SLA Issues Predominate At Board 3 February Meeting
BY THOMAS COGAN

A speaker from the New York State Liquor Authority dominated Community Board 3's February meeting, as well he might have, since the SLA's presence hovers over the board's many decisions on beer, wine and liquor license applications, and a spokesman representing it would get a lot of attention. Joshua B. Toas, the particular speaker that evening at the Langston Hughes branch of the Queens Library, was engaging and able to parry the indignation implicit in several of the board members' inquiries. After hearing him, the board went on to act on one beer and wine application. There were several other applications too. One had to do with a parking garage, another, which caused some disagreement, with a speed bump.

Toas is the SLA's chief executive officer. He responded to his introduction as an official of the SLA by quipping, "Thank you for not booing." Maintaining a certain level of levity, he ran off a parade of SLA facts: that it was created out of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Laws of 1934, following repeal of Prohibition; that currently it maintains 70,000 licenses statewide, issued to places ranging from bars to wineries, and that in New York City, from its offices at 317 Lenox Ave. in Harlem, it can dispatch a total of 12 investigators for 4,000 cases pending locally at any one time. He called for questions, the first of which was probably the one most board members had in mind. The questioner wanted to know why the SLA often approves a new or renewed application for a license when the community board has turned down the applicant, usually a bar/restaurant owner. Toas said the authority might instead determine that approval of the application is "in the public interest". He explained that the SLA exists to regulate trade, not restrain it, and so sometimes it overrides community board decisions that, he said, "are not binding". Another board member complained that this shows the SLA regards community board decisions as only symbolic and something to be treated with condescension. Toas replied that the authority's "top-down" approach is mandated, that it must by law make the final decision, whether that means agreeing or disagreeing with a community board's judgment. He said agreement is preferable, and that indeed, the SLA could not function effectively without the informative influence of community boards.

Toas reviewed several salient points. There is what he called "an absolute food requirement" for every establishment serving by-the-drink or making open bottle sales. The sale or change of ownership of such places must be done through the SLA, and no internal alterations connected to the sale of drinks may be made in any establishment without SLA permission, he said. He went over the 200-foot rule, with which the board deals frequently (and which came up again that night). He said it is absolute as applied to new places seeking a license: no food establishment may sell beer, wine or liquor if its main entrance is within 200 feet of the main entrance of a school or place of worship. No license shall be issued to any place without a certificate of occupancy, unless the C of O has been grandfathered in, he said. As for revocation of licenses, he said, "Taking someone's liquor license is a complicated thing." Proving that grounds for revocation exist may be made difficult by the inclination to accommodate someone's business, rather than putting that person out of business. He did, however, say that the charge of selling alcohol to minors gets a very hard look from the SLA. Among the other inquiries he handled was one from Ed Westley of the board, who complained about applicants that fail to appear before the board, often despite repeated requests. He said the board might ultimately reject their applications because of repeated absences, but the SLA might not be aware of the board's action when it receives such applications. Toas said that non-cooperation is a strong reason for rejection, and thus Community Board 3 should keep the SLA aware of evasive applicants.

Once apprised of the 200-foot law, Manuel Fernandez, an applicant for a license as the owner of Noches de Rumba, knew his application was sunk, and admitted it before the audience. Noches de Rumba, intended to be located at 102-02 Northern Blvd., replacing a store that has moved to a new address, isn't even 100 feet from a church, being only 96 feet from the Christian Universal Temple Baptist Church, according to Arthur Teiler, chairman of the board's business and economic development committee. The motion to deny was approved unanimously.

An application by Dollar Thrifty Auto Group, 22-61 94th St., was as bound to succeed as Noches de Rumba's was to fail. The auto rental establishment near La Guardia Airport put in an application for granting of a special permit to allow for an attended public parking garage. The spokespersons brought out an array of charts and illustrations, and assured the board that all entrance and exit contingencies were being met. The motion to approve the granting of the permit was passed unanimously.

The third application, for a speed bump to be placed somewhere on 102nd Street between 37th and 39th Avenues, proved to be more popular than some persons apparently had expected. "It's a long block," said one woman who lives on 102nd Street, adding in reference to drivers, "People go crazy out there." The Board 3 traffic and transportation committee went into executive session during the meeting and emerged to declare, unanimously, that speed bumps are usually applied in relation to commercial traffic and shouldn't apply to residential streets, therefore calling for a motion to recommend disapproval of the request. Westley replied by sympathizing with the residents' anxiety. "They say it's a traffic danger and I believe them," he said. Other board members agreed, and when the vote was taken, 17 favored a speed bump for 102nd Street between 37th and 39th Avenues, and eight voted against it.

A Department of Corrections spokesman made an announcement about a plan to lease considerable space in the Bulova Center. Bob Marucca said the department is going through the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, or ULURP, in an effort to lease 120,000 square feet of the building at 75-20 Astoria Blvd. for 400 administrative employees that are currently located in various parts of Lower Manhattan. If lodged at Bulova, they would be consolidated and closer to Riker's Island, Marucca said. He added that the rent at the Bulova Center would be much lower than in places surveyed in Manhattan. As for transportation, the Bulova Center can be reached by the IND or No. 7 subway lines connecting to the Q47 bus or by the Q19, Q19A or M60 buses.