(Note that the associated letter PDF is not attached to this blog post.)
A group of a 18 neighbors located within 200 feet of the Big Bear Café at First Street and R Street NW, have signed a community letter opposing its proposed rezoning from residential to higher density commercial. While the signers patronize and appreciate Big Bear`s contributing to the revitalization of Bloomingdale and Ward 5, they are convinced that a change from residential to commercial designation, with its increased density of use and size, will establish a precedent that will give ``an incentive for owners and developers to convert or buy [residentially-zoned] properties, get the zone changed to commercial…then demolish the properties and build bigger, commercial buildings.``
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012, Karla Lewis (group representative) met with Joel Lawson, Paul Goldstein, and Deborah Crain-Kemp, of the DC Office of Planning (OP). The purpose of the meeting was to make OP aware that there were many residents that live within 200 feet of the Big Bear Cafe that oppose the rezoning of the Big Bear Cafe and to request OP to recommend against the rezoning. Tomorrow, the OP plans to send a letter with their recommendation to the Zoning Board. The residents are asking for Councilmember McDuffie's support by postponing the rezoning recommendation until a study has been conducted to assess the impact of rezoning in residential communities.
Residents are concerned about the following:
1. Rezoning is not just about the Big Bear Cafe - It`s spot Zoning! Rezoning is unnecessary for the owner of the Big Bear Cafe to continue to do business. There is already certificate of occupancy for 49, which was increased from 8 and the sidewalk cafe has occupancy of 58. The owner has a liquor license and side walk cafe permit and doesn`t need C2A to operate.
2. Rezoning will establish a terrible precedent in change in zoning for developers. It would encourage owners and developers to change zoning for financial gain. They would say `if you did it for Big Bear, why can't you do it for me`. There are nearby commercial corridors (Florida Avenue, North Capitol St, Rhode Island Avenue, New York Avenue) that are ready for this type of activity. Commercial activities should be concentrated on commercial corridors. Residents are concerned about their quality of life. We want maintain the peace, quiet and order, without litter and rodents, and have residential parking. We do not want to become like U St, Columbia Road, and H St. All of the residents in those areas are really suffering now.
Rezoning the Big Bear Cafe is a threat to our community. We hope that Councilmember McDuffie will support the residents by calling OP and postponing the recommendation until DC Governemnt is able to study the implications of this change.
1. Rezoning is not just about the Big Bear Cafe - It`s spot Zoning! Rezoning is unnecessary for the owner of the Big Bear Cafe to continue to do business. There is already certificate of occupancy for 49, which was increased from 8 and the sidewalk cafe has occupancy of 58. The owner has a liquor license and side walk cafe permit and doesn`t need C2A to operate.
2. Rezoning will establish a terrible precedent in change in zoning for developers. It would encourage owners and developers to change zoning for financial gain. They would say `if you did it for Big Bear, why can't you do it for me`. There are nearby commercial corridors (Florida Avenue, North Capitol St, Rhode Island Avenue, New York Avenue) that are ready for this type of activity. Commercial activities should be concentrated on commercial corridors. Residents are concerned about their quality of life. We want maintain the peace, quiet and order, without litter and rodents, and have residential parking. We do not want to become like U St, Columbia Road, and H St. All of the residents in those areas are really suffering now.
Rezoning the Big Bear Cafe is a threat to our community. We hope that Councilmember McDuffie will support the residents by calling OP and postponing the recommendation until DC Governemnt is able to study the implications of this change.
The signers of the enclosed letter are long-time and newer residents and reflect the diverse population of Bloomingdale and Ward 5.
The DC Zoning Commission will hold a hearing on Big Bear’s request on September 17, 2012 at One Judiciary SquareSquare, 441 4th Street, NW, Suite 220-South.
I agree totally with these statements. Big Bear Cafe has gotten so much from the community: occupancy increases, liquor license, and side walk cafe permits. It's been a great addition to the community but Big Bear has also gotten revenues and rewards too! It's enough. Stu has asked and asked and gotten and gotten, and still has this attitude that he can get more and more. Enough this is spot zoning period and members of the of the Zoning Board have said so in the initial hearing on the matter. I give credit to the 200ft'ers for standing up for what is right and just.
ReplyDeleteI happent to totally disagree with many of these statements. TheCommiss clearly has some personal agenda with Stu of the Big Bear that should have no bearing on what is happening in a neighbourhood in which TheCommiss doesn't actually live. As for Stu asking and receiving things that have benefited his business they have also benefited the community. Even those who have signed the above letter agree that Stu and Big Bear Cafe have been an asset to the community.
DeleteThe proposed zoning change is necessary for BBC. Having an exception to zoning is not the same thing as being properly zoned. Stu and the BBC have been operating under an exception to the residential zoning. By operating in this capacity, BBC can potentially have that exception withdrawn. It also can create problems for the liquor license. The building in which BBC resides has operated as a business for over 40 years. To say that granting it a zoning license that complies with its actual use would set a precedent that would allow other residentially zoned lots to also be so rezoned is ludicrous. If those areas were operating as businesses then they need to be rezoned as well, but this is one of the only lots in the area that operates as a business but is zoned as residential with exceptions. By granting the new zoning, BBC will finally be in full compliance with law instead of granted exception after exception.
This might even render TheCommiss happy. Stu would have little reason to bother the ANC with new requests as long as he remains compliant to the laws of a business with a liquor license and restaurant.
The fact of the matter is that the Big Bear Cafe has not been compliant to the laws as ordered by ABRA. The BBC constantly violates the ABRA orders.They have several citations including serving alcohol to a minor, noise, operating the sidewalk cafe after ABRA Board ordered hours, not filing statements on time. The BBC is operating under the non-conforming uses and absolutely does not need to be rezoned. The proposed zoning change would limit the residents ability to have a say in what type of establishment can operate at that location. It is a residential community and the nearby residents should have a say in what will impact them the most. Many of the houses on the one hundred block of R St had businesses operating in them such as dental office, print shop etc. These type of business have decent operating hours and did not request to serve alcohol and stay open until 2am disturbing the peace and quiet of the neighborhood.
DeleteKarla:
ReplyDeleteEvery business has growing pains. Big Bear Cafe is no different. Yes they have had minor violations of their patio use laws and severed alcohol to a minor. Were These major infractions ABRA would not have agreed that re-educating new employees was a sufficient course of action. They would have suspended Big Bear Cafe's license. Each of the issues regarding infractions that you have raised are legitimate were they consistent. They are not. Stu the owner also addressed these issues at the ANC meeting and discussed the resolutions that had taken place
I'm afraid as a long term resident of the 0-100 block of R Street NW I have seen the benefits that the BBC has brought the neighbourhood. I believe the zoning change to reflect the actual use of the facility makes sense. It protects the owner from arbitrary changes to his licenses or loss of use of his facility. It protects homeowners in the neighbourhood by setting the precedent that exceptions to zoning are not as acceptable as working to get proper zoning. Exceptions to rules are worse than actually following rules but better than outright breaking them. Frankly given the right zoning Stu would rarely have to come before the ANC again. That should please both you and TheCommiss.
I disagree. Given the right zoning Stu would continue to break the rules and it would just be harder for him to lose his license. Yes, he consistently violates the orders, but he doesn't always get caught. Changing the zoning will also significantly increase property values and taxes for the nearby residents. We have retirees and seniors in the community that would be severely affected by the rezoning. There are many houses that were used commercially in the same block. They were dental offices, print shop, and the R4 was meant for the types of businesses that were needed in the community such as the grocery stores where you can pick up milk when you ran out without having to run to Harris Teeter, Whole Foods, Giant, or Safeway. The local businesses did not have late hours, which are conducive in a residential neighborhood.
DeleteDaniel its never been personal, as much as Stu would like you to believe that it's never been personal, it's about all sides getting their say and the little guy not being drowned out. It's about the truth and facts. That's been the entire issue from the get go, but unfortunately half the new residents in Bloomingdale have forgotten this because they just moved here.
ReplyDeleteStu knew when he was buying the building the issues he would have to face. An d bought that property at an R4 selling price. Because for Stu this has always been about $$$$ and nothing else. Furthermore, he has not been forthcoming with the ANC, Zoning, DCRA, ABRA....on several occasions and that is well documented. Stu like to take short cuts and doesn't get things in order. It was very apparent from day one and it's hinder his progress ever since. And his unwillingness to compromise has cost him dearly...you get more with honey that you do with vinegar. If he taken car of this when he first asked it would have been done and he wouldn't being dealing with this some 5-6 years later. Typical of Big Bears MO. Not one item has he come to the table and said ok that's reasonable, when it came to beer and wine, no, when it came to hours, no, when it came to a deed convent no. See there in lies the problem.
I agree that Big Bear has done great things in the area and in the community, and the community has rewarded Stu with many exceptions in his business venture including a good income. There are no barriers to his business whatever at this point other than to ensure that it stays as the status quo. This would be considered Spot Zoning and the ZB members have stated so. It's a purely zoning issue in which Big Bear once again when offer a compromise of establishing a convent on the deed restricting height and foot print of the current building was refused, just shows again that Big Bear is take take take! That's the issue and the 200ft's should have the greatest voice when it comes to this matter since it's is zoned R4 and many of those owners have been there for decades. 200ft's are the group with the most to lose and the least to gain...
Mr. Daneker
DeleteI'm afraid as an outside observer I believe it HAS been personal between you and Stu. When he asked for a liquor license you were against it. You even attempted to instruct him on how to conduct his business while at the ANC meeting I attended. It was downright rude. You told him he should just go for a wine and beer license. That it would be sufficient. How can you decide what is sufficient for the BBC?
Yes the BBC can continue to operate under the current exception to the zoning rules. But frankly were the Zoning Board to change the zoning and actually conform it to the building's current use it would be better for all. To attempt to create zoning covenants is a burden no business should have to face. The height and foot print of the building already exceed the limits of the current R-4 zoning and the C2A zoning. That means that any future potential tear down and rebuild would have to be smaller per force! So why demand a covenant? Is it just to create trouble? It certainly seems so.
Dear Mr. Premack,
DeleteAgain you are wrong! It's never been personal whatsoever! It's been about compromise to reach agreement where all parties are some what satisfied.
As for your "conducting his business" comment; yes it was about operating hours and it was related to his business model of serving food in the DC Market after 10pm. Let's see if his kitchen is open after 10pm when you want something to eat, thus needing a 2am closing time if food service and a sit-down restaurant was the bar the ANC was using for granting these permits. Obviously you missed that point, as did many others who were at that point deaf to arguments from the minority interests, which is the position I took because the little guy was so under represented in the frenzies that Stu and Sallatti created for their own personal and political aspirations. Wake up to this fact because that's what was really going on.
The suggestion of a beer and wine license was a compromise that most commissioners at the time thought was fair and would have appeased all sides. Which would have established a track record to come back in 6 months and ask for the liquor permit. I bet Big Bear's beer and wine sales are about 85% of all their non alcoholic beverage revues so it wouldn't have killed him for the 1st six months. The compromise would have kept the processing going without highlighting issues or other things Stu did wrong in the process. But then again, he ABRA record was tainted again by some management issues...SURPRISE...NOT!
BTW again you are wrong about the building height and footprint in a C2A. The covenant would have been compromise that shows good will and again Big Bear doesn't show this to the 200ftr's. If it didn't make a difference then why not do it. Your argument doesn't hold much weight on this fact, and even the Zoning Board has made such statements in the initial hearing on this case and has as much said this is spot zoning. The covenant ensures the 200 ftr's that since this historically was a store as Stu has been arguing for years now. Then the Covenant would ensure that the building is never changed. It's GOODWILL!
I hope this puts a bit more background to this argument, but Stu knew when he bought the building what the issues were and what he has take on, but as a community the 200ftr's have rights that should be heard and should have weight when it comes to zoning for one property owner.
I also live within 200 feet of the Big Bear and I have to say that there may be reasons to oppose this zoning change, but this letter states none of them. Instead the letter relies on scare tactics that I think are rather transparent and even insulting to our collective intelligence.
ReplyDeleteThe suggestion that granting this zoning change could lead to opening "shopping centers, in the middle of our residential community" is ludicrous. The lot on which Big Bear is located has been dedicated to commercial use for decades, I have sufficient faith in our public servants to distinguish this case from some future hypothetical that would seek to put a "shopping center" in what I guess would have to be a stretch of R-4 zoned rowhouses in Bloomingdale (query why the developer would not simply buy up the already ample supply of underutilized C-2-A property).
It strikes me that if the zoning board feels it would make everyone's lives easier to make that change, they will make the change.
ReplyDeleteDC culture has a reflexive hostility to commercial activity, so opposition to the zoning change doesn't surprise me. However, that doesn't mean their concerns are valid.
There doesn't seem *to me* to be any reason the status quo should be changed, but it's the zoning board that needs to deal with the myriad of exceptions it needs to make just because of a decades-old mistake in rezoning that was made many years ago.
Daniel its never been personal
It matters less what you SAY and more how you ACT.
I live two doors away from big bear and fully support the zoning change.
ReplyDeleteDC
ReplyDeletei agree it's a question you should be asking Stu from Big Bear..