Citizen Portal
Sign In

Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows

Neighbors press Cholipink applicant at 32 Spring Street to drop terrace use; applicant offers mitigation

Manhattan City Board Two SLA Committee · February 4, 2026

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Applicants for a Peruvian fast-casual concept at 32 Spring Street agreed to consider removing terrace use from the current liquor application after neighbors raised noise and privacy concerns; the committee discussed mitigation (greenery, umbrellas, limited hours) and emphasized outreach.

Representatives for a proposed fast-casual Peruvian restaurant at 32 Spring Street told the Manhattan City Board Two SLA committee they will take community concerns about terrace use seriously and, during the hearing, offered to remove rooftop/terrace use from the current application if neighbors objected.

Adriana of Falcone Levy and project lead Jack Shell described the concept (fast-casual Peruvian dishes, an ordering counter rather than a traditional bar, background music only) and said they plan to use a second-floor terrace in the future if legally allowed. Neighbors and board members urged caution because the terrace overlooks residential gardens and could be used late into the evening, creating noise and privacy issues.

Applicant response: Jack Shell described operational details, explaining that “Drinks will be taken out of this gap here in the kitchen and then delivered to those who are dining in,” emphasizing there is no traditional bar with seated patrons. In response to neighbor concerns, an applicant representative said, “We’re more than happy to not use that,” offering mitigation such as plantings, umbrellas and enclosure plans if the terrace were ever pursued.

Why it matters: Committee members said terraces and rear-yard seating can materially change neighborhood quality of life and should be measured as part of the application; several members asked that terrace use be explicitly removed or that stipulations prohibit outdoor alcohol service until residents’ concerns are resolved.

Next steps: Applicants agreed to either remove terrace use from this application or return with explicit plans and outreach evidence; the board said any future alteration to add the terrace would require a new application and separate neighborhood review.