I am not a lawyer and I am even less familiar with the ins and outs of regulatory law, but (often unfortunately) one of the basic precepts of American society is that "all citizens are presumed to know the law."
I don't see how either Cluck-U or Anwar Saleem can fall back on the position that "the city is liable." Anybody can read the Zoning Code, it's online. It's the fault of the owners for not making themselves knowledgeable.
I do think that DCRA has problems, particularly in the Zoning Administation area. This shouldn't be a surprise, as the city pretty much sees any business, no matter what it does, or how it operates as a "positive economic development step forward."
Too often this is an extremely short-sighted perspective.
Certainly, a commercial district revitalization organization ought to be familiar with these regulations, and in fact, should be concerned with "upgrading" the commercial district rather than degrading it.
Without "third places," restaurants and other establishments where people can sit and "rest a spell," eat, decompress, relax, and more importantly from a marketing standpoint, to linger in and continue shopping in the commercial district, you aren't going to be able to expand the retail offerings of the commercial district in a substantive way.
In the May 2002 ANC6A Zoning Committee meeting, it was made very clear by knowledgeable people in the audience (not me) that in a C2A zoning district, fast food restaurants require a special exception in order to open.
People present at the meeting included Bill Barrow, executive director of the HSCDC, Anwar Saleem, and the president of Blimpies, the franchisor of the location at 727 H Street NE.
Setting aside all the zoning issues regarding use and such, I think that the Cluck_U is not a bad thing to have on H street. Yes it is a carryout, but compared to the Popeyes or better yet all of the boarded up storefronts, it is an improvement.
The question in my mind is whether H street is currently capable of supporting several restaurants? Phish Tea does good business it seems, and I think that the Argonaut is doing alright, but how many more can the strip support, and will parking be an issue?
It is a source of continuing astonishment to me that so many people fail to grasp a simple principle: we have laws and regulations (including the zoning code) for a reason.
I don't care how responsible or "first-class" Cluck-U is at this stage, or how yummy their onion rings are. If they need a special exception -- and the indications are that they do -- then they shouldn't get a free pass that avoids public review.
Note: Cluck-U might well obtain approval after going through the special exception process, so the current debate isn't really about whether they should be on H St. at all. Rather, the debate is over whether DCRA (and the ANCs) will honor the rules that prevent H St. from being overrun with fast-food outlets and the potential problems (especially litter) that they bring.
We need to be careful. Once we start setting aside regulations and allowing business to operate without complying with the limited zoning restrictions we have -- when do we stop. Aside from this issue, do we ignore height constraints? Floor to area rations that dictate the size of the buildings?
Cluck-U-Chicken can operate in its current form on H Street. They simply need to apply for a special exception to the Board of Zoning Adjustment. That would trigger a public Board of Adjustment Hearing and allow the residents that live directly behind Cluck-U-Chicken (as well as anyone in our community) a chance to have their concerns addressed. There is a reason why we have C2A next to a R4 (residential) area – to protect the community immediately connected to the C2A zone.
The argument that any development is better than none will lead us to an uneven collection of businesses and building structures. My view, I am for development of H Street. I just want the zoning regulations and liquor licenses applications all to be treated according to the laws/regulations of the city. If we don’t like the laws/regulations, let’s change them. But I can’t stand by and knowingly ignore an establishment that potentially violates the existing zoning requirements. In a perfect world, DCRA would do its job correctly. However, recent history demonstrates they have not performed their oversight responsibilities adequately in this area.
I will support ANC 6A’s Economic Development and Zoning Committee’s recommendation to appeal the DCRA issuance of the restaurant certificate of occupancy to Cluck-U-Chicken to the Board of Zoning Adjustment. It was sad that DCRA refused to show our committee last week their work product or calculations used to make the determination that Cluck-U-Chicken is a restaurant. Clearly, a bright light needs to be shown on DCRA’s process to ensure that this agency provides meaningful oversight of the existing zoning regulations. It is my hope that an ANC 6A appeal will continue to force this agency to apply the zoning requirements evenly as H Street develops.
It also is my belief that the larger “business community” appreciates and respects consistency. Investors in H Street will view chaotic uses of regulations as a series disadvantage to come to H Street. If a business interest builds a restaurant or a shop in accordance with the zoning regulations and finds a fast food establishment opening up next door soon thereafter, how does that bolster confidence that the city is really up to the job of development? What does that say about accountability? Who is to say that won’t encourage other “minor” violations? After all, the city let’s X do Y, why can’t I do Z?
The local C2A designation (effective for most, but not all, of H St.) and the fast-food restriction in the C2A regs have been around for a number of years. As others have commented, these rules were in place, and vocally cited by opponents, at the famous ANC 6A meeting years ago with Bill Barrow (of HSCDC) and Peter DeCarlo (Blimpie's founder).
7 comments:
I am not a lawyer and I am even less familiar with the ins and outs of regulatory law, but (often unfortunately) one of the basic precepts of American society is that "all citizens are presumed to know the law."
I don't see how either Cluck-U or Anwar Saleem can fall back on the position that "the city is liable." Anybody can read the Zoning Code, it's online. It's the fault of the owners for not making themselves knowledgeable.
I do think that DCRA has problems, particularly in the Zoning Administation area. This shouldn't be a surprise, as the city pretty much sees any business, no matter what it does, or how it operates as a "positive economic development step forward."
Too often this is an extremely short-sighted perspective.
Certainly, a commercial district revitalization organization ought to be familiar with these regulations, and in fact, should be concerned with "upgrading" the commercial district rather than degrading it.
Without "third places," restaurants and other establishments where people can sit and "rest a spell," eat, decompress, relax, and more importantly from a marketing standpoint, to linger in and continue shopping in the commercial district, you aren't going to be able to expand the retail offerings of the commercial district in a substantive way.
In the May 2002 ANC6A Zoning Committee meeting, it was made very clear by knowledgeable people in the audience (not me) that in a C2A zoning district, fast food restaurants require a special exception in order to open.
People present at the meeting included Bill Barrow, executive director of the HSCDC, Anwar Saleem, and the president of Blimpies, the franchisor of the location at 727 H Street NE.
Setting aside all the zoning issues regarding use and such, I think that the Cluck_U is not a bad thing to have on H street. Yes it is a carryout, but compared to the Popeyes or better yet all of the boarded up storefronts, it is an improvement.
The question in my mind is whether H street is currently capable of supporting several restaurants? Phish Tea does good business it seems, and I think that the Argonaut is doing alright, but how many more can the strip support, and will parking be an issue?
It is a source of continuing astonishment to me that so many people fail to grasp a simple principle: we have laws and regulations (including the zoning code) for a reason.
I don't care how responsible or "first-class" Cluck-U is at this stage, or how yummy their onion rings are. If they need a special exception -- and the indications are that they do -- then they shouldn't get a free pass that avoids public review.
Note: Cluck-U might well obtain approval after going through the special exception process, so the current debate isn't really about whether they should be on H St. at all. Rather, the debate is over whether DCRA (and the ANCs) will honor the rules that prevent H St. from being overrun with fast-food outlets and the potential problems (especially litter) that they bring.
We need to be careful. Once we start setting aside regulations and allowing business to operate without complying with the limited zoning restrictions we have -- when do we stop. Aside from this issue, do we ignore height constraints? Floor to area rations that dictate the size of the buildings?
Cluck-U-Chicken can operate in its current form on H Street. They simply need to apply for a special exception to the Board of Zoning Adjustment. That would trigger a public Board of Adjustment Hearing and allow the residents that live directly behind Cluck-U-Chicken (as well as anyone in our community) a chance to have their concerns addressed. There is a reason why we have C2A next to a R4 (residential) area – to protect the community immediately connected to the C2A zone.
The argument that any development is better than none will lead us to an uneven collection of businesses and building structures. My view, I am for development of H Street. I just want the zoning regulations and liquor licenses applications all to be treated according to the laws/regulations of the city. If we don’t like the laws/regulations, let’s change them. But I can’t stand by and knowingly ignore an establishment that potentially violates the existing zoning requirements. In a perfect world, DCRA would do its job correctly. However, recent history demonstrates they have not performed their oversight responsibilities adequately in this area.
I will support ANC 6A’s Economic Development and Zoning Committee’s recommendation to appeal the DCRA issuance of the restaurant certificate of occupancy to Cluck-U-Chicken to the Board of Zoning Adjustment. It was sad that DCRA refused to show our committee last week their work product or calculations used to make the determination that Cluck-U-Chicken is a restaurant. Clearly, a bright light needs to be shown on DCRA’s process to ensure that this agency provides meaningful oversight of the existing zoning regulations. It is my hope that an ANC 6A appeal will continue to force this agency to apply the zoning requirements evenly as H Street develops.
It also is my belief that the larger “business community” appreciates and respects consistency. Investors in H Street will view chaotic uses of regulations as a series disadvantage to come to H Street. If a business interest builds a restaurant or a shop in accordance with the zoning regulations and finds a fast food establishment opening up next door soon thereafter, how does that bolster confidence that the city is really up to the job of development? What does that say about accountability? Who is to say that won’t encourage other “minor” violations? After all, the city let’s X do Y, why can’t I do Z?
Anyway, my thoughts…
Can someone explain when the fast food zoning regulation took effect on H street? Is this a recent change?
The local C2A designation (effective for most, but not all, of H St.) and the fast-food restriction in the C2A regs have been around for a number of years. As others have commented, these rules were in place, and vocally cited by opponents, at the famous ANC 6A meeting years ago with Bill Barrow (of HSCDC) and Peter DeCarlo (Blimpie's founder).
Please feel free to send us an email if you would like your comments on our article to be published in the Last Word.
Andrew Lightman
andrew@hillrag.com
Post a Comment