jcgurl wrote:
I just wanted to share an update on the Cafe Zoning Amendment from Candice Osborne's office. Because of neighborhood feedback, the proposed ordinance has been revised to remove the backyard seating option. The amendment would allow for cafes to have a combined total of 20 seats in front of their establishment and indoors. I believe this will be voted on at the next city council meeting.

Sommerman wrote:
Quote:

nightgownposse wrote:
Quote:

Sommerman wrote:
Quote:

nightgownposse wrote:
There are 2 restaurants further up the street on Erie that aren't disturbing the peace and they are open later.

Where did you get that information, because I beg to differ - more litter, more loud pedestrians late into the night.

I got my information from living there. Where did you get yours chicken little?

From my house on Erie off First

jcgurl wrote:
I'm trying hard not to get too drawn into this but it seems like some of the commenters don't understand the concept of zoning. Areas that are zoned as "residential" prohibit businesses from opening up there. This helps protect the character of a neighborhood and protects property values. Without zoning, a car repair shop could open next to my brownstone and leave broken down cars all over the place.

Current zoning should be enforced and I sympathize with those whose lives would be impacted should this variance be accepted.

nightgownposse wrote:
Quote:

Sommerman wrote:
Quote:

nightgownposse wrote:
There are 2 restaurants further up the street on Erie that aren't disturbing the peace and they are open later.

Where did you get that information, because I beg to differ - more litter, more loud pedestrians late into the night.

I got my information from living there. Where did you get yours chicken little?

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

MidwestTransplant wrote:
Quote:

jcgurl wrote:
I remember the bodega. It didn't have garden seating. That's the difference. "Maybe get your facts straight before ranting."

As much as I am generally pro-development, she's not wrong.

Prato, as much as I love them, knew the zoning code before they signed their lease. They tried to skirt the code, got caught, and in normal circumstances should have attempted to receive an exemption to said code. There likely wouldn't have been any push-back for their indoor seating, but likely wouldn't have been able to get anything done regarding the back yard.

Instead, a sweeping (relatively) change to zoning code is being sought to solve one business's perceived problem. That seems overreaching, and is likely to piss off a bunch of homeowners with vested interests, and not for bad reasons.

Edit: I forgot about the pedophile argument. That was a fantastic bit of irrelevant fear-mongering.

Except you are perpetuating the myth that this ordinance is somehow in response to Prato. If you read the thread, you'll see the two are entirely unconnected. This ordinance was in the works long before Prato's situation.

MidwestTransplant wrote:
Quote:

jcgurl wrote:
I remember the bodega. It didn't have garden seating. That's the difference. "Maybe get your facts straight before ranting."

As much as I am generally pro-development, she's not wrong.

Prato, as much as I love them, knew the zoning code before they signed their lease. They tried to skirt the code, got caught, and in normal circumstances should have attempted to receive an exemption to said code. There likely wouldn't have been any push-back for their indoor seating, but likely wouldn't have been able to get anything done regarding the back yard.

Instead, a sweeping (relatively) change to zoning code is being sought to solve one business's perceived problem. That seems overreaching, and is likely to piss off a bunch of homeowners with vested interests, and not for bad reasons.

Edit: I forgot about the pedophile argument. That was a fantastic bit of irrelevant fear-mongering.

Sommerman wrote:
Quote:

nightgownposse wrote:
There are 2 restaurants further up the street on Erie that aren't disturbing the peace and they are open later.

Where did you get that information, because I beg to differ - more litter, more loud pedestrians late into the night.

nightgownposse wrote:
There are 2 restaurants further up the street on Erie that aren't disturbing the peace and they are open later.

jcgurl wrote:
I remember the bodega. It didn't have garden seating. That's the difference. "Maybe get your facts straight before ranting."

nightgownposse wrote:

no we get it, we want it to change because it doesn't effect the neighborhood except in a positive way.

jcgurl wrote:
I remember the bodega. It didn't have garden seating. That's the difference. "Maybe get your facts straight before ranting."

tamard wrote:

...It was not someone's living room turned Italian bakery.

nightgownposse wrote:

It's the same logic that anti gay marriage folks have when they say "oh what next? can I marry my dog?"

jcgurl wrote:
I'm trying hard not to get too drawn into this but it seems like some of the commenters don't understand the concept of zoning. Areas that are zoned as "residential" prohibit businesses from opening up there. This helps protect the character of a neighborhood and protects property values. Without zoning, a car repair shop could open next to my brownstone and leave broken down cars all over the place.

jcgurl wrote:
So you would be O.K. if a business, for which your neighborhood is not zoned, opened up next door to your home and significantly impacted your property value? Let's say it's a pawn shop, just for the sake of argument. I won't even get into the noise issue.

jcgurl wrote:
I'm trying hard not to get too drawn into this but it seems like some of the commenters don't understand the concept of zoning. Areas that are zoned as "residential" prohibit businesses from opening up there. This helps protect the character of a neighborhood and protects property values. Without zoning, a car repair shop could open next to my brownstone and leave broken down cars all over the place.

The "time to move to the burbs" comments don't help either. I've lived in JC for 15 years. I'm not a renter. I own a home here, vote, pay taxes and as a participant in a democracy think that my voice counts. I am thrilled that JC has changed so much for the better since I moved here. I love all the new restaurants. It's amazing. I'm not opposed to change. But they SHOULD NOT INFRINGE ON OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS! Current zoning should be enforced and I sympathize with those whose lives would be impacted should this variance be accepted.

Fomite wrote:

Sounds like it's time to move to the burbs.

Fomite wrote:
"I have been a big fan of their establishment since it opened but I was kind of bewildered how they were able to open in such a residential neighborhood."

Uhhh It's a coffee shop. Where else should it open?

jcgurl wrote:
Something some people on this thread are not understanding is that NOISE cannot be blocked out with a fence. I invested a half a million dollars to have a beautiful Jersey City condo with a quiet back garden and I'm counting on the quiet back garden to be a selling point when I decide to cash in my chips. I've invested a lot of time, money and energy in my property to that end. My young child's bedroom is next to the garden and when neighbors occasionally have loud parties, he can't sleep (he still naps so daytime noise is also a problem which is why he doesn't have the bedroom that faces the street). Having a even somewhat loud cafe next door would dramatically impact my quality of life as well as my property value. If the city wants to keep attracting people to invest in residential real estate, they need to think twice about this one. FWIW, I live on the same block as Prato but not close enough that the cafe would impact me directly. I have been a big fan of their establishment since it opened but I was kind of bewildered how they were able to open in such a residential neighborhood. I hope the city continues to enforce the zoning and not bend the rules on a whim.