For the record, there are at least two errors in this VOTH article:
1) the ANC vote that failed last month was to have a meeting with Cluck U to try to resolve issues amicably; it wasn't to withdraw the appeal (we voted on that today; the motion failed 4-4). The Hill Rag got this same thing wrong. (The Hill Rag got it wrong first.)
2) at the hearing, the four dissenting commissioners didn't challenge the ANC's authority to appeal -- we just offered a dissenting opinion, a letter signed by 4 of the 8 commissioners. The DCRA attorney tried unsuccessfully to argue that this should invalidate the ANC appeal; we had asked him not to make that argument.
The ANC vote that Marc mentions failed for two reasons:
1) The ANC is appealing a decision by DCRA to issue a certificate of occupancy to Cluck-U as a restaurant. Meeting with Cluck-U prior to the BZA hearing would have no bearing on whether DCRA made an error.
2) The possibility of amicable meetings with Cluck-U has been offered several times, but within the context of their application for a certificate of occupancy as a fast food restaurant. The concern is that agreements reached outside the zoning process would not be binding or enforceable. Cluck-U has refused, stating their belief that DCRA made the correct determination.
2 comments:
For the record, there are at least two errors in this VOTH article:
1) the ANC vote that failed last month was to have a meeting with Cluck U to try to resolve issues amicably; it wasn't to withdraw the appeal (we voted on that today; the motion failed 4-4). The Hill Rag got this same thing wrong. (The Hill Rag got it wrong first.)
2) at the hearing, the four dissenting commissioners didn't challenge the ANC's authority to appeal -- we just offered a dissenting opinion, a letter signed by 4 of the 8 commissioners. The DCRA attorney tried unsuccessfully to argue that this should invalidate the ANC appeal; we had asked him not to make that argument.
The ANC vote that Marc mentions failed for two reasons:
1) The ANC is appealing a decision by DCRA to issue a certificate of occupancy to Cluck-U as a restaurant. Meeting with Cluck-U prior to the BZA hearing would have no bearing on whether DCRA made an error.
2) The possibility of amicable meetings with Cluck-U has been offered several times, but within the context of their application for a certificate of occupancy as a fast food restaurant. The concern is that agreements reached outside the zoning process would not be binding or enforceable. Cluck-U has refused, stating their belief that DCRA made the correct determination.
Post a Comment