Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Second time around the SLA grants Sweet Chick a liquor license for the former Max Fish space

Despite an earlier disapproval, The State Liquor Authority has granted Sweet Chick, the Williamsburg-based restaurant specializing in chicken and waffles, a full liquor license for the former Max Fish space on Ludlow Street, the Lo-Down first reported yesterday.

Sweet Chick partner John Seymour tweeted the news during the afternoon.

The SLA originally denied the license back in December … this after CB3 denied the initial application in October. As BoweryBoogie reported two weeks ago, there was a petition against Sweet Chick's opening that had the support of nearly 100 percent of the tenants in the adjoining 176-178 Ludlow St. as well as business owners on the block.

In our Our and About in the East Village feature last week, Margery Teplitz, who lives in the tenement above the incoming restaurant, expressed her concerns.

From the look of their plans, they want to put the exhaust system in the airshaft, which goes right next to my bedroom as well as a bunch of others. They also want to remain open 17 hours a day cooking fried food in a 120-year-old building that’s basically like a sieve. My neighbor upstairs makes chili a couple times a week and you can smell it for seven hours, so you can imagine fried chicken.

… We’re supposed to have a reasonable quality of life, which does not include a blaring exhaust system 17 hours a day and the smell of fried chicken.


Anonymous said...

I would rather have Max Fish

Anonymous said...

"Can't wait to be part of the LES Community" The Community Board opposes you, 100 percent of the residents in the building oppose you, local businesses oppose you, yet you still jam it down the community's throat. How is that being part of the "LES Community"?

Gojira said...

Once again the good old SLA completely ignores the wishes of those most impacted by their decisions and grants a license no one but the bar owners want. I think it should be the law that SLA commissioners be forced to live in the neighborhoods they ruin with liquor oversaturation, rather than far from the madding crowds in the suburbs. They'd change their tunes fast.

Anonymous said...

@Gogira That's not entirely true. This reminds me of the applicants for 146 Bowery where residents vehemently opposed the application as well as The Bowery Alliance Of Neighbors(BAN), CB 2 and the SLA. The Applicants then requested a reconsideration and brought support from artist Marguerite Van Cook, managing directorof the Howl Festival and "Apparently there'e some sort of partnership with the Howl Arts Festival".
there are two links from BBoogie on Odessa Cafe post.
Just disgusting absolutely disgusting.

Anonymous said...

Wonder what changed or was altered the second time around? Something in their application, proposal, petitions in support? Sometimes SLA has to approve if there are no legal grounds to deny.

Anonymous said...

Is this another application where they got Margaret Chin to change her mind? She's gone back on everything else she used to stand for.

The only way this will ever go back to helping the residents is if we make State elected leaders change the laws. Just getting CB3 to oppose something does no good. The City has no standing -- it's a state issue. The SLA will only respond to changes in the NYS law.

Anonymous said...

please enlighten me on what business can make it in the east village without the sales of beer, wine or liquor?
greedy landlords are the main culprit but cb3's self serving, hall monitoring, old ladies add nothing positive to the table.

Anonymous said...

Lower East Side Liquer Refinery. What it propels most is turnover in real estate benefiting the property owners. Not enforcing the codes, not representing the citizens of the
community should result in a consequence. The boards need accountability. Who holds the boards accountable?