The Jersey City Zoning Board of Adjustment has denied the viability of a neighbor’s zoning determination appeal of The Hive coffeeshop as a retail use at 615 Jersey Ave., which saw a challenge from an adjacent resident who argued it was a cafe use.
By Dan Israel/Hudson County View
At last week’s meeting, attorney Timothy Little, representing, David Czehut at 617 Jersey Ave., stated that they were appealing the previous zoning determination issued by Zoning Officer Tanya Marione.
“We are not here to try to close this business. All we are here to do is to have the city enforce its very detailed zoning ordinance. And we believe as fact, the matter has exceeded perhaps the original retail use and it requires a review in order to fit into the community as a proper cafe as defined in the ordinances of Jersey City,” Little said at the hearing.
“We feel the zoning officer did not make the right factual determination or even look at the facts. And the law allows us to appeal the decision in that regard … We’re simply asking for the board to consider having The Hive, or direct the zoning officer, to have a conditional use application submitted for this use.”
Everything started last December, when planning expert Samuel Bellamy, on behalf of Little and Czehut, wrote to Marione requesting a zoning determination letter after several informal communications with her about the use, intensity, and if food and drinks were being prepared on site.
Marione responded to his letter relating to the validity of The Hive’s retail use on December 19th, and based on her analysis of previous approvals she reaffirmed the coffeeshop’s existence on Jersey Avenue.
In response to that, Czehut had Little and Bellamy apply for an appeal to her response, not the approval itself- which was two years ago, insisting The Hive was actually a cafe use.
Before the application proceeded, Little clashed with Board Counsel Vincent LaPaglia, who questioned the timeliness and jurisdiction of the appeal.
According to LaPaglia, the Hive’s initial application was approved in 2024 and there is a 20-day period for appeals.
However, Little argued that the appeal was not only contesting that The Hive is not a retail use and shouldn’t have been approved as such, but if it was it has exceeded that and is now a cafe.
He said that cafe use requires conditional use approval from the board- though he did not address LaPaglia’s timeliness concerns.
According to Little, the development and growth of the business has expanded beyond retail sales and services, incorporating elements of a cafe as defined in city ordinances.
He also argued there have been substantial changes since opening, including: on-site food preparation, a grease trap, and permits applications that fall into the category of a cafe- not a retail use.
“With the change in use, we’re establishing that the use now is substantially different than that office development use. And that that use rises to the level of cafe restaurant category 2 use,” noted Little.
Little and the applicant are really asking for a violation, not an appeal, since the appeal window has closed years ago, and felt the board didn’t have jurisdiction since they don’t issue violations, LaPaglia said.
“If Ms. Marione didn’t say anything at all to Mr. Bellamy, we wouldn’t be here and we wouldn’t be listening to this. Your time to appeal whatever happened in ’24 is gone. So now you’re alleging that whatever happened in ’24 has expanded, there’s this and that,” he added.
Little persisted anyway, bringing up Bellamy to discuss his review of the current and prior use of the property and the permitted and conditional uses under the municipal zoning ordinances.
According to Bellamy, after objectively looking at what was operating there, he also came to the conclusion that The Hive has risen to a cafe use and should be classified as such.
However, Amanda Curley, attorney for The Hive, agreed with LaPaglia that the board does not have jurisdiction, and began cross-examining Bellamy.
“He’s trying to use a ‘confirm the use is okay’ as a vehicle to open up a long-standing approval. If you did this, every single business would be subject to a neighbor who is unhappy,” Curley expressed.
Responding to Curley, Bellamy would not confirm if he felt Dunkin’ Donuts, Starbucks, or other coffeeshops qualified as retail uses or cafes, and he stated that he did not look at similar coffeeshop certificates of occupancy to see their classifications.
Bellamy said his analyses are on a case-by-case basis, and that other businesses don’t set precedent, stating that he read The Hive’s CO as a retail, coffee and tea shop, but argued there was no mention of preparing food on-site.
While Curley stated they were finishing product in an oven, Bellamy argued that heating raw product to cooked product to be consumed constituted preparing food.
“Can you eat that product cold if it was not baked?,” Bellamy said.
“I think that’s the, really, the distinguishing line.”
Noah Navarro, Councilwoman at-Large Mamta Singh’s chief of staff, was among residents who showed out and vocalized their support for the local business and Marione’s original zoning determination.
Rebecca Rozakis, a downtown resident and long-time customer of The Hive, said they are an active part of the community and recalled how they handed out pieces of their famous “cinnies” or cinnamon rolls- which people line up around the block to get.
“It’s a really important part of our community. It’s a really welcoming, friendly place that’s been really important to me and I’d really hate to see us lose it … It would be a major loss to the community if we lost them,” she stated.
“It’s more than just a business, it’s like community. I don’t want a big-box type of retail establishment like Dunkin’ Donuts or Starbucks. I purposely avoid those. I want mom and pop shops,” added Mufti Ahmed.
Little said The Hive had not received any violations from city departments but were allowing customers to dine in the backyard, were asked to stop, and they complied.
Board Secretary Joe Pangilinan argued this was attempting to appeal a zoning determination based on an already approved use from years ago, but in actuality was only appealing a response to the applicant’s inquiry of The Hive’s zoning.
“It kind of sets precedent that any sort of approval could then be called into appeal way beyond the 20-day appeal period just by applying for a zoning determination letter, which kind of puts zoning staff in a very precarious position,” Pangilinan said.
“Somebody could come back years from now and basically … apply for a ZDL with regards to… that building. We could provide an answer based on like the factual process of how we got there, and then they could then appeal that and then we’re back here again, way beyond the permissible appeal period.”
The board remained unconvinced as Chair Catherine Coyle motioned to see if appeal is viable, with a “no” vote indicating agreement with the Marione’s initial ruling.
While the board voted unanimously 6-0(1) to reject the viability of the applicant’s appeal, Vice Chair Sonia Araujo abstained because she just wasn’t sure about the whole thing.
“It’s a coffeeshop. It’s something that’s for the neighborhood and I just don’t see the whole relevance of this whole appeal,” she explained.
Commissioner Carl Czaplicki, among the commissioners who voted against the application’s viability, agreed that the application was after the appeal period.
“Nothing here seems to be worthy of being in front of this board,” he said.
