on the original liquor license application. Patrick-Odeen disputes the minutes, arguing that she told the business committee that she intended to put the outdoor space on hold temporarily to give the community an opportunity to get to know them, not to postpone outdoor seating for three years. As for keeping the French doors closed, she says, “Everybody around here, when the weather is nice, they have their doors open. Why do I have to keep mine closed?â€
In addition to the noise issue, minutes show that approval to recommend Lola for a liquor license was unanimously opposed by the full board because the restaurant didn’t meet the required findings of the 500-foot rule, which prohibits the issuance of a license to any location within 500 feet of three other businesses with liquor licenses unless the business can successfully show that having one would benefit the public. In Lola’s case, the community board objected, forcing Patrick-Odeen to defend herself at a State Liquor Authority hearing in November 2004.
Lola’s opponents turned out in full force and complained that the community was already oversaturated with 35 drinking establishments within 500 feet of the proposed premises (Sweeney argued that most of the licenses were issued before the law went into effect in 1993), and that traffic would worsen. Patrick-Odeen disputed the accusations and presented more than 535 signatures of support from the community.
“We don’t oppose liquor licenses generally,†Sweeney argued at the hearing. “This block just can’t take another one.â€
City Councilman Alan J. Gerson, who wrote a letter to the State Liquor Authority in opposition to the license agreed. “Any applicant for a liquor license at that location would have received opposition.†He also echoed the community board’s concern over the outdoor courtyard and intended sidewalk café, two things he said his office usually scrutinizes when they are proposed in residential areas.
“We offered to work with the restaurant and community, as we do in many cases, to see if we could bridge the gap and come up with plans and constraints to allow the business to go forward,†Gerson offers. “In fact, we had a meeting with Lola and gave them some suggestions. I think they took some of those suggestions [such as double-paned glass windows.]â€
The 500-foot hearing went in Lola’s favor and the SLA issued the license in March 2005. A group led by the Alliance filed suit against Lola and the State Liquor Authority in New York State Supreme Court, presenting 509 names of petitioners. Judge Marilyn Shafer annulled the license in November 2005, citing the 500-foot rule, and wrote that the State Liquor Authority “acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner granting an on-premises liquor license without detailing its reasons why and how it would be in the public interest to do so.â€
Patrick-Odeen filed an appeal in the Appellate Division and hired a private investigator, who found that many of the 509 petitioners had not consented to supplying their name in opposition. The Alliance conceded that some of the names had