Shortly after the new year there’s bound to be more controversy surrounding a proposed restaurant coming to 106 Rivington Street. In October, Community Board 3 narrowly rejected an application from Jose Orlando Rodriguez and Robert Payne for a full liquor license at this location, which happens to be one of the Lower East Side’s most boisterous blocks. The board said it could support a wine and beer license, but the owners made it clear they have no intention of downgrading their application. Now the State Liquor Authority has scheduled a hearing on the matter. It’s going to take place January 10.
A new group, the Lower East Side Dwellers Association, has been fighting the application. The block association’s leader, Diem Boyd, plans to make the trip to the SLA’s uptown offices for the hearing. It’s a pretty good bet that there will be a lot of supporters of the restaurant on hand, as well. The owners hired a prominent lobbying firm, Capalino & Company, to help smooth the way through the approval process.
The LES Dwellers are concerned about the noise and crowds a new venue on Rivington Street would bring. But they’re also unhappy about proposed renovations, which include demolishing a beloved stoop. An online petition to “save the stoop” has garnered about 70 signatures. In a recent phone interview, Donald Bernstein (an attorney representing the restaurant’s owners) told us the facade will be revamped in an effort to modernize and improve the appearance of 106 Rivington.
The Dwellers are also curious to know whether Rodriguez and Payne have other partners. They have taken note of various messages on twitter and other social media sites from Johnny Marines, a Lower East Side native who is the manager of Latin group Aventura. At the community board hearings, the owners did not mention any other partners.
We’ll have more on this story in advance of the SLA hearing.
UPDATED 12/20.2012 4:38 p.m. Here’s the latest from Johnny Marines’ twitter feed:
During our phone interview with Donald Bernstein, 106 Rivington’s attorney, we asked whether his clients could be made available for an interview. He declined, saying there was nothing more for them to say before the SLA hearing.
What’s funny about the opposer is that they would allow the applicants to have there restaurant with the same capacity but only beer and wine how does this make any sense? The places that have all the most drunks and loud people are sports bars and dive bars and what do they sell the most is “BEER” so this all seems to me as a personal problem,nothing to do with what kind of license is gonna be or hours of operation,they just want to hurt these guys financially PERIOD… I also want to mention for those who don’t know the story about the “STOOP”I do! There was an identical “STOOP” on the building next door (104 rivington St.) where” DIEM BOYD” lives and that was removed with out any 1 talking about it or opposing it or signing a petition on it,But now the same person that allowed the “STOOP” in her building get “DEMOLISH” is asking to sign a petition on the building next door.Why didn’t she do any petition back then? You see where im going here? So you start adding 2an2 together equals “PERSONAL PROBLEM”!!!! GOOD LUCK GUYS!!!! You are a symbol of this community ill always be in support.
Please be factual. If there was a stoop, it existed prior to 1981 when the building was purchased by present owners. 1981 is when the the last recorded alterations to the building was done and before that alterations to the building were done in the 20s and 50s–the stoop, if it existed would have been demolished prior to 1981 before any of the current residents moved in. The petition to save the stoop at 106 Rivington was not started by anyone associated with LES Dwellers or any of the residents in the building next door. If you want to know who started the petition just click on the petition link instead of sounding off. Also, please refrain from publishing peoples personal info on message boards as you have done here and all over #boweryboogie.
@twitter-841809145:disqus Guess the truth comes to light,FYI you need to do your homework that stoop wasn’t remove in the 20s or 50s like you claim it was removed in the mid 80s so do your homework,Please you guys want to throw the rock and point the finger to someone else its very transparent that the so called “dwellers” have a personal vendetta on the applicant, But Im here to state facts and truth of what’s really going on behind all this,I support my neighbors, Why didn’t you guys go and represent the neighborhood of no more full liquor license when the ludlow hotel ask for a 4am full liquor?Let me guess because your puppet master susan stetzer claims there working with the network, wow! really! So how more transparent are you guys? I didn’t see any so called “dwellers” opposing them I wonder why,oh again like you claim lets take back our community yeah ok who are you trying to fool here? Definitely not me,But here come the little guys lets try our luck with them,Not happening!!!! P.S. about the publishing yea you made your so called “les dwellers” public in the boweryboogie so blame yourself for that.These guys are the real “LESDWELLERS” who been here way before you since your claiming the neighborhood to be yours!!!!
I can’t believe a business opening up at 106 Ludlow has the power to decide on alterations to a “historic building”.Where is the landlord in all this?And why doesn’t a historical preservation organization become involved.This stoop should not be demolished!