Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2B/Dupont Circle has extended the deadline for comment on its draft goals until February 5. Community members wishing to read and comment on the goals can find them here.
"Many Commissioners and neighbors are frustrated that the ANC is not as
proactive as it could be," said ANC2B Chair Noah Smith (Commissioner for district 09) in an email. "One way to address that is to define
actionable goals for the community and then establish committees and
workgroups around those goals."
Among the issues addressed in the draft goals are parking, historic preservation, vermin control, emergency response, and education. Specific issues mentioned were the development of the land next to St. Thomas' Parish Episcopal Church (1772 Church Street NW) and the West Dupont Liquor License Moratorium.
Several of the comments on the draft goals indicate that members of the community are concerned about homelessness and wish to see the ANC address this issue.
Those wishing to comment on the goals can leave a comment on the page where the goals are published on the ANC2B web site here, or email the ANC at commissioners@dupontcircleanc.net
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
1508 Caroline Street: If Visible from Street, Then No
On January 29, DC's Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) rejected for a second time a proposed renovation of a brick duplex at 1508 Caroline Street NW in the U Street Historic District.
Caroline Street, just south of U Street between 15th and 16th Streets, is a row of identical duplex houses built around 1880. The group of houses have remained largely unmodified. The exception to this is the duplex home connected to 1508 Caroline Street, which got a third-story addition in 1888. The owner of this adjoining home bought 1508 Caroline Street and hoped to be able to add a pop-up to match the third story addition on the existing home (on the left of the photo).
The pop-up addition was endorsed by Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2B/Dupont Circle (see SALM blog post of November 19, 2014). The HPRB rejected the plan as represented to the ANC in November. Last week's rejection was of a modified version of the plan, somewhat less visible from the street.
"Even this amount of visibility is not compatible," said HPRB member Nancy Metzger.
The original design called for a two-story rear addition, a one-story side addition, and a basement entrance, as well as the third-story pop-up. HPRB staff accepted all elements except the pop-up -- see November 2014 staff report here. The Board accepted the staff report in a 4-3 decision, reported on page two of a four-page document here.
The owner and designer tried once again to get some addition to the height of the building approved. The new version of the design was set back 21 feet from the front and 4 feet from the side of the building. However, because this building (and all of the buildings on Caroline Street) are detached from their neighbors, the addition will still be visible from the street in front of the house. This did not seem to bother the architect designer.
"I think this won't really effect the aesthetic of the neighborhood," he told the board.
The HPRB asked the architect designer if he had conducted a "flag test" (see description on page three of document here), in which the applicant for HPRB approval sets up flags on the top of a building to demonstrate the dimensions of a proposed expansion and then invites HPRB staff to view the flags. The architect designer had not.
The board voted unanimously to accept a new staff report, which (like the November 2014 staff report) found the project to be "incompatible with the historic district". The Board told the owner and his architect designer that, should they decide to come back again, they were more likely to receive approval if they performed a flag test which demonstrated that planned modifications of the house would not be visible from the street.
I did not attend this meeting. I gathered the information for this report by watching a portion of the archived video of the January 29 meeting at the HPRB web site here. The portion of the meeting dealing with this property starts at time 1:41:23.
 |
| The property in November 2014 |
The pop-up addition was endorsed by Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2B/Dupont Circle (see SALM blog post of November 19, 2014). The HPRB rejected the plan as represented to the ANC in November. Last week's rejection was of a modified version of the plan, somewhat less visible from the street.
"Even this amount of visibility is not compatible," said HPRB member Nancy Metzger.
The original design called for a two-story rear addition, a one-story side addition, and a basement entrance, as well as the third-story pop-up. HPRB staff accepted all elements except the pop-up -- see November 2014 staff report here. The Board accepted the staff report in a 4-3 decision, reported on page two of a four-page document here.
The owner and designer tried once again to get some addition to the height of the building approved. The new version of the design was set back 21 feet from the front and 4 feet from the side of the building. However, because this building (and all of the buildings on Caroline Street) are detached from their neighbors, the addition will still be visible from the street in front of the house. This did not seem to bother the architect designer.
"I think this won't really effect the aesthetic of the neighborhood," he told the board.
The HPRB asked the architect designer if he had conducted a "flag test" (see description on page three of document here), in which the applicant for HPRB approval sets up flags on the top of a building to demonstrate the dimensions of a proposed expansion and then invites HPRB staff to view the flags. The architect designer had not.
The board voted unanimously to accept a new staff report, which (like the November 2014 staff report) found the project to be "incompatible with the historic district". The Board told the owner and his architect designer that, should they decide to come back again, they were more likely to receive approval if they performed a flag test which demonstrated that planned modifications of the house would not be visible from the street.
I did not attend this meeting. I gathered the information for this report by watching a portion of the archived video of the January 29 meeting at the HPRB web site here. The portion of the meeting dealing with this property starts at time 1:41:23.
Monday, February 2, 2015
1330 Vermont Street: Single-family Logan Circle Home Pops Back to Five Units
A proposal that would allow a developer to convert a single-family row house at 1330 Vermont Avenue NW, a stone's throw from Logan Circle, to a five-unit building got endorsement from a committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2F/Logan Circle on January 29. ANC2F's Community Development Committee (CDC) unanimously approved the historical preservation elements of the concept, which would expand the building to the rear. No height would be added to the building.
If approved by the full ANC, the proposal will move on to DC's Historical Preservation Review Board (HPRB) for approval of concept. Jim Foster of Arcadia Design (1737 Johnson Avenue) told the committee the a DC official reviewed the project and found it is "by right", that is, it needs no zoning relief. (Foster did not yet have a letter to this effect from the DC government, he said, but he planned to get one soon.) If the historical preservation aspects of the expansion are approved, it needs no further consideration by the DC government.
"If you give approval, you won't see us again," Foster said.
Foster said the client for this project was DC developer John Casey.
Forster told the committee the expansion would add under 1,000 square feet to the building, which currently is about 4,000 square feet in size. As currently envisioned, the finished project would have two basement apartments, one ground-floor unit that with an entrance in the rear of the building from a small backyard, a single front-entrance unit with space on the ground and second floors, and a fifth unit which would be located on the third floor plus a mezzanine.
The fifth unit only would have access to a large roof deck. Forster characterized this unit as "the money unit" of the expansion. He said there would be a small elevator installed in the building to access this unit.
The present rear wall of the property will be moved back, but there will still be space on the rear of the property for two parking spaces, which is the minimum required by zoning.
The committee asked if the abutting neighbors had been contacted. Foster said the abutting neighbor to the north had been contacted but the neighbor to the south had not been contacted. There was no mention of contacting the neighbors to the rear, whose houses face onto the 1300 block of Rhode Island Avenue but will look on the proposed expansion from the rear.
The committee urged Foster to show evidence of contacting the abutting neighbors when presenting the project to the full ANC.
The illustrations submitted to the committee made it look as if the expansion would be mostly covered in light blue aluminum siding. Foster reassured the committee that it would not be. First, Foster explained, the color ink that the printer used on the illustration did not accurately represent how the proposed project would look. Second, Foster said, the siding would be wood (perhaps pine or cedar) or "essentially wood", depending on how much the developer decided to spend.
ANC Commissioner Pepin Tuma (district 03) asked what "essentially wood" meant. Foster explained "essentially wood" meant something called "hardie plank siding" (called "hardie board siding" when explained here), which are cement boards artificially given the texture and color of wood.
Tuma is not on the CDC, but the proposed project is in his ANC district.
The expansion requires HPRB review because the building falls within two different historic districts -- the Logan Circle Historic District and the Greater Fourteenth Street Historic District.
The matter is on the agenda for the next meeting of the full ANC, scheduled for Wednesday, February 4, at 7pm, at the Washington Plaza Hotel (10 Thomas Circle). Matters approved unanimously by the CDC are normally passed by the full ANC without much further debate, barring unexpected appearance at the meeting of opposition from the community.
Consideration of this project was the only item on the CDC agenda for this meeting.
 |
| The rear of the building now |
If approved by the full ANC, the proposal will move on to DC's Historical Preservation Review Board (HPRB) for approval of concept. Jim Foster of Arcadia Design (1737 Johnson Avenue) told the committee the a DC official reviewed the project and found it is "by right", that is, it needs no zoning relief. (Foster did not yet have a letter to this effect from the DC government, he said, but he planned to get one soon.) If the historical preservation aspects of the expansion are approved, it needs no further consideration by the DC government.
"If you give approval, you won't see us again," Foster said.
Foster said the client for this project was DC developer John Casey.
Forster told the committee the expansion would add under 1,000 square feet to the building, which currently is about 4,000 square feet in size. As currently envisioned, the finished project would have two basement apartments, one ground-floor unit that with an entrance in the rear of the building from a small backyard, a single front-entrance unit with space on the ground and second floors, and a fifth unit which would be located on the third floor plus a mezzanine.
The fifth unit only would have access to a large roof deck. Forster characterized this unit as "the money unit" of the expansion. He said there would be a small elevator installed in the building to access this unit.
 |
| 1330 Vermont from the front |
The committee asked if the abutting neighbors had been contacted. Foster said the abutting neighbor to the north had been contacted but the neighbor to the south had not been contacted. There was no mention of contacting the neighbors to the rear, whose houses face onto the 1300 block of Rhode Island Avenue but will look on the proposed expansion from the rear.
The committee urged Foster to show evidence of contacting the abutting neighbors when presenting the project to the full ANC.
The illustrations submitted to the committee made it look as if the expansion would be mostly covered in light blue aluminum siding. Foster reassured the committee that it would not be. First, Foster explained, the color ink that the printer used on the illustration did not accurately represent how the proposed project would look. Second, Foster said, the siding would be wood (perhaps pine or cedar) or "essentially wood", depending on how much the developer decided to spend.
ANC Commissioner Pepin Tuma (district 03) asked what "essentially wood" meant. Foster explained "essentially wood" meant something called "hardie plank siding" (called "hardie board siding" when explained here), which are cement boards artificially given the texture and color of wood.
Tuma is not on the CDC, but the proposed project is in his ANC district.
The expansion requires HPRB review because the building falls within two different historic districts -- the Logan Circle Historic District and the Greater Fourteenth Street Historic District.
The matter is on the agenda for the next meeting of the full ANC, scheduled for Wednesday, February 4, at 7pm, at the Washington Plaza Hotel (10 Thomas Circle). Matters approved unanimously by the CDC are normally passed by the full ANC without much further debate, barring unexpected appearance at the meeting of opposition from the community.
Consideration of this project was the only item on the CDC agenda for this meeting.
Friday, January 30, 2015
Marge Maceda Elected Chair of Shaw ANC
At its regular monthly meeting on January 6, Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 6E/Shaw elected a new slate of officers, headed by Commissioner Marge Maceda (district 05) as Chair. Maceda edged out incumbent ANC6E chair Alex Padro (district 01) by a vote of 4 to 3.
In turn, Padro narrowly defeated Commissioner Rachelle Nigro (district 04) for Vice-Chair, also by a 4 to 3 vote.
Commissioner Kevin Chapple (district 02) was elected Treasurer and newly-elected Commissioner Antonio Barnes (district 06) was elected Secretary. Both Chapple and Barnes were without opposition and approved unanimously.
The vote was held at the beginning of the meeting by former ANC Commissioner Lydia Goring. Maceda took over the gavel immediately and led the balance of the meeting.
ANC6E's next scheduled meeting is February 3rd at the Watha T. Daniel/Shaw Library (1630 7th Street NW). No time has yet been announced on the ANC's web site, but ANC6E meetings often begin at 6:30pm.
In turn, Padro narrowly defeated Commissioner Rachelle Nigro (district 04) for Vice-Chair, also by a 4 to 3 vote.
Commissioner Kevin Chapple (district 02) was elected Treasurer and newly-elected Commissioner Antonio Barnes (district 06) was elected Secretary. Both Chapple and Barnes were without opposition and approved unanimously.
The vote was held at the beginning of the meeting by former ANC Commissioner Lydia Goring. Maceda took over the gavel immediately and led the balance of the meeting.
ANC6E's next scheduled meeting is February 3rd at the Watha T. Daniel/Shaw Library (1630 7th Street NW). No time has yet been announced on the ANC's web site, but ANC6E meetings often begin at 6:30pm.
Thursday, January 29, 2015
1017 12th Street: Arguments about "Light and Air" Come to the Central Business District
At a public hearing on January 6, DC's Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) agreed to grant zoning relief to ALBA 12th Street LLC which will allow a solitary vacant red-brick holdout building with historic connections at 1017 12th Street NW to be redeveloped. However, its neighbors put up a fight, claiming that the "light and air" of the their surrounding taller modern office buildings would be disrupted by the proposed upward expansion of the historic building.
The petitioners had received endorsement from Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2F/Logan Circle -- see SALM blog post of November 13, 2014 -- and had been thanked by the ANC for working to preserve the historic building, which has a connection to Elizabeth Keckley, a freed slave who went on to become Mary Todd Lincoln's dressmaker and a local celebrity. In December, City Councilmember Jack Evans wrote a letter joining ANC2F in support, according to the BZA file on the case.
On December 9, 2014, the building owner appeared before the BZA and pledged to rename the renovated building "The Keckley", and said he hoped to arrange a post-renovation ribbon-cutting attended by Mayor Bowser and the actress who played Keckley in Steve Speilberg's 2012 film biography of Lincoln.
The building requires zoning relief because it has no parking, takes up 100% of the lot it stands on, and will be expanded to 10 stories -- still shorter than the buildings that surround it. This expansion will block the sunlight into and the view out of some of the windows of the building. Other windows in the neighboring tall office building are (in violation of the DC building code) too close to the property line of the new building and would probably have to be removed. As a result, the owners of the neighboring building came before the BZA in December to say that the proposal would have an adverse economic impact, meaning, it would reduce their office building's "light and air" and make it less desirable to renters.
In documents submitted to the board in January, the petitioners admitted the expansion of the building might have an economic impact on the existing buildings, but the impact would not meet the requirement of "substantial detriment to the public good" which would be necessary to deny the zoning relief request.
In December, the Board recommended the petitioners take a handful of actions in exchange for the approval of their variance. The petitioners pledged to do so. For example, they will have to provide bicycle racks and Smart Cards to mitigate the effects of zero parking. The petitioners were also advised to buy Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs), which they did. The quantity of TDRs they needed was so small in comparison to the transaction costs that the petitioners had difficulty finding a seller, but they eventually found one who was willing to participate, hoping for future good-will.
All three BZA members present voted to approve the zoning relief at the January meeting.
I did not attend this hearing. I gathered the information above by watching the archived video at the Office of Zoning's Interactive Zoning Information System (IZIS). Videos of both the December 2014 and January 2015 public hearings on this request, along with transcripts of the same meetings and supporting documents submitted by both sides (including the letter from Jack Evans), can be viewed by clicking on the link to IZIS above and entering case number 18878 in the search bar.
 |
| From BZA official documents |
On December 9, 2014, the building owner appeared before the BZA and pledged to rename the renovated building "The Keckley", and said he hoped to arrange a post-renovation ribbon-cutting attended by Mayor Bowser and the actress who played Keckley in Steve Speilberg's 2012 film biography of Lincoln.
The building requires zoning relief because it has no parking, takes up 100% of the lot it stands on, and will be expanded to 10 stories -- still shorter than the buildings that surround it. This expansion will block the sunlight into and the view out of some of the windows of the building. Other windows in the neighboring tall office building are (in violation of the DC building code) too close to the property line of the new building and would probably have to be removed. As a result, the owners of the neighboring building came before the BZA in December to say that the proposal would have an adverse economic impact, meaning, it would reduce their office building's "light and air" and make it less desirable to renters.
In documents submitted to the board in January, the petitioners admitted the expansion of the building might have an economic impact on the existing buildings, but the impact would not meet the requirement of "substantial detriment to the public good" which would be necessary to deny the zoning relief request.
In December, the Board recommended the petitioners take a handful of actions in exchange for the approval of their variance. The petitioners pledged to do so. For example, they will have to provide bicycle racks and Smart Cards to mitigate the effects of zero parking. The petitioners were also advised to buy Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs), which they did. The quantity of TDRs they needed was so small in comparison to the transaction costs that the petitioners had difficulty finding a seller, but they eventually found one who was willing to participate, hoping for future good-will.
All three BZA members present voted to approve the zoning relief at the January meeting.
I did not attend this hearing. I gathered the information above by watching the archived video at the Office of Zoning's Interactive Zoning Information System (IZIS). Videos of both the December 2014 and January 2015 public hearings on this request, along with transcripts of the same meetings and supporting documents submitted by both sides (including the letter from Jack Evans), can be viewed by clicking on the link to IZIS above and entering case number 18878 in the search bar.
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Sherman Avenue & Barry Place: Howard University Changes Its Master Plan
A team developing a 60,000-square-foot plot of land at the northeast corner of Sherman Avenue and Barry Place NW into a six-story mixed-use building appeared before the Design Review Committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street on January 20. Its aim was to get the first of many endorsements necessary to move the project forward.
The development cobbles together land owned by Howard University and two
other land owners. As a whole, the project will require a long and laborious trip through the DC bureaucracy, including a request to rezone the property from residential to commercial and a request to declare the project a
Planned Unit Development (PUD). In addition, Howard University has to jump through extra hoops to engage in development on its share of the land because it has a campus master plan on file with the DC Office of Zoning. The ANC vote was only to endorse the proposed amendment to the campus master plan. The developers will surely have to appear again before the Design Review Committee, mostly likely more than once.
The team presenting was led by Maybelle Bennett, Director of the Howard University Community Association. Other team members who spoke at the meeting were Leila Batties of the law firm of Hollard & Knight, and Steve Gresham from the Alexandria office of Atlanta-based architecture firm Niles Bolton.
"This is not a Howard University project," Bennett said. "Howard is a partner. A private corporation is the primary."
The company's name on official documents is Barry Place Partners LLC, with an address in Valdosta, Georgia. The Georgia address is the same as that of the Corporate Office of Ambling University Development Group, a self-described provider of "campus development solutions". Ambling University Development Group is also described as "lead developer" on official documents for this project.
The committee's discussion ranged over many different aspects of the project, including the width of the sidewalks (with a member of the committee calling the effect of the design "claustrophobic" for pedestrians), and the fate of a colorful mural on the side of an existing building (it will not be preserved, but it will be memorialized in a "digital representation" in the lobby of the proposed building), Other topics touched on included: the loading dock, curb cuts, green roofs, green walls, parking (both car and bicycle), and the plans for nearby Howard University property.
The presenters indicated that the building will add much-needed affordable housing. According to DC law, a development of this type must allot eight percent of its floor space to "affordable housing", renting below market rate.
At the meeting, the presenters said they planned to have "at least" 27 of the proposed 319 rental units designated as affordable housing, of which four units would be two-bedroom apartments. These would be designed as "affordable" by people making 80% of Area Median Income (AMI) -- about $87,000 annual salary for a family of four. A one-bedroom apartment in this case would rent for a maximum of $1,611 a month.
The four two-bedroom apartments would be affordable at 60% AMI (about $66,000 annual salary), the presenters said. This two-bedroom apartments might rent for a maximum of about $1,450 per month.
This amount of affordable housing is less than the amount promised a December 31, 2014, DC government document about the project, which said that ten percent, or 32 rental units, would be affordable housing, five of which would be two-bedroom.
There will be 59 further units priced at "affordable housing" prices, but these units would be set aside for Howard University faculty and staff. There would be nine two-bedroom units that would be affordable at 60% AMI. The rest would be smaller units affordable at 80% AMI.
The committee voted in favor of supporting the amendment to the Howard University Master Plan contingent on the provision of the promised benefits. Five committee members were in favor, none opposed. There were two abstentions.
Documents related to this project can be viewed by the Interactive Zoning Information System of the DC Office of Zoning. Put case number 14-21 into the search bar.
Articles about this development also appeared in the Washington Business Journal in November 2014 and the blog Urban Turf in September 2014.
 |
| From publicly-available zoning documents |
other land owners. As a whole, the project will require a long and laborious trip through the DC bureaucracy, including a request to rezone the property from residential to commercial and a request to declare the project a
Planned Unit Development (PUD). In addition, Howard University has to jump through extra hoops to engage in development on its share of the land because it has a campus master plan on file with the DC Office of Zoning. The ANC vote was only to endorse the proposed amendment to the campus master plan. The developers will surely have to appear again before the Design Review Committee, mostly likely more than once.
The team presenting was led by Maybelle Bennett, Director of the Howard University Community Association. Other team members who spoke at the meeting were Leila Batties of the law firm of Hollard & Knight, and Steve Gresham from the Alexandria office of Atlanta-based architecture firm Niles Bolton.
"This is not a Howard University project," Bennett said. "Howard is a partner. A private corporation is the primary."
The company's name on official documents is Barry Place Partners LLC, with an address in Valdosta, Georgia. The Georgia address is the same as that of the Corporate Office of Ambling University Development Group, a self-described provider of "campus development solutions". Ambling University Development Group is also described as "lead developer" on official documents for this project.
The committee's discussion ranged over many different aspects of the project, including the width of the sidewalks (with a member of the committee calling the effect of the design "claustrophobic" for pedestrians), and the fate of a colorful mural on the side of an existing building (it will not be preserved, but it will be memorialized in a "digital representation" in the lobby of the proposed building), Other topics touched on included: the loading dock, curb cuts, green roofs, green walls, parking (both car and bicycle), and the plans for nearby Howard University property.
The presenters indicated that the building will add much-needed affordable housing. According to DC law, a development of this type must allot eight percent of its floor space to "affordable housing", renting below market rate.
At the meeting, the presenters said they planned to have "at least" 27 of the proposed 319 rental units designated as affordable housing, of which four units would be two-bedroom apartments. These would be designed as "affordable" by people making 80% of Area Median Income (AMI) -- about $87,000 annual salary for a family of four. A one-bedroom apartment in this case would rent for a maximum of $1,611 a month.
The four two-bedroom apartments would be affordable at 60% AMI (about $66,000 annual salary), the presenters said. This two-bedroom apartments might rent for a maximum of about $1,450 per month.
This amount of affordable housing is less than the amount promised a December 31, 2014, DC government document about the project, which said that ten percent, or 32 rental units, would be affordable housing, five of which would be two-bedroom.
There will be 59 further units priced at "affordable housing" prices, but these units would be set aside for Howard University faculty and staff. There would be nine two-bedroom units that would be affordable at 60% AMI. The rest would be smaller units affordable at 80% AMI.
The committee voted in favor of supporting the amendment to the Howard University Master Plan contingent on the provision of the promised benefits. Five committee members were in favor, none opposed. There were two abstentions.
Documents related to this project can be viewed by the Interactive Zoning Information System of the DC Office of Zoning. Put case number 14-21 into the search bar.
Articles about this development also appeared in the Washington Business Journal in November 2014 and the blog Urban Turf in September 2014.
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Who Can Serve Alcohol in DC without a Liquor License?
DC's Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration (ABRA) decided on January 21 to schedule a hearing on the issue of whether WeWork is required to obtain a liquor license, according to a January 26 email from Jessie Cornelius, an ABRA Public Affairs Specialist. A date for the hearing has not been scheduled.
WeWork, which located in the Wonder Bread Factory (641 S Street NW) in Shaw, is a multi-city company that provides office space for start-ups and small companies. It provides beer free of charge to its tenants, along with water, coffee, tea, and soft drinks.
In a separate SALM post today, it was reported, on the same day as the ABRA decision, WeWork got the endorsement of the liquor-licensing affairs committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street for both a temporary liquor license (effective sooner) and a permanent liquor license (takes a while to obtain).
A team of representatives from WeWork explained the events which had led to their appearance before the committee. In an effort to comply with the law after a visit by ABRA enforcement staff, WeWork applied for a category CX liquor license. A CX liquor license, according to the ABRA web site, "[p]ermits multipurpose facilities including theaters, museums, sports facilities, passenger-carrying ships and trains to sell and serve beer, wine and spirits." This category license would cost $1,950 and expire on March 30, 2016. It was reported at the meeting that ABRA then told WeWork it would need a category CT, or tavern, license, which could cost up to $3,120 and expire on September 30, 2016.
Committee member Joan Sterling suggested a liquor license was not necessary. (Sterling is also President of the Shaw Dupont Citizens Alliance.) Sterling said there was new liquor-license-related rulemaking in the works which would make clear that businesses in this circumstance do not need a liquor license.
Sterling also said a similar set of circumstances existed last year when the Hamiltonian Gallery (1353 U Street) was visited by ABRA staff who informed the Hamiltonian it would need a liquor license to serve complimentary glasses of wine and beer at receptions that occurred once every six weeks -- see SALM blog post of July 22, 2014.
ABRA, Sterling said, decided that the Hamiltonian Gallery did not need a liquor license. A note on page 15 of a 28-page .pdf document here confirms that, on October 1, 2014, ABRA "determined no license was necessary". A transcript of the October 1 meeting (see page 17 of another 28-page .pdf here) shows DC liquor-licensing authorities voting unanimously that a liquor license was not necessary in this case "provided they [i.e., the Hamiltonian Gallery] comply with DC Code Section 25-102". ABRA spokesperson Cornelius confirms in his email that the Hamiltonian Gallery had received a letter signed by ABRA Director Fred Moosally stating a liquor licensing was not necessary.
Cornelius also explained in his email that DC ...
 |
| Detail from last year's letter to the Hamiltonian Gallery |
In a separate SALM post today, it was reported, on the same day as the ABRA decision, WeWork got the endorsement of the liquor-licensing affairs committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street for both a temporary liquor license (effective sooner) and a permanent liquor license (takes a while to obtain).
A team of representatives from WeWork explained the events which had led to their appearance before the committee. In an effort to comply with the law after a visit by ABRA enforcement staff, WeWork applied for a category CX liquor license. A CX liquor license, according to the ABRA web site, "[p]ermits multipurpose facilities including theaters, museums, sports facilities, passenger-carrying ships and trains to sell and serve beer, wine and spirits." This category license would cost $1,950 and expire on March 30, 2016. It was reported at the meeting that ABRA then told WeWork it would need a category CT, or tavern, license, which could cost up to $3,120 and expire on September 30, 2016.
Committee member Joan Sterling suggested a liquor license was not necessary. (Sterling is also President of the Shaw Dupont Citizens Alliance.) Sterling said there was new liquor-license-related rulemaking in the works which would make clear that businesses in this circumstance do not need a liquor license.
Sterling also said a similar set of circumstances existed last year when the Hamiltonian Gallery (1353 U Street) was visited by ABRA staff who informed the Hamiltonian it would need a liquor license to serve complimentary glasses of wine and beer at receptions that occurred once every six weeks -- see SALM blog post of July 22, 2014.
ABRA, Sterling said, decided that the Hamiltonian Gallery did not need a liquor license. A note on page 15 of a 28-page .pdf document here confirms that, on October 1, 2014, ABRA "determined no license was necessary". A transcript of the October 1 meeting (see page 17 of another 28-page .pdf here) shows DC liquor-licensing authorities voting unanimously that a liquor license was not necessary in this case "provided they [i.e., the Hamiltonian Gallery] comply with DC Code Section 25-102". ABRA spokesperson Cornelius confirms in his email that the Hamiltonian Gallery had received a letter signed by ABRA Director Fred Moosally stating a liquor licensing was not necessary.
Cornelius also explained in his email that DC ...
... laws and regulations provide that an entity—not a restaurant, tavern or other establishment that serves food, non-alcoholic beverages and/or provides entertainment—does not need to obtain a liquor license to provide alcoholic beverages gratuitously. A temporary liquor license or a caterer’s liquor license would still be needed for any event at a facility where:At the January 21 ANC1B committee meeting, Sterling moved the ANC write a letter to ABRA stating the ANC does not believe a license is necessary. The motion was passed, and will be probably considered at the next meeting of the full ANC, scheduled for Thursday, February 5, at 7pm, at the Reeves Center (14th and U Streets) -- unless ABRA first makes a decision which renders the point moot.
(1) Alcoholic beverages are being sold or not provided gratuitously to guests;
(2) There is a cost, such as a cover charge or a requirement to purchase tickets to attend the event;
(3) The facility is being rented out for compensation;
(4) A caterer or bartender has been hired or is being paid to serve alcoholic beverages; and/or
(5) Non-alcoholic beverages, food, or entertainment are being sold or being charged for at the event.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)