A show of hands proves the community’s objection to the proposed opening of a liquor store in the Howard Beach Shopping Plaza on 153rd Avenue in Lindenwood. Forum Newsgroup photo by Patricia Adams.
A crowd of concerned residents packed a meeting of the Lindenwood Alliance on Monday evening after the community was notified through public notice, that a liquor store was proposed to open at the Howard Plaza Shopping Center on 153rd Avenue.
Alliance founder Joann Ariola told those assembled that calls were made to Community Board 10 and the Alliance, all of which were in opposition to the proposal.
Both the managing agent of the shopping center and the proposed tenant were invited and were in attendance at the meeting.
Encouraging the audience to allow both the management company and the perspective tenant to explain their position before orderly questions would be taken, Ariola reminded the attendees of that their choice to attend offered proof of good intentions.
Cathy Napolitano, representing the management company Howard Plaza Realty, explained the history of the proposed tenancy which began with an inquiry by businessman Gurinder Singh. Following that, the management company had been advised that there may be a problem with the entity considering the storefront was in such close proximity to P.S. 232.
Napolitano says she contacted the State Liquor Authority (SLA) with those concerns and was assured by the agency that if the reported distance of 338 feet was the actual distance then the business would meet the distance requirements of 200 feet from the school, door to door.
She went on to further state that the vacant store, formerly Beach Bagels, had remained empty for the last two years, largely because the management company was so selective in interviewing perspective tenants. “Our intent was to lease the space to someone who would complement the existing tenants, many of who have been there since the sixties,” Napolitano stated, “and we have every reason to believe that we have made a good choice for the other merchants and a good choice for the community.” The management company she said, never anticipated opposition to the proposal.
Those against the store questioned if the distance was supposed to start at the entrance to the parking lot, which would have brought the footage requirement into the prohibited zone. John Springer, an expediter for Singh, explained clauses in the regulation that defined the measurable distance in such instances to be from the nearest door of the school to the door of the entity, leaving the lot out of consideration.
Springer also offered the fact that his client was interested in the location because of the large population contained in the area and the fact that he would be part of a one-stop shopping center. “Liquor stores are actually very good choices for these types of locations,” Springer stated, “they are well lit, tend to be clean, do not produce a lot of garbage or rodents, and,” he pointed out, “this store will not be a bullet proof store.”
A spirited discussion followed comments by the management company and the tenant’s representative, centering on the fact that, according to Ariola the community at large was opposed to the project for a number of reasons, primarily centered on the schoolchildren and the potential safety hazards. Citing the fact that some patrons of liquor stores are statistically proven to arrive at the store in an impaired state and that there is a rise in pedestrian accidents at such locations, the civic leader said, “We just don’t think it is in the spirit of what the community wanted to have in the shopping center. Children are released from school, they go across the street to get a slice of pizza, they get a soda–we just have so many considerations.”
Members of the audience vigorously questioned where measurements had been taken from and were offered assurance that their doubts about actual footage were unfounded.
Toward the close of the discussion Assemblyman Phil Goldfeder and Councilmember Eric Ulrich both offered words of advice to the community regarding the pending proposal. “The management company has continued to be a great partner to the community and we have to be sure that they will continue to be good community partners,” said Goldfeder.
Ulrich reminded the crowd that there are many times that a community has serious objection to issues such as this and yet goes unheard. “The SLA will just rubber stamp the application if it meets their requirements.”
Ulrich recalled time he had served on CB9 and seen serious objections filed against many such proposed establishments. “They were quickly disregarded by the SLA. The bottom line here is that the potential owners are here and that shows their good faith,” Ulrich advised. “They may very well get this license anyway, so I believe it to be in the best interest of the community to keep an open line of communication.”
The SLA will meet on this matter on August 20, at which time they will either issue approval or denial for the license.
By Patricia Adams
