Mardi Gras Cut Short At Jackee’s

by Thomas MacMillan | Mar 21, 2011 11:09 am

(20) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author

Posted to: Fair Haven, The Annex, Upper State Street

A year ago, zoners gave Jackee Jones permission to keep her New “Orleans-style” cafe open until 11:30 p.m. She appeared before city officials to explain why she’s been staying open until 1 a.m., and why her “restaurant” serves only alcohol. Jones (pictured) appeared before the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) as part of a one-year administrative review of the board’s decision to allow her to open Jackee’s New Orleans Cafe at 754 State St. in February of 2010. The review—at Tuesday’s meeting of the BZA—gave zoners a chance to address the fact that Jones has recently received a couple of cease and desist letters from the city building department. The letters make three charges: that Jones has the wrong type of liquor license, that she has been staying open later than she’s allowed, and that her restaurant has no kitchen. Jones assured zoners that she is addressing all of those problems. They told her that she must close each night by 11:30 p.m. Jones said she will be back to seek an extension of her hours. Several neighbors also showed up at the meeting to complain about the noise level at Jackee’s. But they were not given an opportunity to speak. Jones’ was one of several alcohol-related matters before the board. Others involved a proposed package store on Farren Avenue and a small marina restaurant on Front Street. Cafe Reined In Jones opened her testimony to the board by showing off her menu. “My kitchens are open,” she said. It just took her a long time to get all the equipment hooked up, she later explained. (Jackee’s recently scored top marks for the cleanliness of its kitchen, perhaps because it hasn’t seen any use.) As for having a cafe liquor permit when she should have a restaurant permit, “I didn’t have no knowledge that I was doing anything wrong because Mr. Tom Talbot [deputy director of zoning] has signed off on my application,” Jones said. “I believe the city has signed off on the right liquor permit,” Talbot said. Jones is in the process of getting the proper permit, he said. The hours of operation permitted by a cafe permit are the same as those allowed by a restaurant permit, Jones said. “But we didn’t approve beyond 11:30,” said Cathy Weber (at right in photo), board chair. “The liquor license can say whatever” but the BZA’s word supersedes, she said. “I feel like I’m the only one who has to close at 11:30,” Jones said. Goodfellas, right next door, has the same permit and stays open to 1:30 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays, she said. “We don’t have his documents in front of us,” Weber said. The board gave Jones some conditions when it approved her restaurant a year ago, Weber said. “You’re new; we’re going to see how you play in the neighborhood.” The one-year review is “to see if you’re being a good neighbor,” she said. “I don’t think I was doing anything bad,” Jones said. The police never came. It’s an “upscale place. … I’m serving food.” She showed the board pictures of her kitchen, using her digital camera. Then she introduced her chef, Sheldon Jolly. “Everything’s in there that’s needed,” Jolly assured the board. In no uncertain terms, board attorney Felipe Pastore told Jones, “The hours of operation are no later than 11:30, with no excuses.” Jones said she will be back to ask to stay open as late as Goodfellas. Having to close at 11:30 p.m. is going to be a blow to her business, she said. It may be a relief to neighbors like Fred Giampietro, who sat through a lengthy BZA meeting for the opportunity to see Jones’ administrative review. “She’s running a bar, a nightclub,” Giampietro said after the meeting. He’s lived nearby on Bradley Street for 30 years. Jackee’s stays open until 1 or 2 a.m., said Jennifer Gross, who lives nearby. “I can hear it from inside my house with the windows shut.” Beer Calls The board ruled on two other booze-related matters on Tuesday, allowing for beer and wine at a riverfront restaurant and nixing it at a would-be package store on Farren Avenue. The first was granted over the objections of neighbors. Jenelle Coughlin (pictured), who runs a small brunch place at the marina at 307 Front St., asked the board for permission to get a beer and wine permit. Currently, she serves brunch on Saturdays and Sundays between 8 a.m. and 2 p.m. In April, she wants to start serving dinner from 5 to 9 p.m. on Friday and Saturday nights, she said. Martha Longyear (pictured), who lives nearby at 314 Front St., rose in opposition. She later said she was raised in the house she now lives in. She said the restaurant was approved in 2008 as an “eight-seat deli.” “Something got lost in the translation,” she said. The operation now offers “a hodgepodge of items not adhered to in the initial proposal.” “A liquor license is not the way to go down there,” she said. In order to stay open, she needs to offer something new, Coughlin responded. “I’m not looking to be a bar. I’m not looking to be open until 1, 2 in the morning.” She’ll have bottled beer only, not draft, she said. Later, the board voted to allow Coughlin to obtain a beer and wine permit, provided she’s closed by 11 p.m. Regina Winters was the only board member to vote to deny the application. The board also heard from Marjorie Shansky (pictured), an attorney representing 223 Farren Avenue, LLC, a company that sought to open a package store at its now vacant eponymous location. The City Plan Department recommended denial, based on the fact that the proposed location is just 1,356 feet away from an existing grocery store with a permit to sell beer. A minimum distance of 1,500 feet is required by city ordinance. Shansky argued that her client faced a hardship based on a discrepancy between state and municipal regulations. City law “conflates grocery and package stores,” where state law does not, she said. “We’re not within 1,500 feet of another package store.” Later, during the voting session, board member Victor Fasano noted that a package store would be a less intensive use than 223 Farren Ave.’s previous incarnation as Nancy’s Cafe. He said he’d rather see it in use than vacant. He asked about the legal difference between a package store and a grocery that sells beer. Some communities make a distinction between the two, Talbot said. The fact that New Haven does not is “not a hardship in itself.” “Yes, it is,” Shansky whispered from her seat. “So fifteen-hundred feet is fifteen-hundred feet and that’s it,” Weber said. “The fact that a regulation causes you a problem is not a hardship,” Talbot said. The package store proposal went down in a 3-2 vote. Winter, Weber, and Gaylord Bourne voted to deny. Fasano and Walter Esdaile voted to approve.

Share this story with others.

Post a Comment

Commenting has closed for this entry

Comments

posted by: streever With all due respect to Ms. Longyear, I think the Board made a good choice with Jenelle’s. The hardship is clear: with such little foot and local traffic, the location (which sat vacant for sometime), seems to not be usable for most applications. There is no preponderance of commercial buildings there, either, so it is not as if this hardship is a common issue on the street—Jenelle’s is one of only a few commercial buildings in that immediate area, which is largely residential.

posted by: streever This may be a bit specious, but I have to say, I am bewildered at the owner of Jackee’s lack of memory concerning her application and hearing last year. Her business is of little personal interest to me, but I managed to remember the conditions she agreed to, and was surprised when I stopped in at her bar and asked to see a food menu and was told that they “didn’t know” when they’d be serving food, considering that they requested and were granted an exception to operate a “restaurant” and “sunday brunch”. I was also surprised at the full bar selection of liquor and the bar seating, and the party area in the back, considering that they were specifically told that they were not to open a bar/nightclub style of establishment—that they had only established a hardship for a restaurant. The preponderance of restaurants and small-scale commercial use on State Street seem to suggest that neighborhood services (hair cutting, laundry, pizza joints) are viable there and part of the neighborhoods character, which is why I voted in favor of her hardship application to be a restaurant which operated in a similar fashion to the majority of restaurants (L’Orcio, Modern, Amatos, Christopher Martin, Dempseys, Mezcal, CO Jones, etc)—to then operate solely as a bar for almost a full year is a bit surprising, although I am most astonished at her comment that she didn’t realize what the exception was for. As someone who does not live in the proximity of her club, and who has been active in many other issues and concerns, I am quite surprised that my memory of the relief granted is much clearer than hers.

posted by: HH on March 21, 2011 12:55pm I live across the street from Janelle’s and if I had any inkling that there would be opposition to Janelle obtaining a beer/wine license I would have shown support for her. She has been an asset to this area and I have no doubt that will continue. Its a great place and I would encourage people to check it out!! I have no idea what Ms. Longyear could possibly see as a real problem.

posted by: Jeffery on March 21, 2011 2:18pm in regard to Jackee’s ... It seems like a bus was driven over her in addition to the BZA article.

It absolutely appears that a member of the BZA has gone well out of his way to disrupt Ms. Jone’s business.

...

posted by: Still never going there again! on March 21, 2011 2:48pm Jackee’s New Orleans Cafe! Open till 11:30. They can’t even open for a reception at 1:00 pm in the afternoon w/o an excuse! Making guest wait out in the cold for over an hour and a half! And serving Food cooked by a Chef??? Where? When? Having people bring in their own food on warmers! What kind of permit should she have for that? How bout a free meet and greet with food and drinks? And mentioning Goodfellas! Didn’t you see the movie?...

posted by: streever on March 21, 2011 3:01pm Jeffery,

... the “bus” I’m piloting is surprise at the applicant forgetting what relief she requested.

posted by: Jeffery on March 21, 2011 3:47pm The BZA member admits to, metaphorically, throwing a citizen “under the bus”.

This is done publicly and after the fact.

The need to “pile on” is offensive and unnecessary.

The “bus” that is piloted in this instance should be driven straight out of town.

The BZA member should resign immediately.

The lack of self control has been displayed too may times to be considered accidental.

posted by: roger huzendubel on March 21, 2011 4:08pm ok sorry to be the bearer of bad news but this place is going out of business. There is never anyone eating there or drinking there. there have been numerous busniness there and none have made it. I have to agree with jeffrey it seems like someone on this thread has a bone to pick with her(and every one else for that matter), i hope it hasnt affected her business.

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on March 21, 2011 4:10pm These BZA are nothing more then puppets for the corporate plutocracy which runs the crooked

Two party system.Wake up people.All you have to do is find one and buy one off.It is done all of the time.Look how they do it in New York. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/nyregion/20turanos.html?_r=2&hpw;

posted by: streever Jeffery:

Not only are you biased, you also do not understand sarcasm.

posted by: Hmmmm on March 21, 2011 5:01pm I don’t think I’ve ever read a community news board where a BZA or any other public committee member has made himself and his opinions readily available to everyone and anyone on everything and anything. Makes you think why he’s throwing so much shade on people who are trying to earn a living and contribute to the community.

posted by: streever Hmmmm:

I’m not sure why your comment is allowed to stand: what awful thing have I said about the proprietors? What about my comment was inappropriate or mean? I voted to approve their appeal, so neither you nor Jeffrey can be accusing me of “hurting” their business. I haven’t spoken with any official or city employee about them, and you can request a full list of correspondence relating to the matter with the City through FOI. Ultimately, I’ve done nothing whatsoever toward Jackees, except vote to approve their business. How is that mean? I’ve opined on a public forum that I am surprised that the owner does not remember the restrictions placed on her business—which I neither wrote nor came up with, they came out of City Staff—so again, what have I done against this business? You really think that me explaining the rationale behind my vote and being surprised that Jackee would have forgotten the restrictions she agreed to is hurting her? You must exist in a very soft, kind world, because I think there are actual evil things happening every day, in our own city and beyond, that would blow your mind.

posted by: Ellis Copeland on March 22, 2011 12:51am I have to wonder about the possibility of latent racism here. This establishment is in the midst of a “bar” district, one that has been established for a long time. Yet, Christy’s on Orange, owned by a white man, was allowed to operate illegally for 3 years (he had NO music license -Paul, call the Liquor Commission if you need to, I know how skittish you are about publishing facts that are uncomfortable to the Establishment). It took the Feds to shut him down. But this poor woman is causing the good burghers of East Rock to palsy because she’s open until the same hour as every other place around her??

posted by: streever on March 22, 2011 7:49am Ellis:

Always a possibility, but the problem as presented is simply the zone. Jackee’s is not in a neighborhood zoned for bars. While Christy’s is not that far away, it is in a very different zone, and not surrounded by residential homes. The chair of BZA is african-american herself, so I doubt that she put the restrictions on the business out of latent racism, personally.

posted by: Ellis Copeland on March 22, 2011 8:22am Streever— The now thankfully defunct Christy’s location is on a block full of apartments and 4 blocks from Crown St. And how is Upper State St not a bar district?? You listed most of the alcohol serving establishments. ... So, maybe it is less about black/white and more about green, especially since the City was quite aware he had NO license.

posted by: streever on March 22, 2011 9:15am Ellis:

Totally a possibility, but one I am (thankfully) unaware of. I have no influence or effect in zoning enforcement/building code/permitting. As for bar district/etc—it is confusing due to the preponderance of bars near Jackees, but that is a “Residential” zone. Christys is in a Business zone. Again, I have no idea if there is something underhanded: not saying there isn’t, just, Christys doesn’t require the same type of zoning relief as Jackees both operate out of very different zones. Here is the full map of the cities zones:

http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/CityPlan/pdfs/Regulations/Zoning_Fullsize_Map_Index.pdf

posted by: Check the Facts on March 22, 2011 11:47am If I am not mistaken, Jackee’s is in more a restaurant district than a bar district. I think the area from Carmen Anthony’s to Modern Apizza is more known for eating than drinking.

posted by: streever on March 22, 2011 12:36pm Check the Facts:

Close—it isn’t even a restaurant district, but rather an RM-2 zone, which means medium density residential. Restaurants with no alcohol are permitted by right. Alcohol serving requires a special exception. Special exceptions can only be granted with a large number of rules attached.

http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=19969&sid=7

that is a direct link to the ordinance

Here is one excerpt, showing one part of what goes into a Special Exception (there are several other parts):

Special exceptions shall be granted only where the Board of Zoning Appeals finds that the proposed use or feature or the proposed extension or substantial alteration of an existing use or feature is in accord with the public convenience and welfare after taking into account, where appropriate:

a.

The nature of the proposed site, including its size and shape and the proposed size, shape and arrangement of structures;

b.

The resulting traffic patterns and adequacy of proposed off-street parking and loading;

c.

The nature of the surrounding area and the extent to which the proposed use or feature might impair its present and future development;

d.

The proximity of dwellings, churches, schools, public buildings and other places of public gathering;

e.

All standards contained in this ordinance; and

f.

The comprehensive plan of the City of New Haven, and other expressions of the purpose and intent of this ordinance.

posted by: seeing things on March 22, 2011 2:45pm 3/5’s, you are seeing things. There is no two party system in New Haven, crooked or otherwise. There has been just one political party here since Mayor Lee. And that is a problem.