Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sla Applications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owners, neighbors clash over Nightingale/Paravion liquor and hours applications at SLA committee
Summary
A contested Paravion/Nightingale application for a class change to allow cocktails, extended hours, and outdoor dining sparked heated debate about soundproofing, petition validity, and proximity to a church; SLA 2 ultimately recommended denial with the full board later voting (19–12–5) on the committee's resolution.
A Paravion Group restaurant doing business as Nightingale (37 Carmine Street) drew sustained opposition and defense across the public-comment period and later the SLA committee report.
The owner (speaking as Frank during the public-comment period) said he had 111 supportive signatures, had installed multiple layers of soundproofing and an 18-inch reinforced concrete dividing wall, and asked the board to approve separate applications for outdoor dining, changed hours, and a class change to serve spirits and craft cocktails. "All I'm asking for this board is to allow me a fighting chance to live," he said in public comment.
Opponents — including the Carmine Street Block Association and several neighbors — argued the application was mishandled across multiple rounds, that petition signatures were inconsistent or repeated across submissions, and that a proximity letter from a nearby church indicated the proposed operations would be too close to a house of worship. Neighbors also reported continuing noise and late-night activities. At the SLA 2 committee meeting, members debated whether three separate applications had been improperly heard as one package and whether available soundproofing documentation and proximity studies had been adequately considered.
The SLA 2 resolution (as presented to the full board) recommended denial on several counts; on the full-board vote the SLA 2 item passed 19–12–5. Board members said a lack of consensus and ongoing neighborhood conflict underscored the need for clarity and better applicant outreach. Several board members urged clearer submission and verification rules for petition signatures and documentation.
Next steps: the applicant may pursue state SLA processes and remedy outstanding deficiencies highlighted in the committee record. The board’s SLA committee recommended denials with stipulations for several other liquor-license applications that evening as part of its packet.
