OCTOBER FULL BOARD MINUTES
The Borough of Manhattan Community Board Five
Gale Brewer, Borough President
Vikki Barbero, Chair
Marisa Maack, District Manager
Minutes of the regular Community Board Five meeting held on Thursday, November 10, 2021 via teleconferencing, at 6:00pm. Vikki Barbero, Chair, presided.
Maki Thomas Livesay
Sarah BJ Sung
John Harris Jr.
Li jen Chung
Maddalena Nappi Reidy
Justin Flagg, Senator Krueger’s Office: discussed the upcoming general election on November 2nd and the five proposals on the ballot. He announced Senator Krueger’s virtual town hall will be a discussion of the fiveproposals on the ballot. He also announced that the deadline to apply for absentee ballots is October 18 and early voting will start on October 23. He spoke of the upcoming annual Senior Fair.
Laurie Harjowaroga, Speaker Johnson’s Office: announced that the Speaker, along with Councilmember Mark Levine, sponsored Intro 1668, a bill requiring New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene or another entity be designated by the Mayor to develop and manage a program to provide both primary care and patient navigator services in each community district. She also announced two upcoming events: mammogram screenings on October 26 and a free shred day on November 13.
Alexis Richards, Councilmember Rivera’s Office: reported on the oversight hearing by the Council’s Committee on Hospitals on rising hospital costs and price transparency requirements. She also stated that the Committee on Hospitals will join with the Committee on Fire and Emergency Management for an oversight hearing to evaluate hospital preparedness for weather emergencies. She announced two upcoming events: DoITT will be holding a public meeting on the future and design of LinkNYC on October 18 and also Councilmember Rivera will be partnering with the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings for their upcoming Street Source Outreach event, which will explain what to do if you receive a summons. She also announced that the office received concerns in the area regarding various quality of life issues.
Matt Tighe, Assemblymember Gottfried’s Office: reported that the Assembly Member, who is the chair of the NYS Assembly Health Committee, was delighted by Governor Hochul’s announcement nominating Dr. Mary Bassett, who was a familiar figure to New York City, as the next State Health Commissioner. He stated that Assemblymember Gottfried joined the Mayor to support the move to require city workers to be vaccinated against Covid-19. He also announced a few important bills sponsored by the Assemblymember waiting for the Governor’s signature.
Franklin Richards, Councilmember Powers’ Office: spoke of reports on the conditions in the Garment District area such as getting the Department of Sanitation to send out syringe units to pick up used syringes on the street. He spoke of the Borough President’s letter to the Department of Transportation asking to implement a Rockefeller Center Pedestrian Congestion Mitigation plan, which will include pedestrianization of 49th and 50th Streets between 5th and 6th Avenues during the upcoming holiday season and is requesting that these efforts be made permanent. He also announced that the City Council voted to pass the Zoning for Accessibility plan to expand ADA accessibility in the city subway system, which will have a significant positive impact on people living with disabilities, seniors and parents with young children.
Senator Brad Hoylman: discussed the Empire Station Complex Plan, an issue that is of a particular concern for Community Board Five He spoke of the benefit of being able to ask the Acting MTA Chair some questions about the financing of the redevelopment of Penn Station and the station expansion.
Kate Friedman, Congresswoman Maloney’s Office: announced that the Congresswoman continue to work with Speaker Pelosi and Progressive Caucus Chair to ensure that the budget reconciliation bill and the Build Back Better Act pass in tandem. She stated that Congresswoman Maloney visited Rikers Island jail complex with other reps and call on the city to address the inhumane conditions there and to release the low level offenders. She stated that the Congresswoman held an Oversight Committee meeting on the months long hyper-partisan audit in Maricopa County, Arizona to explore how the audit and similar efforts nationwide are threatening democracy. She also held an Oversight Committee hearing on existential threats to abortion rights.
Li jen Chung, Manhattan District Attorney’s Office: announced that the District Attorney’s office is hosting its second Art of Healing event in Lower East Side on October 30. She stated that the event is for young people to create arts to heal and express themselves from the trauma of crimes.
David Achelis, West 50th Street Neighborhood Association: stated that he would like to bring to the Board on behalf of his Neighborhood Association the subject of bicycles and e-bikes in New York City. He spoke of things getting out of control with bicycle, dirt bikes and even e-bikes gangs terrorizing pedestrians and cars. He asked for help from electeds to get the bike situation under control.
Lisa Wager, Fashion Institute of Technology, announced the model, actress and activist Amber Valletta was recently named FIT’s first sustainability ambassador. She spoke of holding their Eighth Annual Sustainability Awareness Week with a series of panels and conversations that engage our community in sustainability. She announced the following events: the Fourth Annual Diversity Comic-Com and the Chalk FIT live art event. Students will create chalk murals along the 7th Avenue façade from 26 to 28th Streets.
The September 2021 minutes passed with a vote of 35 in favor, 0 opposed, 1 abstaining, as follows: IN FAVOR: Achelis, Athanail, Beitchman, Brosnahan, Chou, Diggins, Dowson, Ford, Frewer, Garcia, Haas, Harris, Jr., Hartman, Hershberg, Heyer, Kaback, Kahng, Kalafarski, Lavingia, Law-Gisiko, Levy, Lione, Livesay, Lucic, McCall, Miller, Shapiro, Sigman, Slutzkin, Spandorf, Stern, Sung, Webb, Whalen, Yang. ABSTAIN: Barbero.
Chair Barbero announced that Luke Szabados will be leaving the CB5 office next week to join the Department of Building’s staff. She spoke of his work as the community liaison which helped to address a great many quality of life issues in CB5. She wished him all the best in his new position and thanked him for his service.
LANDMARKS – layla law-gisiko
Ms. Law-Gisiko gave a brief presentation on the following bundled resolutions.
Legalization of two vitrines at display windows at 935 Broadway, the Harry Potter New York store, along the East 22nd Street façade.
WHEREAS, 935 Broadway (aka Mortimer Building) is a six-story store and office building constructed in 1861-62; and
WHEREAS, The building was designed by noted architect Griffith Thomas for prominent real estate magnate Richard Mortimer; and
WHEREAS, The building is a prime example of Italianate architecture with austere and elegant brownstone façades, fluted columns and a dentilled and modillioned cornice; and
WHEREAS, The building enjoys a prominent place in the Ladies Mile Historic District (District) with three full façades, fronting Broadway, East 22nd Street and Fifth Avenue, across from the Flatiron Building; and
WHEREAS, Warner Bros. d.b.a. Harry Potter New York (the “Applicant”), has installed two vitrines at display windows at 935 Broadway along the East 22nd Street façade that were not approved by the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC); and
WHEREAS, The Applicant has also installed three adjacent vitrines at display windows at 935 Broadway along the East 22nd Street façade that were previously approved by LPC; and
WHEREAS, LPC has issued a warning letter of non-compliance regarding the two vitrines that were not approved; and
WHEREAS, The Applicant seeks legalization of the two non-compliant vitrines; and
WHEREAS, The storefront windows of the two non-compliant vitrines, while reflective during the daytime, are illuminated during evening and nighttime hours; and
WHEREAS, The color, brightness and theatrical nature of the lighting are non-contextual for the building; and
WHEREAS, The illumination, color, and brightness of the two non-compliant vitrines are inharmonious with the surrounding streetscape; and
WHEREAS, The illumination, color, and brightness of the two non-compliant vitrines are inappropriate for the District and accordingly would establish an unfortunate precedent for the District; and
WHEREAS, While the lighting scheme is problematic, the vitrines themselves do not affect the façade in a negative way, especially as they can be removed without alteration to the historic fabric of the building; and
WHEREAS, The Applicant's non-compliance was due, according to the applicant themselves, to poor advice and execution; and
WHEREAS, While legalizing the vitrines structure may raise no objection, the lighting scheme within the two non-compliant vitrines is overwhelming, inappropriate and should not be legalized; therefore be it
RESOLVED, Community Board Five recommends denial of the application by Warner Bros. d.b.a. Harry Potter New York at 935 Broadway, to legalize the installation of two non-compliant vitrines at display windows along the East 22nd Street façade unless Warner Bros. proposes illumination, color and brightness of the displays of the vitrines that is contextual, harmonious and appropriate for the Ladies Mile Historic District.
After some discussion, the above bundled resolutions passed with a vote of 35 in favor, 0 opposed, 1 abstaining: IN FAVOR: Achelis, Athanail, Beitchman, Brosnahan, Chou, Diggins, Dowson, Ford, Frewer, Garcia, Haas, Harris, Jr., Hartman, Hershberg, Heyer, Kaback, Kahng, Kalafarski, Lavingia, Law-Gisiko, Levy, Lione, Livesay, Lucic, McCall, Miller, Shapiro, Sigman, Slutzkin, Spandorf, Stern, Sung, Webb, Whalen, Yang. ABSTAIN: Barbero.
TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENT – e.j. kalafarski
Mr. Kalafarski gave a brief presentation on the following bundled resolutions:
Petition by 220 5th Realty, LLC, for revocable consent by the Department of Transportation for a sidewalk lighting installation along the perimeter of 220 Fifth Avenue.
WHEREAS, 220 Fifth Avenue is a commercial building on the northwest corner of Fifth Avenue and 26th Street, also known as the Croisic Building, and was completed in 1912; and
WHEREAS, 220 5th Realty LLC (“the Applicant”) has applied for a new revocable consent from the New York City Department of Transportation (“DOT”) for a sidewalk installation on both the Fifth Avenue and 26th Street sides of the building; and
WHEREAS, The Applicant seeks to install electrical sockets and conduit to power a lighting installation that would accent the lower floors of the building’s exterior walls; and
WHEREAS, This installation would be made below and flush with the surface level of the sidewalk and not be raised above the sidewalk surface; and
WHEREAS, 14 lights would be installed along the perimeter of the building—9 on Fifth Avenue, 5 on West 26th Street—each approximately 5 inches in diameter and sitting approximately 10 inches from the building; and
WHEREAS, Installation of the electrical sockets and conduit would require approximately 3 feet of sidewalk be blocked from pedestrian traffic for approximately one week; and
WHEREAS, The building is regarded for its neo-Gothic architecture and is part of the Madison Square North Historic District; and
WHEREAS, Community Board Five does not object to the narrow question of the physical installation of the electrical sockets and conduit themselves; and
WHEREAS, The environmental impacts of light installations on neighboring buildings can be significant and Community Board Five believes they should be examined in any consideration of revocable consent applications related to lighting, particularly when they may impact landmarked spaces; and
WHEREAS, At this time the Landmarks Preservation Commission does not review sidewalk lighting applications and therefore no venue currently exists for the examination of lighting schemes that impact landmarked spaces; and
WHEREAS, Community Board Five believes that the Landmarks Preservation Commission should review such lighting applications going forward so that the complete impact of such proposals on landmarked spaces can be properly assessed and not be narrowly confined to only the physical installation of the requisite infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, While Community Board Five would prefer that this specific application also be reviewed by the Landmarks Preservation Commission, no such mechanism currently exists and so acknowledges that the Applicant has satisfied all currently available application review requirements; therefore be it
RESOLVED, Community Board Five recommends approval of the revocable consent by the DOT for 220 5th Realty, LLC, to install and maintain the lighting installation along the perimeter of 220 Fifth Avenue noted above; and be it further
RESOLVED, Going forward, Community Board Five will require data about light pollution for any review of future revocable consent applications related to lighting, given the potential environmental concerns of neighbors; and be it further
RESOLVED, Community Board Five requests that the Landmarks Preservation Commission resume the review of lighting applications so that the impact of lighting schemes such as this application may be holistically considered in the future.
Application by HJ Opco, LLC, for an intercity bus stop in front of 482 Lexington Avenue at East 47th Street, and in front of 722 Lexington Avenue at East 59th Street.
WHEREAS, HJ Opco, LLC (“Applicant”), seeks approval from the New York City Department of Transportation (“DOT”) of an application to operate an intercity bus service between New York City and Long Island in front of 482 Lexington Avenue at East 47th Street, and in front of 722 Lexington Avenue at East 59th Street; and
WHEREAS, The Applicant proposes up to 6 daily pickups or drop-offs Monday to Sunday between 7:50 a.m. and 9:20 p.m., with 1 dropoff every 2 to 3 hours; and use of these locations will be seasonal; and
WHEREAS, The Applicant, who operates Hampton Jitney bus service, purchased the defunct similar bus service HLL Hamptons Luxury, which operated at these two locations, and is therefore taking over existing HHL bus stop locations and service; and
WHEREAS, The Port Authority Bus Terminal currently operates at or above capacity; resulting in a dramatic rise in curbside bus companies operating within the district of Community Board Five over the past decade; and
WHEREAS, Without regulation, the rise of intercity bus services operating curbside in midtown Manhattan resulted in increased sidewalk congestion, traffic gridlock, and increased on-street bus parking and double parking, which combine to create safety concerns for drivers, pedestrians, local business owners, and residents; and
WHEREAS, The State Legislature adopted Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1642-a in 2013 to address these concerns, empowering DOT to create a permitting system, including to:
WHEREAS, The Applicant proposes to share an existing bus stop, currently used by New York City’s M101, M102, and M103 bus lines; and
WHEREAS, The Hampton Jitney bus line is an express service that does not make frequent stops; and
WHEREAS, Members of the public expressed concern over the number of buses currently operating in and around the blocks immediately to the south of the proposed location; and
WHEREAS, There is no other intercity bus service at the proposed location; and
WHEREAS, DOT does not believe the Applicant’s use of the proposed location would interfere with existing public bus service; and
WHEREAS, The Applicant is a known operator who has operated Hampton Jitney out of the community for years; and
WHEREAS, The proposed stops, pickups, and drop-offs are previously-existing curbside service, effectively maintaining the status quo, which has operated effectively and without overly-burdensome impact for the community; therefore be it
RESOLVED, Community Board Five recommends approval of HJ Opco LLC application for an intercity bus stop in front of 482 Lexington Avenue at East 47th Street, and in front of 722 Lexington Avenue at East 59th Street.
After much discussion, the above bundled resolutions passed with a vote of 36 in favor, 0 opposed, 1 abstaining as follow: IN FAVOR: Achelis, Athanail, Beitchman, Brosnahan, Chou, Diggins, Dowson, Ford, Frewer, Garcia, Haas, Harris Jr., Hartman, Hershberg, Heyer, Isaacs, Kaback, Kahng, Kalafarski, Lavingia, Law-Gisiko, Levy, Lione, Livesay, Lucic, McCall, Miller, Shapiro, Sigman, Slutzkin, Spandorf, Stern, Sung, Webb, Whalen, Yang. ABSTAIN: Barbero.
LAND USE, HOUSING AND ZONING – Layla Law-Gisiko
Ms. Law-Gisiko gave a brief presentation on the following resolution on behalf of the joint committees:
112-116 West 28th street, application for enlargement to an existing hotel contrary to use regulation ZR 42-111
WHEREAS, The owner of the Subject Property at 112-116 West 28th Street (the “Applicant”) filed an application for a use variance pursuant to Section 72-21 of the Zoning Resolution of the City of New York (“ZR”), seeking a Board of Standards and Appeals variance of ZR Section 42-111, within an M1-6 zoning district, to permit the development of a eighteen (18) story, 217 foot tall, 59,000 square foot (9.97 FAR), 179 transient unit hotel; and
WHEREAS, The premises of 112-116 West 28th Street (identified by the City of New York as Block 803, Lot 49 in Manhattan) is 5,925 square feet of lot area, 60 foot frontage and 98.75ft depth, and is located in an M1-6 zoning district between 6th and 7th Avenues, wherein hotel uses are permitted with a special permit; and
WHEREAS, Former Lot 48 (112 West 28th Street), which was purchased by the Applicant in June 2012, and former Lot 49 (114-116 West 28th Street), which was purchased by the Applicant in 2005, had a Zoning Lot merger in November 2018 to create the current, enlarged Lot 49; and
WHEREAS, The Proposed Building would be on the former Lot 48, which measures as a 1,975 square feet of lot area, 20 foot frontage and 98.75ft depth, would have commercial or retail use at the ground floor, and 67 additional transient hotel units above, which would enlarge by 33% the zoning floor area of the existing 2010 built, 17-story, 39,000 square foot, 112 transient unit hotel currently operating as the Marriott Fairfield Inn Manhattan/Chelsea; and
WHEREAS, For a comparative analysis of the Proposed Building, the Applicant used an alternate As-of-Right development with a 15-story, 20,112 square foot, 9.98 FAR, 179 foot tall Commercial office building with 1,050 square feet of useable office space on the first nine floors and 700 square feet of useable office space on the top six floors; and
WHEREAS, The existing four-story commercial building on former Lot 48 has been vacant since 2018, had a Partial Department of Buildings (DOB) Work Permit for hotel expansion in November 2018, two DOB demolition permits in April 2018 and February 2019, has an ongoing DOB Stop Work Order from September 2019, currently has holes in its roof, and scaffolding supporting a sidewalk shed in front, and the Applicant was unable to explain how much money has been spent on demolition or how much demolition has been completed as of 2021; and
WHEREAS, On December 20, 2018, ZR 42-111 Hotel Special Permits for M1 Districts was enacted into the Zoning Resolution, after a public announcement by the Department of City Planning on April 23, 2018 and public hearings by Community Boards, Borough Presidents, the City Planning Commission, and the City Council throughout the summer and fall of 2018, although the Applicant’s representative was not sure if the Applicant was aware of this; and
WHEREAS, The Hotel Special Permit for M1 Districts allows for hotel use in M1 zoning districts through a modified ULURP process that encourages development that integrates itself within the neighborhood and the text amendment allowed for a transition/“grandfathered in” period for projects that had DOB-approved Entire (not partial) work plans by December 20, 2018 and could show substantial interest and investment; and
WHEREAS, In order to be eligible for a variance under Section 72-21 of the Zoning Resolution, an applicant is responsible to demonstrate that the variance meets or satisfies ALL five specific findings set forth in the Zoning Resolution and failure to satisfy any one of the five findings would result in a rejection of the application
The five findings are:
(a) “Uniqueness” that there are unique physical conditions, including irregularity, narrowness or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to and inherent in the particular #zoning lot#; and that, as a result of such unique physical conditions, practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship arise in complying strictly with the #use# or #bulk# provisions of the Resolution; and that the alleged practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship are not due to circumstances created generally by the strict application of such provisions in the neighborhood or district in which the zoning lot is located;
(b) “Financial Hardship” that because of such physical conditions there is no reasonable possibility that the development of the zoning lot in strict conformity with the provisions of this Resolution will bring a reasonable return, and that the grant of a variance is therefore necessary to enable the owner to realize a reasonable return from such ‘zoning lot’; this finding shall not be required for the granting of a variance to a non-profit organization;
(c) “Neighborhood Character” that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the zoning lot is located; will not substantially impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property; and will not be detrimental to the public welfare;
(d) “Self-Created Hardship” that the practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship claimed as a ground for a variance have not been created by the owner or by a predecessor in title; however where all other required findings are made, the purchase of a zoning lot subject to the restrictions sought to be varied shall not itself constitute a self-created hardship; and
(e) “Minimum Variance” that within the intent and purposes of this Resolution the variance, if granted, is the minimum variance necessary to afford relief; and to this end, the Board may permit a lesser variance than that applied for; and
WHEREAS, The Applicant contends that the portion of the enlarged, merged lot, that was formerly Lot 48, is uniquely small, having a width of 20 feet and a depth of 98.75 feet, and the Applicant contends that the lot is not suitable for the alternate As-of-Right commercial office building; and
WHEREAS, In the Applicant’s Statement of Facts and Findings, eleven other lots with widths of 20 feet or fewer are identified within a ¼ mile radius from former Lot 48, which suggests that the former Lot is not unique in the neighborhood, however Finding (a) specifies that the dimensions of the zoning lot (not the development site or the former lot) are to be evaluated, which in this case the enlarged, merged Lot 49 has a width of 60 feet, therefore the Proposed Building fails to meet Finding (a); and
WHEREAS, The Applicant contends that the development of the As-of-Right commercial office building would not provide for a reasonable return on investment and result in a net loss of 6.3% based on $41.6 million annual net operating income and $50.5 million development costs, and the Applicant contends that the development of the Proposed Building would provide a reasonable return on investment and result in a net profit of 0.1% based on $53.8 million annual net operating income and $53.7 million development costs; and
WHEREAS, The Applicant’s financial analysis for hotel use and office use was done using 2020 pandemic numbers and the Applicant could not provide more information or answer questions about the analysis during the public hearing, therefore it is unclear whether the Proposed Building satisfies Finding (b); and
WHEREAS, The Applicant contends that the development of the Proposed Building would fit well within the character of the neighborhood as there are currently, or soon to be, a total of 8 hotels on this block of West 28th Street; and
WHEREAS, The Applicant could not provide the Community Board with any environmental or traffic impact studies that analyzed what, if any, the Proposed Building would have on the neighborhood, and residents of three buildings on the block spoke at LUHZ Committee hearing about not wanting anymore years of construction traffic after living with over a decade of continuous hotel development on this one block, therefore because there is no data on how the neighborhood would be impacted by this development, it is unclear how the Proposed Building can satisfy Finding (c); and
WHEREAS, The Applicant contends that the existing condition of the premises is not due to any self-created hardship; and
WHEREAS, The Applicant stated during the public hearing that the four-story Lot 48 building was bought in 2012, the same date is stated on Page 2 of the application’s Statement of Facts and Findings and on the June 6, 2012 Deed, however this is not what is indicated on page 10 under the discussion of Self-Created Hardship in the Statement of Facts: “the building was acquired in August of 2018”; and
WHEREAS, The Applicant had six years, from June 2012 until April 2018, to redevelop as-of-right the four-story building as a hotel while it was Lot 48, and the Applicant failed to be “grandfathered in” by submitting entire work plans to DOB during the eight months starting in April 2018, when the Applicant merged the two lots and enlarged Lot 49, and ending on December 20, 2018, when M1 District Hotel Special Permit was enacted into the Zoning Resolution, and furthermore in the three years since December 2018, the Applicant has failed to demonstrate clear intent to demolish four-story building or provide any analysis that demonstrates substantial investment or substantial demolition work has been completed, therefore the Proposed Building fails to meet Finding (d); and
WHEREAS, The Applicant contends that the Proposed Building would be a minimal variance compared to the As-of-Right commercial building; and
WHEREAS, A use variance is not necessary to develop a hotel since the Hotel Special Permit, as designed by the Zoning Text Amendment passed in December 2018, is the appropriate zoning mechanism for the Proposed Building, therefore the Proposed Building fails to meet Finding (e); and
WHEREAS, Granting a use variance at this location would amount to spot zoning, a practice that has been very detrimental to proper land use planning and growth in our district, and granting a variance to this application would undermine the whole purpose of seeking relief from the Board of Standards and Appeals as the recourse of last resort, when all other options have been exhausted; therefore be it
RESOLVED, Community Board Five recommends denial of the application for a BSA variance to permit the enlargement of an existing hotel to become a 18-story, 179 transient unit hotel with commercial ground floor in an M1-6 district at 112-116 West 28th Street because it does not clearly meet any of the five required findings, and be it further
RESOLVED, Community Board Five strongly encourages any applicant to take advantage of all available mechanisms, in the Zoning Resolution, including the use of a Hotel Special Permit, instead of applying for a variance from the BSA.
After much discussion the above resolution by the Land Use, Housing and Zoning Committee passed with a vote of 36 in favor, 0 opposed, 1 abstaining: IN FAVOR: Achelis, Athanail, Beitchman, Brosnahan, Chou, Diggins, Dowson, Ford, Frewer, Garcia, Haas, Harris Jr., Hartman, Hershberg, Heyer, Isaacs, Kaback, Kahng, Kalafarski, Lavingia, Law-Gisiko, Levy, Lione, Livesay, Lucic, McCall, Miller, Shapiro, Sigman, Slutzkin, Spandorf, Stern, Sung, Webb, Whalen, Yang. ABSTAIN: Barbero.
At this point in the meeting Chair Barbero introduced Manhattan Borough President Brewer
Borough President Brewer spoke of working on the pedestrianization of Rockefeller Center. She also stated that a few people have contacted her about the bus route and wanted to get the Board’s input on rerouting. She spoke of trying to figure out Fifth Avenue and that a lot of people are weighing in on the bus and bike lanes. She stated that starting on October 20th, that there would be several forums on how technology can and will shape the future of NYC and stated that she had no idea what is going to happen after January 15th regarding hybrid versus in-person meetings. She spoke of the Commission of Oath on choices on sanitation tickets. She noted that the 1811 “Commissioner’s Plan” will be on display at her office as part of Open House NY.
There being no further business, the regularly scheduled meeting of Community Board Five adjourned at 7:58 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,