The Neverending Story Continues: ANC Officially Withdraws Hank's Protest, ABC Board Yet to Rule

Believe me, if you're sick of reading about the ongoing drama related to the proposed expansion of Dupont Circle eatery Hank's Oyster Bar, we're even more sick of writing about it. It's one of those issues that seems to polarize the neighborhood--with most neighborhood residents either supportive or unopposed, and a small cadre of residents opposed to the expansion and insistent upon dragging the process on for a seemingly unendurable length of time.

There's no need to re-hash the issues at play here--click on one of the links above, or head over to Borderstan where Tom Hay should be considered for a Pulitzer for his work documenting the situation over the last several months. But here's where things currently stand:

At last week's meeting of ANC2B, the ANC voted unanimously (with one abstention) to withdraw its protest of Hank's expansion, which includes taking over an adjacent building and expanding both a sidewalk-facing patio as well as a "summer garden" in the back of the building. The ANC also voted unanimously to support the placarding of the changes because they were deemed to be "substantial" changes.

This leaves Hank's with the final hurdle of approval before the ABC Board before the expansion can proceed. The ABC vote will also be the last opportunity for a small but vocal group of resident protesters to derail the expansion plans, although that seems highly unlikely. As we've previously noted, the resident protesters, through multiple meetings and hearings, have been unable to demonstrate an adverse impact to the neighborhood to such a degree that the ABC Board would refuse to approve an otherwise legally permissible expansion.

In other words, come 2011, this nearly year-long saga might finally draw to a close. And we'll have to find something new to write about.

ANC2B Files, Then Withdraws, Protest of Hank's; Residents Threaten Legal Action

Tossing aside months of statements amounting to "we're not going to get involved," ANC2B voted at last week's meeting to protest the renewal of the liquor license for Jamie Leeds' popular Hank's Oyster Bar--then promptly rescinded the letter of protest after working out a deal with Leeds.

Meanwhile, a group of resident protesters led by Q Street resident David Mallof have threatened to file an appeal with the DC Court of Appeals should the alcohol board allow the termination of Hank's VA with the residents, along with a request from Leeds to add a rooftop garden and french doors leading to the street-level patio.

That's right: residents are threatening legal action over french doors.

If you're wondering what happened, well, so are we. it's rather long and winding road towards what has been a rather absurdly drawn-out protest of a popular neighborhood eatery. (Our post from a few months ago covers the protest in excruciating detail. Pour yourself a stiff drink before reading it.)

Basically, what it comes down to is this: a few area residents have decided that Leeds' plans to expand into the adjacent vacant space, and to vacate her existing VA with them, amounts to the end of life as we know it. Or something akin to that. Never mind that Leeds is perfectly within her rights to pursue expansion into the adjacent space--the recently re-ratified 17th Street Liquor License Moratorium specifically permits Leeds to do exactly that. And never mind that said protestants were unable to demonstrate any actual or potential harm by such a move--or even why a VA was necessary.

The ANC had voted to take no action on either the' "substantial change" to Hank's license (namely, the expansion into the neighboring building and outdoor space) or Leeds' request to terminate her VA with the Dupont Circle Citizen's Association and the aforementioned neighborhood residents.

The ANC's decision to reverse course came as a result of comments made by Leeds' attorney, Andrew Kline, at a November 3 alcohol board hearing, where he mentioned that Hank's would be legally permitted to maintain sidewalk cafe hours until 2 AM weekdays and 3 AM weekends--which they would. Except, they had no intention of doing so. Leeds had stated repeatedly that she had no intention of expanding Hank's patio hours.

Still, the ANC, as commissioner Victor Wexler put it, "does not want to risk having those hours allowed for anyone." So they filed a protest. Leeds immediately filed letter with ABRA which restricted her hours to 11 PM and midnight, which matched the statements she repeatedly made under oath at the alcohol board hearing. Subsequently, the ANC withdrew its protest, leaving Leeds' last remaining hurdle an upcoming ABRA Board hearing on the resident's protest of the expansion and substantial change.

Or perhaps not. In a ridiculously hyperbolic email recently sent by Mallof to a group of "interested" residents (subject line: "Grave ABC Board actions affecting all of DC"), he threatens to pursue further legal action should the alcohol board not side with his and his group's opposition to Leeds' plans:

"We await word on theses dramatically proposed instant license change requests," the email states. "If the Board approves these without placarding and public comment, we shall appeal to the DC Court of Appeals as well."

Is it any possible wonder why Leeds wanted to vacate her VA with these people?

In case you were wondering, Leeds' request to vacate her VA is entirely within the bounds of the law--any business that has been operating under one for at least four years has the right to make such a request. And although such requests were rare, in Leeds' case the alcohol board found that the key points of contention which would otherwise be addressed in the VA--namely, occupancy and operating hours--were addressed in the licensing agreement, thus making the VA redundant.

And so here we are, nearly a year after Leeds launched an effort to expand her restaurant: the ANC is not opposing the move, and the alcohol board seems poised to permit it. So where does that leave Mallof and the other resident protesters? They could certainly appeal the alcohol board's decision, but it's unlikely that such an appeal would meet with success. Most likely, they're going to be left on the outside looking in: having only themselves to blame for behaving so unreasonably and essentially forcing Leeds to pursue remedies to vacate the agreement she had signed with them. Ultimately, they'll likely be left with no recourse other than sending emails to each other complaining of the "hurricane of precedent setting, DC-wide rule of law and negative externality impact implications happening here in Dupont Circle."

Goodness, you'd think Jamie Leeds was trying to install french doors or something.

Saloon Owner Threatens to Leave U Street Due to Liquor License Dispute

The 14thandyous love the Saloon. We really, truly do. How can you not love a bar that refuses to have a TV, forbids patrons from standing, and will toss you and your party out if you get too noisy?

But The Saloon has gotten themselves into a bit of hot water, and it has to do with DC's oft-maligned liquor license laws. The Saloon, which is owned by Kamal Jahanbein, operates under a "Restaurant Class" liquor license which, among other stipulations, requires that it derive at least 45% of its sales from food.

As the City Paper reports, Jahanbein was given a good talking-to during a recent Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) Board hearing because The Saloon only generates food sales in the neighborhood of 35%. In order to operate without a food restriction, Jahanbein would need to transition to a "Tavern Class" license, only neighborhood residents tend to flip out whenever a business does that.

The problem, as Jahanbein sees it, is that DC doesn't officially recognize the type of establishment The Saloon is--a pub.

Now, we hate to say that we called this one, but this is a point we made way back in the day (March 2010, to be exact) we raised this very issue, and how a third classof license for alcohol-serving establishments--a Pub License--needed to be created. This would address those types of establishments that do not sell enough food to be a restaurant, but may not operate as an out-and-out bar.

Or, as Jahanbein put it, "If they want to call us a tavern, we are a tavern. But we are a pub."

Indeed they are. Only DC has no Pub Class license, leaving Jahanbein in a bit of a quandary--he can pay a $1,000 fine and submit to ongoing monitoring of his establishment, or he can pursue a Tavern Class license. According to the CP article, he's not happy about either situation, but would be willing to pursue a Tavern license if he thought it would be successful. If not, he mentions that he might pack up and move his bar to a more accommodating neighborhood.

I'm not inclined to get on my soapbox about this again, so I'll keep my rant here simple: the city is shooting itself in the foot by refusing to acknowledge that there is a class of licensee that exists between a restaurant and a bar. Anyone who has visited London, for instance, could tell you this. By refusing to acknowledge this, the city is creating two unhelpful situations: businesses who do not wish to be beholden to the food service requirements (such as having a chef on premises up to two hours before closing time) must either seek to convert to a tavern license (and thus leave the city with no recourse to regulate them via a food service requirement), or risk being shut down or levied with fines.

As this issue begins to crop up more and more, you'll likely see more businesses advocating for this type of thing. As it stands, time will tell whether U Street residents have the stomach for another "tavern" along the corridor.