street. A resident who lives in the building at 110 Green said no one in her building had been contacted; applicants said they had emailed some two dozen block and community groups using the contact list provided by the board office and apologized for any individual misses amid a rapidly moving lease process during the pandemic. On noise, neighbors emphasized Green Street’s largely residential character and asked for limits on amplified sound and events; the applicants repeatedly said they plan only recorded background music and described their concept as a neighborhood coffee company that would not operate as a late‑night bar. On deliveries, applicants said they would schedule vendor deliveries for mid‑morning to mid‑day and could arrange quiet delivery windows if that was the neighborhood preference.

Committee members asked technical and permitting questions about the mezzanine (applicants said it is a four‑ or five‑step rise midway through the space), which triggered a supplemental 30‑day notice; applicants said they had re‑noticed because examiners sometimes ask for a separate notice when a mezzanine is involved. The applicants described kitchen operations as a moderate prep/back kitchen with a front counter and order/pickup model (no table wait service): cocktails and food would be prepared at the counter and customers would take orders to their tables.

Several members flagged the applicants’ broader licensing history in the neighborhood: one committee member noted ongoing issues at a hotel property with which one of the principals has an ownership interest. That history was raised as a credibility concern and informed the committee’s recommendation. The committee concluded it would not support a full on‑premise liquor endorsement for this location in this application; members discussed instead whether a recommendation limited to beer and wine — or other narrower conditions (early curfew for alcohol sales, strict delivery windows, no boozy brunches, recorded music only and clear neighbor outreach) — would be acceptable. The applicants were told the committee would forward stipulations and that the chair would draft recommended conditions if the board were to consider a more limited license.