Hank's Expansion Problem

A hearing took place yesterday at the Alcohol Beverage Regulation Administration to decide to terminate or amend the voluntary agreement for DuPont’s Hanks Oyster Bar. Hank’s owner and head chef Jamie Leeds came in front of the five-man committee with her lawyer, Andrew Klien, looking to terminate the agreement originally signed back in 2005 in order to expand her restaurant. Leeds wants to expand into a vacant property next door to her bar, however the voluntary agreement states that she cannot expand and must limit her seating capacity. According to statute, after five years she can request a termination of the agreement.
However, a group of five protesters and the DuPont Circle Citizens Association have been fighting this motion for months, citing appropriations saying the added noise and privacy issues will drive down the property values. If true, these claims could prevent Hank’s voluntary agreement from being terminated.
One resident and observer Jacqueline Reed said “I am very much opposed to terminating the voluntary agreement. The entire purpose of a voluntary agreement has been thrown out. It’s the only leverage that a community has to keep a business in check.”
The DCCA representative Robin Diener played a small part in the process, although she was dismissed from the process for the second time for not formally protesting Hank’s Oyster Bar. Early on, she expressed the concerns of the citizens of DuPont that a termination of this agreement would result in a lowered standard of living. After being dismissed as a protestant however, she was able to come back and serve as a witness. She testified that in other communities, property values drop because of noise pollution resulting in a lower standard of living when more bars are allowed into a community or expanded.
The decision to terminate will be made within a few weeks, but the seven hour meeting was not without conflict. The first came from a disagreement over wording and definitions. The lawyer representing the protesters, Mike Hibey, cited DC code 25-446 which states that the person seeking a termination of a voluntary agreement must make a “good faith attempt” at amending the agreement first. He claims that no such attempt had occurred and instead Leeds had insisted on a termination from the beginning. However Chairperson Brodsky stated “a good faith attempt does not mean that both sides agree.” Brodsky went on to describe how the emails sent between the two parties were in fact good faith attempts to reach out to the protesters despite not having reached a mutually agreeable amendment.
Code 25-446 was a source of confusion in other ways two. Three sections of A, B, and C are listed and the language of the intro and section C were argued over by the protestants, Hank’s, and the Chairmen. In the intro states that for termination the restaurant must do A, B, and C however Klein maintained that in section C the word “if” implied that if the voluntary agreement complies with all laws, then he can skip the first two steps. Hibey stated that the intro over ruled that “if” because the word “each” appears and means that all three steps must be taken. The chairmen interviewed both sides for a while trying to determine which language was more important and settled with Hank’s lawyer.
After an hour and a half, the board broke for advisement to privately determine certain main issues. For about 45 minutes, observers walked around discussing the hearing, and the lawyers talked to the people supporting their cause. The chairmen came back and read out three things they had deliberated on. The first a motion was to dismiss the DCCA from the meeting on the grounds that she had not filed a proper protest against Hank’s Oyster Bar which passed five votes to none. The second motion was to dismiss the group of five which lost three to two. The third motion was to dismiss the group of five’s protest against the dismissal of the voluntary agreement which passed five votes to none.
Following the advisement the process continued with both sides presenting witnesses and cross examining the witnesses. The witnesses were generally local residents who complained of noise violations and worried about property values.
Although no decision was reached, the mood in the room seemed to suggest Hank’s will have its voluntary agreement terminated. Even Mike Hibey was heard to remark during the break “it doesn’t look good for us.” One observer was already talking to Hibey about appealing. Board member Donald Brooks even told the protesters that he had “fundamental disagreement about what a voluntary agreement is used for.” With the one and only motion from the group of five protesters dismissed, it seems more than likely that the voluntary agreement will be terminated.