Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Cluck-U-Chicken Calls Itself "Fast Food"
I came across an online ad by Cluck-U-Chicken (the franchise currently arguing that it is not fast food so it can set up shop on H Street) where the company actually refers to itself as a "high volume fast food restaurant." Here is another ad with the same language.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
exactly! hey, if it walks like a cluck, quacks like a cluck and looks like a cluck, then it must be a fast food joint!
Elise,
You are a lawyer, do you really think it is illegal for a fast food place to locate on H street? The wishes of elistist snobs do not make laws.
"The wishes of elistist snobs do not make laws."
Sure they do... money talks, especially to the city council. One vocal minority (especially with money) can make a big difference.
I am not a lawyer. I work for a law firm & I am starting law school next month. I don't think anyone is suggesting that it is illegal (I think one would just need an exception) for a fast food restaurant to locate on H Street. I'm not an expert on the zoning regulations, and I could not, off the top of my head, recite the exact rules about certificates of occupancy. I was just noting that Cluck-U-Chicken is currently arguing that it is not a fast food restaurant, yet it is also currently advertising that it is a fast food restaurant. I was just pointing out the contradiction. I have followed this issue, but I haven't written any tirades on the topic. I'm not taking a stand on the issue. I'm just watching & commenting. I've noted that the ANC is asking DCRA to investigate, and I've posted photos showing the progress on the renovation/labeling of the space. But who can resist poking fun at an argument as ridiculous as Cluck-U's that it isn't a fast food place (particularly when it advetises its franchises as fast food restaurants)? I don't have a problem with fast food (I'm not much for McDonalds, but I do love the fish sandwiches from Horace & Dickies). I think I do see where the ANC is going with this. One of their goals seems to be to reduce trash (adding another fast food joint won't help this goal). I also see that there are many take out establishments within a block of that location that sell fried chicken wings (so I understand if people object to the saturation).
There is nothing elitist about pointing out that a) most of H St is zoned C-2-A, b) a "fast food restaurant" may not operate in a C-2-A zone without a special exception approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustment, and c) Cluck U appears to fit the definition of "fast food".
It's precisely because of the adverse effects of fast-food outlets -- trash, in particular -- that BZA approval (which provides a vehicle for community input) is required.
Interested readers should consult the BZA's recent order concerning the Blimpie at 6th/H.
Oops: make that 8th/H (721 H, to be exact).
Isn't Blimpies still open for business?
Yes. I believe they are operating without the proper license.
So what will prevent Cluck,cluck from operating without the proper licence?
It was found later that Blimpie's was improperly granted a C of O. If DCRA never grants one to Cluck-U-Chicken, that Cluck-U can never open.
Fortunately, the wishes of elitist snobs don't make laws, and, equally fortunately, neither do the tastes of any one person. The regulations came about through the legislative process, notice and comment, and the regulations say no fast food in C2A without a special exception. That's district-wide, too, not just H Street.
Not liking the regs is no excuse for breaking them. It is an excuse for changing them.
"High volume fast food" is also directly on Cluck-U, Corp.'s own website (second sentence), but they probably didn't submit that with their application for a C of O.
Their position is very tao. "We are fast food, but we are not." I can almost grab the pebble from the master's hand...
Looks like the Cluck-U folks somehow got their way. I just drove by a few minutes ago and noticed they are open for business! Either they're operating illegally or they somehow convinced DCRA they're not a "fast food" establishment. If it's the former, what are the repercussions? If it's the latter, tip your hat to their lawyer.
DCRA issued them a certificate of occupancy. I left my file at the office, so I will post more on Monday. The ANC will file petition the Board of Zoning to review the case. Recall, that we won our case on Blimpie's. In the case of Blimpie's DCRA is know trying to figure out what to do as the Board of Zoning has stated that DCRA issued the certificate of occupany in error. More to follow...
The ANC 6A Economic Development and Zoning voted last night to recommend that ANC 6A Appeal Certificate of Occupancy for Cluck-U-Chicken (1123 H Street, NE) to the Board of Zoning Adjustment.
The Commission will consider that recommendation at the September 8 meeting.
Post a Comment