Council Member Brewer Questions Panel on Simplifying Floor Plans and Technical Reviews

But in addition, what other language or other paperwork issues could be uh modified so that there are less problems for the applicant?

That's question number one.

The second is I'm a huge community board uh fan, um, and I do like uh items that go before the community board.

There is some wish that if every single requirement has been made for that applicant, that maybe they wouldn't have to.

But I think I would just like to hear your opinion on that topic.

I know that still the community board may want to have some input.

Uh and then also my question is, and this is something that I should know more about, but right now I believe it's a revocable consent, which is a very layered process.

And so, would that be improved if it was a permit process, whatever that means, and I don't know exactly what that means.

So those are my three questions.

Sure, I can address some of those, uh, council members.

So, in terms of the first question on paperwork requirements, one of the places where we're seeing a lot of applications get stuck is in a back and forth with the DOT license examiners over their floor plans.

So the key thing that you've got to submit in one of these applications is a diagram showing not only what the tables and chairs layout is going to be, but you have to have a number of clearances which comply with their regulations.

You heard about the clear path requirement already, which has been made complicated, but there's other clearance criteria as well.

You have to be X number of feet from a fire hydrant, X number of feet from this, or from a poll, from a curb cut, et cetera, et cetera.

And a lot of applications are getting stuck there because it's just really complicated and confusing to get those clearance requirements correct.

One of the things you did in the legislation was eliminate the requirement that there be an architect that submit the plans.

And the purpose of that was because it was supposed to be that bar and restaurant owners shouldn't have to hire a professional if they could just even even hand-drawn in a clean, nice professional way, uh, or on a simple computer program, submit plans, it should have been easy.

But what we're seeing is even though the requirement of hiring an architect has been eliminated, in reality, in the back and forth with the agency on the plans, it's almost like you got to be an architect in order to understand what they're saying and make the correction.

So we're seeing over and over.

So, what would you suggest that it be instead?

How could we make it simpler?

Clearance requirements need to be made simpler.

I think some of the clearance requirements that you heard um heard about already are just too complicated.

That's what Andrew said, yeah.

Specifically the clear path.

We need to go back, just to reiterate it because it's super important.

We need to go back to the old DCA rule where your clear path, the amount of path on the sidewalk that's devoted to pedestrian flow is either eight feet or 50% of the sidewalk, whichever is greater.

That's what you need to be at, that's what you need.

Um on the community board process, um, we love community boards too, but one other aspect that's been really, really frustrating for applicants is they they think they're just applying to DOT, but then when the community board does get notified of the application, the community board hits the applicant with their own very lengthy, in some community boards, questionnaire series of questions, requirements, suggestions, um, and it confuses applicants.

Okay.

And just and just on the on the community board point as well, I've just seen my experience.

This is a member of a community board talking.

Yes, is doing it as we have it at CB7 on the upper west side, where people are going back and forth and trying to get into the technical aspects, and you hear the expertise, a lawyer that does this day in, day out, can still be confused by it.

You have people that are volunteer members of a community board sitting there talking about all these technical things, and some things are correct, other things could be incorrect, and you're spending so much time going back and forth, not necessarily on the overall aspect of whether the community wants that sidewalk cafe, wants the roadway cafe or not, but on these technical measurement issues, which just takes up too much time and in my opinion, uh does not help the process and kind of frustrates everyone, both community board members, uh myself and what I've witnessed from colleagues, but also from the restaurant applicants that uh appear before the board.

Okay, I hope we can hear from Mark Diller because he can simplify that for us.

Well, and then the revocable issue.

Yeah.

Get rid of it.

That's been uh an issue for me for decades, literally.

Um I don't understand why a sidewalk newsstand that occupies 70 square feet as a permanent structure doesn't need a revocable consent, but uh movable tables and chairs do.

Uh and basically, when the sidewalk cafe law was passed in the 1970s, it did not.

You were a restaurant, you were able to apply, uh, there were there were basic clearances, and you got approved.

1980, two things happened.

The zoning overlay was added, and the revocable consent overlay was added.

We've now gotten rid of the zoning overlay, which is good for the boroughs, but we have not gotten rid of the rebel consent, it's a hard word for me, overlay.

And that overlay, there's no, you know, the you know, the council put it in the law.

In my opinion, the council could take it out of the law.

Uh, you know, uh, you know, you you made it uh and you can take it away.

So uh again, there are multiple uses of the public sidewalk that don't have that rebel consent overlay.

So you go to an agency, it's generally consumer affairs, you file an application.

Um the application ultimately goes through review process, if it gets approved, you get your license, you know, uh showing you're done.

Um, you know, you pay you do your renewals, they do the enforcement, whatever.

The consent overlay makes it a multi-month, multi-layered, multiple expensive process.

And there's no legal reason in my mind for it.

There's certainly no ethical or moral reason, and there's no policy reason for it.

We whatever you need to do to get rid of it, you should get rid of it.

Whatever agency, whether it's DOT who's a licensing agency or consumer affairs, there's still going to be enforcement, there's still gonna be clearance.

Oh, well, the permit, there would be, yes.

They'll have a permit, they'll have a license, which could still be taken away if you know three strikes and you're out.

All that stays the same.

You just don't have this extra stuff.

So there's no controller's office reviewing the same 20-page contract, literally 3,000 times.

You don't have the mayor's office reviewing the same boil plate 20-page contract 30 times.

You know, 3,000 times.

There's no reason for it.

It's a whole bureaucracy that I don't know why it was created in 1980.

It's even before my time, but it's time is passed.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms.

Thank you.

Next we'll hear from Councilmember Narcisse followed by Councilmember Ose.

Also, we've been joined by the majority leader, Amanda Farias and Councilmember Rafael Salamanca.

Um, good morning.

Thank you, Chair, and good morning for being here.