Monday, August 08, 2005
Blimpie's Forced to Close Over Lost C of O
Apparently, Blimpie's (8th & H) has been forced to close its doors. Blimpie's had lost its Certificate of Occupany when the ANC successfully argued that DCRA had issued the Certificate erroniously, and that Blimpie's is, infact, a fast food restaurant. According to the comment (see the link above) Blimpie's will be closed for at least 6 months to a year while they try to get a special exemption from the Zoning Board.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Excellent news!
If this is true, then this is truly a triumph!! We can thank the tireless efforts of ANC 6A for this. Blimpees is not part of 6A and us folks over here in 6B really appreciate everything 6A does for us! Maybe ANC 6A can mentor ANC 6B. Don't worry, no one's feelings will be hurt by this post. ANC 6B would never even bother checking out this blog. I don't even think they know of it for that matter!
Hmm, wonder what the people at Cluck-U-Chicken are thinking?
One more thing. At a meeting in May 2001(?) at the then "old" ANC6A Zoning Committee meeting, Dru Tallant of Stanton Park Neighborhood Assn. pointed out that a special exception would likely be required. The pres. of Blimpies as well as Bill Barrow, director of HSCDC (the owner of the property) were present at that meeting. It's not like there wasn't advanced notice of the issue.
Yes. We have invited DCRA to our August 30 ANC 6A Economic Development and Zoning meeting to explain how ToJ and CuC got their CofO.
Blimpies has hand written sign that says "temporarily closed". My money is on Blimp's winning this one.
I don't know, getting Blimpie's to close seems like a pretty big victory for the ANC. I'm not going to call this one yet.
Even if Blimpees is allowed to reopen, this process is calling the much needed attention to the issue of the DCRA illegally issuing C of O. After Blimpees, Cluck U and Taste of Jamaica are involved in these protracted reviews, DCRA will finally start to liase with Zoning before issuing a C of O. Right now, we're waging little battles, but, in the end, I guarentee we'll triumph since we are only asking that zoning laws are observed.
DC doesn't have "formula business" zoning regulations, which is something other cities use to regulate fast food and other chains--in part because their whole design is advertising (usually) although the company argues it's essential to the brand--which was one of the major issues wrt the BP station.
I don't see the Blimpies not being able to reopen, but they will likely have to do some sort of voluntary agreement. There aren't really provisions that say no, just that a review is required. (?)
It would be worth investigating the whole Formula Business body of the work in advance of the hearings.
OP is not likely to proffer up works from the APA Planners Advisory Service on the topic.
The Conservation Foundation likely also has some resources.
Wouldn't "CitiPizza" be in violation too?
Taste of Jamaica has a big open area in front that could be used for seating...if they put tables and chairs out, would they still be in violation?
I believe CitiPizza is grandfathered in (i.e. they are exempt because they began operating before the new zoning rules were in place). Re: Taste of Jamaica, it depends. Seating isn't the only criteria considered when determining whether an establishment is classified as a fast food restaurant.
Here are the criteria from BZA Order 17214:
A restaurant will be considered a fast-food restaurant if the floor space allocated and used for customer queuing for self service for carry out and on premises consumption is greater than 10% of the total floor space on any one floor that is accessible to the public
AND if at least one of the two remaining conditions are met:
(1) Whether at least 60% of the food items are already prepared or packaged before a customer places an order; and/or
(2) Whether or not the establishment primarily serves its food and beverages in disposable containers and provides disposable tableware.
Looks like Brooklyn is dealing with its own Blimpies Drama...
http://brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2005/08/blimpies_contro_1.html
So this means a places like Sizzling Express, Breadline or Starbucks couldn't open on H.
Re: Starbucks, et al.
Anonymous,
I believe the answer to your question depends on a couple of factors. 1) Whether any of these establishments would be characterized as a "fast food" restaurant (I don’t see how Starbucks would qualify as fast food). 2) If so, then the owner would have to comply with the law (something Blimpies and Cluck-U have failed to do), and apply for an exception to the zoning rules before they could do business here. This would likely involve some sort of hearing and an agreement entered into by the proprietor in which he/she would agree to operate the business in a certain manner, consistent with community concerns.
Post a Comment