Zoning Hassle for Three Dining Tables
Owners of La Chapparita are willing to make significant renovations to bring back dining tables to their bodega.
The owners of a Shrewsbury Avenue bodega want to bring back a few dining tables to their establishment, the same tables that occupied a section of their store for years before Red Bank ordered them away for a zoning violation.
Before the Red Bank Zoning Board, this time with an application for a variance to allow for the tables and other upgrades, La Chaparrita’s owners are finding that it’s not as easy as asking politely.
Seeking variances to bring back the tables, add on a minor expansion to create more storage space and expand the kitchen, the zoning board has started adding to a list of conditions the store’s owners will have to abide by if they’re granted approval. Among the conditions they’re considering is the removal of an assortment of large equipment and a broken trailer located at the rear of the site, adding landscaping, and the addition of a handicapped parking space.
Getting those tables back could likely make it worthwhile.
“We had tables. We didn’t have a permit and that’s why we’re here today,” Laura Camargo, speaking before the board on behalf of her father, owner of Camargo Real Estate, LLC. “People really like to have something quick (to eat) during lunch and dinner. They’ve grown to like our food and they want to see (the tables) come back.”
According to Camargo, La Chaparrita, though it does offer a small selection of market staples, specializes in its takeout offerings. With more than 90 percent of the bodega’s clientele comprised of people who walk to the store, it’s especially important to have a place to sit and eat available for patrons, she said.
The expanded kitchen will allow the bodega to run more efficiently and be more productive. The small expansion will also allow for more storage, but it’s the tables, Camargo said, that are the most important part of the application.
La Chaparrita lost its tables during a perhaps ill-advised objection to Juanito’s Market a year ago. Juanito’s Market, a much larger market designed to compete with the likes of Super Foodtown as the neighborhood’s grocery destination, needed several variances to open. Camargo objected on the grounds that the new market would threaten the business of several nearby bodegas like La Chaparrita. During her objection she mentioned the shop’s tables, which drew questions from the board as to whether they were allowed there.
A couple of days later, Camargo said, borough officials came to inspect the bodega and ordered the tables put away.
Should La Chaparrita agree to the Zoning Board’s list of demands it’s likely the tables will make a return, however. Board member Rosemay Minear called the property “overall unsightly,” and used the forum to make some recommendations for conditions that could improve the business and the neighborhood.
“The site is in dire need of improvements,” she said. “This is a terrific chance to improve the property.”
Testimony for the application will likely conclude at the board’s Sept. 20 meeting.
Cindy Burnham
7:26 am on Friday, August 3, 2012
I have always respected Rosemay Minear for her knowledge, wisdom & ability to speak up on issues that are contraversal. If she says the site needs to be cleaned up, I would tend to go with that, however, a decision made recentaly by the Zoning Board regarding Russ Crossen, a Rumson landloard, left me questioning, who does he know & how did this happen. Mr. Crossen, let his multi family rental on Wallace St. ,which is located in the residential / historic zone,fall into total disrepair & was granted a variance to turn it into an office, which is a non conforming use. That didn't sell, so he was granted a variance to go back to residential. That didn't rent, so he was allowed to go back to offices and that last change was done administratively. That was wrong. No more businesses incroaching into the residential zones! Especially the Historic Area.
Russ Crosson
11:33 am on Friday, August 3, 2012
Cindy Burnham speaks without full knowledge or understanding and contradicts her own position Cindy with several other neighbors fought to have 47 Wallace St. be maintained as an office, rather than allow it to revert back to a residential property. During this delay, through the protests, almost a full year went by. Lost rents, mortgage, taxes, insurance, attorney costs, architect's testimony and design costs were incurred. After closing Crosson Construction after 20 years, after not having work for 3 years there simply was nothing left to do the imposed construction to enclose an exterior stair case and other mandates to change back to residential. An offer was made to rent the office building and this the change back to residential was abandoned as allowed. No special act of favoritism. Cindy fought to stop the building from being converted to an office, fought to keep it am office, now complains that it remained an office. Never satisfied seems to be the noise.
Cindy Burnham
12:26 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
No Russ, You are wrong. I never fought on that issue. I was there in support of the neighbors. I never spoke on this issue. I was against business use and still am against businesses enchroaching into the neighborhood. The neighbor wanted the business. I am sorry for your business problems, however, once your place got a varience for business and you couldn't rent it,then you went back to change it to
residentail then took it back to the board without anyone knowing and the Zoning Board, again, let you go back to business without a hearing. Sorry, thats wrong. This change of use, for the third time, should have gone before the zoning board. Plain & simple.
Russ Crosson
2:38 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
And you are wrong. I did not have to go back to the board, as it was and is not required to have done so, as I never moved on the action and thus I abandoned the request as allowed. There were no favors, no requirements, no one that I knew or special considerations. I simply abandoned the request. Doing so I would point out is what the neighbors that live on Wallace St. preferred, per the testimonies heard.
Cindy Burnham
4:36 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
Ya know Ross, The bottom line here to me is that a slum landloard got over. Your income house was a reck, you got it approved for a non conforming use, couldn't sell it, changed it back to a residential unit & then that didn't work for ya so now you have a business in the resdiential zone. The neighbor you refer to went with the business because he felt it was the lessor of 2 evils, but you didn't care about that when you changed it back to a residential unit.
Marjorie Smith
6:20 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
Hmmm, and I thought this was an article about whether a bodega could offer table seating to their customers. Who knew it was really about slum landlords?
Russell Crosson
3:58 pm on Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Cindy, I agree with Marjorie, but I will end with noting, that as your slum landlord comment goes, the home was maintained until tenants failed to heat the property, all pipes froze, burst, ruined walls, floors, etc....making the property inhabitable. It took 3 years to get approval to renovate and repair to the condition the property is now in. A $500,000 plus renovation which surely improved the neighborhood to everyone's benefit and liking. I wish others would do the same in Red Bank. Obviously, as you noted in your 1st writing, me knowing anyone was not the case. In the change back to residential, it took almost a full year to do what should have been simple and is allowable by law,..."to use the property in the manner for which the zoning allows". It cost me over $125,000 and a full year, then if I went forward with the agreement, I would have had to spend an additional $20,000 to enclose the back staircase and accept less tenants than code allows. No law required this. This was a wrongful decision to appease many neighbors. None one of the neighbors wanted the property to go back to residential, as they were concerned for overcrowding. You know the facts, you were there, you speak incorrectly, sad to say. Let's move on.