Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Outdoor Dining topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates outdoor dining’s scale, seasonality and safety in CB2
Summary
Manhattan CB2 members discussed outdoor-dining growth (reported as 542 applications in the district), concerns about concentration and public-safety issues, and city proposals to shift program oversight; the board said it will keep enforcing clear-path and ADA standards and referenced a recent full-board resolution on perimeter demarcation.
Members of the Manhattan Community Board executive committee spent a large portion of the meeting debating the scope and impacts of the city’s outdoor-dining programs in Community Board 2.
A committee representative reported that the board has handled roughly 542 outdoor-dining applications in its 1.4 square-mile district — described in the meeting as about 30% of Manhattan’s outdoor-dining cafes and nearly 20% citywide. Speakers disagreed over whether that scale represented success or overconcentration: one member called it “a resounding success,” while another said the neighborhood felt ‘‘besieged’’ and that the numbers suggested the district may be overrun.
The committee reviewed several technical and policy points: the board supports clear-path pedestrian widths drawn from DOT guidance (8, 10 and 12 feet by use), raised ADA and emergency-lane access concerns, and noted that revocable-consent fees have been lowered compared with pre-pandemic levels (one comment characterized the fees as “55% cheaper”). Members discussed two legislative proposals that city council staff are considering: transferring oversight from DOT to the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (the pre-pandemic home of sidewalk-cafe licensing) and removing the revocable-consent requirement so outdoor dining would be regulated as a standard city license.
At the last full board meeting the body passed a resolution to remove perimeter demarcation requirements for two-top sidewalk arrangements where doing so improves the clear path for pedestrians; committee members reiterated they will continue to apply existing rules to individual applications and to voice concerns about public-safety and equity implications.
No formal board vote on new policy was taken at the executive committee meeting; members encouraged reviewing the board’s public positions page for historical context and planned to monitor how DOT and city council proposals affect local application review.
