Advisory Neighborhood
Commission 6B
Minutes of Regular
ANC Meeting
June 13, 2006
Commissioners
Present:
Commissioners Absent:
Julie Olson, and
Chairperson
There was a quorum for conducting business.
Adoption of Agenda
The Chair stated there are a few items that need to be added
to the agenda. The first under Planning
and Zoning there has been a request for a letter of support for picnic in
The Chair then moved that the agenda be adopted as
amended. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Russell. The Chair asked if
there were any objections. Hearing no
objections, the Chair stated that agenda was adopted as amended.
Community Speakout
A representative from Capitol Hill Presbyterian Church rose
and stated that she was requesting a letter of support for a permit to hold
their annual Church Picnic at
.
Mr. Randolph informed her that if they were having a
porta-toilet to caution whoever they are renting the unit from that they are
not allowed to drive onto park property to make delivery. This is to prevent potential damage to the
underground sprinkler system.
The Chair made the motion that the Commission sends a letter
of support. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Garrison. The Chair then
asked all in favor to raise their hands.
The vote was unanimous (6-0).
Ms. Pat Taylor who lives on
She was asked if she had contacted DCRA regarding this
issue. She had not contacted DCRA, but
she had spoken and e-mailed the public space office without any success.
Ms. Taylor also mentioned that in the 300 block of 15th
Street they are putting up a big condo building which will be about 4-story
tall and there are others being built in the area. She is concerned about builders buying
residential property and tearing it down and replacing it with large condo
structures. She is concerned about the
impact that this type of development will have on her neighborhood and wants to
know if there is anything the ANC can do to prevent it.
The Chair stated that Ms. Taylor’s street would have to be rezoned in order for
that to happen on her street. He went on to say that the only reason that a
developer could do that on 15th Street is because it is zoned C-2 or
C-3 where as her street is zoned C-4. He
explained that
Ms. Amy Marx rose and stated that she has been a vendor at
Eastern Market for fifteen years and that she has a lease for the space at the
NW Corner of
The Chair stated that the Commission would reach out to
Chris Delfs at DDOT to see if he can be of assistance in this matter. He also asked her if she had spoken with her
landlord about her problem. She
responded that she had. Commissioner
Glick informed her that her landlord should be speaking with the various
agencies involved in this because he is her agent.
Frank Zampatori rose and stated that he lives near the DC
Jail and wanted to announce that there would be a Community Meeting on June 19th
at
Ms. Elizabeth Heir with the Christ Our Shepherd Church
located 801 North Carolina Avenue SE stated that her church was seeking a
letter of support for them to hold a picnic on July 2nd at Garfield
Park. They expect to have an
attendance of 75-150 people and they will have a porta-toilet, and there will
not have amplified music. She stated
they already have the necessary Parks and Recreation Permits.
Mr. Randolph informed her that if they were having a
porta-toilet to caution whoever they are renting the unit from that they are
not allowed to drive onto park property to make delivery. This is to prevent potential damage to the
underground sprinkler system.
The Chair made the motion that the Commission sends a letter
of support. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Wright. The Chair then asked all in
favor to raise their hands. The vote was
unanimous (6-0).
Community and
Commission Announcements
None
Presentations
Illegal Construction 700 Block 13th Street, SE –
Presenter Bryan Cassidy
Mr. Cassidy made a very informative presentation regarding
illegal construction in his neighborhood at 724, 740, and
After making his presentation he requested that the
Commission make an appeal of the Zoning Board’s building permits with which his
neighbor is not complying. Mr. Cassidy
stressed that something must be done before time runs out. The Chair asked what was the deadline to make
an appeal. Mr. Cassidy stated that it
was 60 days from April 24th, which means the deadline is June 24th. It was decided that the Chair and
Commissioner Jarboe would meet with Mr. Cassidy after the Full ANC Meeting to develop
a strategy to address his concerns.
Planning and
Zoning Committee
The Chair turned the meeting over to Commissioner Russell,
Vice Chair of the P&Z Committee to make the report.
P.S.
Gabriele Tripodo and Gina Sangster Hayman, the owners of
Port City Java, are seeking an application to install an unenclosed sidewalk
café adjacent to
Two residents expressed support for the sidewalk café
application; Mark Shlien from 221 8th Street SE and Kenya Dixon from
As there are no concerns from the Commissioners, thus the
committee recommends this to the full ANC for approval.
The Chair stated that this matter comes before the
Commission in the form of a recommendation is a motion requiring no
second. He then asked all in favor of
supporting the sidewalk café to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (6-0).
P.S.
Gaynor P. Jablonski,
representing the owners of the Ugly Mug (the building is owned by Barbara Held
Reich and Catherine Held), seek a public space permit for the purpose of
installing an unenclosed sidewalk café adjacent to
The Ugly Mug is open
for business Sunday thru Thursday from 4pm – 1:30am and Friday thru Saturday
from 4pm to 2:30am. Mr. Jablonski
explained to the Commissioners that most of the other establishments on
The Commissioners
indicated that they were willing to support this application once Mr. Jablonski
provides information about the hours of the other sidewalk café of
Mr. Jablonski stated
that the opening hours for many other establishments along
The Chair asked if
there was any new information or questions regarding the application.
Commissioner Glick
expressed his concerns with the Ugly Mug because of past experience with this
establishment such as the DJ, noise affecting the tenants above his
establishment, and the noise from the patrons as they leave his place late at
night, and he believes that they are always trying to bend the rules. He went on to say that for some reason he
does not have a 100 percent trust in what is being presented by the Ugly Mug
and he feels that there is a hidden agenda, something else will come up because
of this application and he was hesitant about supporting this application. He believes that the Ugly Mug is always
pushing the envelope with its liquor license as to what they can and cannot do and
he thinks it is becoming more and more like a night club without a night club
license.
The Chair noted that
since the Commission does not have an actual recommendation from the Committee
regarding the Ugly Mug’s application, a motion is required.
Commissioner Russell
made the motion to support the Ugly Mug’s application to public space for a
sidewalk café. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Wright.
The Chair asked all
in favor of the motion to raise their hands.
The vote was 6-1.
P.S.
Mark Menard, a co-owner of Trusty’s, is seeking an
application to install an unenclosed sidewalk café adjacent to
As there are no concerns from the Commissioners, the
committee recommends this to the full ANC for approval.
The Chair asked if there was any new information or
questions regarding the application.
Mr. Menard stated that he would be using planters to help
designate with serving space.
Commissioner Jarboe asked if the planters are being required by
ABRA. Mr. Menard responded that they are
not. He stated he think they are some
beauty to the sidewalk area and referenced those being used on
The Chair then asked all in favor of supporting the
Committee’s recommendation to support Trusty’s application to raise their
hands. The vote was unanimous (7-0).
HPA # 06-181, 221, 223 &
There is no HPA
issue with this case because the structure conforms to historic preservation
requirements.
HPA # 06-138,
David Cox,
representing the
To address possible
noise disturbance from the HVAC system to be located on the roof of the new
construction, acoustic sound walls would be built around and 3 feet higher than
the units HVAC equipment.
Bradley Pine who
lives at
The gist of the
correspondence is that important elements of their plan had never been
presented to us or other members of the community prior to their presentation
last night including:
We ask that this be
included in our file and be considered as you determine your recommendation.
Thank you,
Bradley and Catherine
Pine
202-547-0474
The Committee understands the concerns voiced by Mr. Pine
but feels that the applicant has made every reasonable effort to adjust their
plans to satisfy as many concerns as are economically and reasonably feasible. As there were no concerns from the
Commissioners, the Committee recommends this to the full ANC for approval.
Commissioner Jarboe asked for a point of clarification. He stated that it was his understanding that
the Commission was dealing only with the HPRB issue at this time. He went on to say that the subdivision issue
the Pines are bring up deals with zoning and will be heard at a later
date. The architect responded that
Commissioner Jarboe was correct that the issue is for zoning and not HPRB and
will be heard later.
The Chair asked if they had a date for the BZA hearing. Winfield Sealander, a trustee at the school,
stated that they have not applied to BZA yet, but anticipate doing so in
July. He further stated that their Use
Agreement under which they are operating at the 214 property expires in July. They
will be making an application to renew that use agreement with the BZA and in
addition they will be making an application for the new addition at that same time. He understands there will be a hearing
scheduled after the application is made and he believes that hearing will be in
October or November timeframe.
Commissioner Garrison stated that since the P&Z
Committee meeting there have been a blizzard of e-mail regarding this
application in the last week and he is interested to see if any of that
activity has resulted in changes in the school’s plans. He went on to say that he understood that school
officials had continued consulting with the neighbors while talking with the
commission. To the extent to which these further conversations produce
refinements in the plans to which all parties agree, that is clearly helpful. Commissioner
Garrison stated that it was to the school’s credit that it was still attempting
to do accommodate the neighbors’ wishes. He wanted to know if there are any
changes since last week.
Mr. Sealander stated that a result of the e-mails there was
a great deal of concern voiced about (1) the proposal to door in the wall
between the school and the adjacent row how and (2) the proposal to combine the
two lots. These issues are posed by the
existing use agreement for
Mr. Cox stated that he has been in communications with
Commissioner Garrison stated that at the P&Z meeting
last week, it was stated that they would be meeting with the Capitol Hill Restoration
Society last week. The Commission has not heard from the CHRS directly and he
wanted to know if there was anyone from CHRS present who could speak to the discussions.
Mr. Sealander responded by saying that he had spoken with
Nancy Metzger and because the case had been bumped to the July HPRB agenda, she felt they
had more breathing room in order to make her notes, so she has not completed
them yet.
Commissioner Garrison stated that since he was new on the
Commission, he wanted to know if it is normal procedure to act on something
like this when there are so many moving pieces as in this situation? He went on to say that as he understands that
the Commission is being asked to make a final decision on the HPRB portion of
this case when there appears to be some HPRB issues still unresolved.
The Chair stated that this type of situation seems to always
exist with HPRB cases, so what we usually do is to say that the Commission
thinks this case is okay, but here are the things we would like to see
done. Therefore, in as much as HPRB
takes our recommendations into consideration, we are hopeful they will resolve
the issues we identify. In those cases
where were have serious issues, the Commission will oppose a project.
Commissioner Garrison wanted to know if the Commission
normally has the views of CHRS on a case before the case comes before it. The response from the Chair and others was that
this occurs sometimes but not always.
Commissioner Jarboe stated that part of the difficulty with
the HPRB process is trying to pen down exactly when a decision gets made,
because it is never actually gets made until late in the process. Usually
all of the cases go before the board and staff at a conceptual level, and then
the board makes a recommendation and turns it over to the staff, who in turn
works with the applicants to secure final approval. He went on to say that technically HPRB is
not the final decision maker, they recommend to the mediation group at the
preservation office. Thus it is always a
moving target and the best the Commission can do is to weigh-in and state our
opinion on the case.
Commissioner Garrison mentioned that the two issues at play
since last week – the side door and the lot combination – both appeared to be
zoning issues. He asked if he was correct
that there were zoning issues that comes later on in the process. Commissioner Jarboe stated that he was
correct.
Mr. Cox stated that a concept level approval by the HPRB on the
issue about the connections between the buildings is usually not a big problem. He went on to say that where this is concern,
the HPRB might say it approved the concept, but don’t want to see an opening
and the matter is resolved later in the process. He anticipates this will happen in this case
before final approval is granted.
Brad Pine whose letter was read as part of the P&Z
Committee minutes rose and stated that an approval from the ANC should have
great weight with HPRB, so what is determined now will impact the final
decision.
The Chair stated that he was correct and that is part of the
challenge the Commission faces as well as in light of the fact that the
Commission must make a decision by a deadline date, so the Commission must make
a decision based upon the best information it has at the time. Mr. Pine then asked what did he mean when he
said the Commission had a deadline to respond.
The Chair stated that if the Commission does not provide comments before
their meeting with HPRB, then the Commission is left out of the decision-making
process.
The Chair asked if there were any other comments or
questions.
Mr. Robert Krughoff who
lives close to the school on South Carolina Street rose and stated that he as lived in the area
for over 37 years and the school has been an a great asset for the neighborhood
and Capitol Hill in general. He further stated that it appears that
Commissioner Garrison stated that he understanding Mr. Krughoff’s
comments, but the task at hand tonight is to deal with the HPRB issues and come
back later and deal with the zoning issues.
Therefore the zoning issues Mr. Krughoff notes will be taken up at a
future meeting.
Michael McCabe who lives in the 200 block of E Street, SE
rose and stated that he has been a Hill resident since 1977 and he provided a
copy of an e-mail he had sent to the ANC office today (which has been added to
the file) expressing his concerns with this project. He went on to say that he was frustrated with
the process itself and especially with the last community meeting that the
school held. He stated that what now is
being called a door in the back of the building was a window and school
indicated they were considering removing the window that would overlook 214 and
then instead of removing it, it now as become a door in the latest plan. He also stated that it was his understanding
that originally it was planned to have a covered awning connect with the 214
structure. Also at that meeting the he
and the neighbors talked about the plans for 214 and made it very clear they
were concerned about it continuing as an academic facility and not a
residential facility. There was a great deal of discussion about the row
house’s future and the possibility of it becoming apartments that could be used
by staff. Now that the school is talking
about using the row house strictly as an office, that raises concerns at to
what is going to be the future of that facility and what will be its impact on
the community. He went on to say that he
believes this addition will make to school larger even though the school said
they were not going to add any classes, and that it will cause parking and
other problems associated with the increase in student population.
The Chair stated that there is a recommendation from the
Committee that the Commission supports this application and he has heard some
comments regarding some specific issues that Commissioners may see that there
is something they might want to add, but he wanted to know if there were any
amendments to the recommendation.
Commissioner Garrison again stated his concern with the
mixing of HPRB and zoning issues in this case and wanted help in separating the
two.
Mr. Cox stated that if the door is raising such a concern
with the neighborhood they are willing to deal with the door. He added that the door was a convenience
issue to allow teachers and administrators to move freely between the two
buildings, but the second floor can be used to connect the two. However, they must have some way of entering
the 214 building.
Commissioner Jarboe asked for clarification from Mr. Cox and
the Head Master regarding the use of the rear entrance in their Use Agreement. The Head Master said that the agreement
discourages the use of the front door so the kids use the backdoor of the row
house when moving between it and the back of the
The Chair asked what was the concern regarding the
backdoor. He was informed that it was
originally a window and now it is to be a backdoor. Commissioner Jarboe stated that it appears
the concern is that putting a door in will increase the noise and traffic. There currently is a backdoor in 214, but the
concern is the backdoor that will be in the new (Dent) building. Commissioner Jarboe then added that he could
not see what the issue with the door could be, if the kids are going in and out
of the backdoor of 214 now and when you change the need for a back entrance to
administrative use, then the amount of traffic and noise should be greatly
reduced. He concluded by saying that he
was happy to support the proposal as is.
The Chair stated that the recommendation from the Committee
in the form of a motion requires no second.
He then asked all in favor of supporting the Committee’s recommendation
to raise their hand. The vote was
unanimous (6-0).
BZA #17497, 516 5th
Street, SE
Gretchen Hesbacher is the owner of the home at
There exist no issues of light, air or privacy of adjourning
neighbors and the owner has letters of support from her neighbors. As there are no concerns from the
Commissioners, the committee recommends this to the full ANC for approval.
Commissioner Jarboe requested a point of clarification and
asked it he was correct that this was an application for a variance not a
special exception. The reply was that he
was correct. He went on to say that the
justification for a variance is the uniqueness of the property and hardship of
not being able to conform to zoning requirements.
The Chair asked if there was any new information regarding
this case and the reply was that there was none. The Chair then asked all in favor of adopting
the Committee’s recommendation to raise their hands. The vote was 6-0-1.
ZC Case #05-21A, Text
amendment-pet grooming, pet shops, veterinary hospitals, and animal shelters as
special exception uses within C-2
The Commissioners oppose the enforcement language. The text amendment would require all vets to
have a special exception and be prohibited if their establishment abuts a
residential neighborhood.
Commissioner Jarboe said that this is a new zoning ordinance
that is an outgrowth of an earlier ordinance having to deal with pet boarding
in places like Dogma, there was nothing in the zoning laws that allow for those
and there was a problem having to do with them being in residential areas. The Zoning Committee had specifically asked
the Office of Planning at that time to see if they were treating all animal
care facilities consistently and of course they were not. So the Office of Planning proposed the exact
same language for pet shops, pet grooming and veterinary clinics, veterinary
shelters. The problem with this approach
is that it may be appropriate for animal shelters, but it would prohibit every
pet shop, pet grooming and veterinary clinic if is in a commercial area that
abut a residential area. The problem
here on Capitol Hill is that all of our commercial areas abut residential
areas, and almost all abut residential uses areas. He cited the example of 8th Street
and the number of pet related businesses that are behind a residential building
and the fact that with this zoning they (only new like businesses) would not be
allowed He is sure it was not the intention of the proposed new zoning to
prevent these types of ventures, but instead that a special exception would be
required. Commissioner Jarboe made the
clarification of the Committee Report to reflect that the Commission opposes
the language, but suggests that the Zoning Commission change the language such
so that specifically pet shops, pet grooming and Veterinary clinics could be in
a residential section with a special exception.
The Chair then asked Commissioner Jarboe if the proposed
zoning would categorically prohibit those types of establishment unless they
currently exist. He responded it would
prohibit them categorically if they abut a residential use or residential zone.
The Chair then asked all in favor of supporting the Committee’s
recommendation to raise their hands. The
vote was unanimous (7-0).
The Chair then appointed Commissioner Jarboe to be the
person authorized to speak on behalf of the Commission before the Zoning
Commission in regards to this case.
Designation of
Reuben Hameed Vice president of the Barney Circle Watch
Association and Beth Purcell presented information on the process of making the
Barney Circle Neighborhood a Historic District.
Mr. Hameed stated that discussion and research of the proposal has taken
place over the course of a year and has included two public meetings. He added that, as means to educate the
neighbors and explain the benefits and pitfalls to being within a Historic
District, they distributed to neighbors informational sheets with questions and
answers regarding the pros and cons of becoming a historic district.
The Barney Circle Neighborhood Watch Association is
requesting ANC 6B’s support (sponsorship) of their request for an historic
designation. With the ANC’s sponsorship
(support) they will be able to avoid having to pay the $1000 Historic District
application fee.
The reasoning behind creating a Barney Circle Historic District is to
preserve the character and integrity of the neighborhood. The designation of
The designation would be small and include only 117 homes.
Other small neighborhoods in the city have acquired such a designation, such as
Grant Road Historic District, which includes the 4400, 4500, and 4600 blocks of
The Committee advised the representatives to present the
proposal to the Full ANC with a petition of support from neighbors within the
proposed Barney Circle Historic District. Once this task has been completed
their proposal would be considered for addition to the next ANC agenda.
St. Coletta
Nonconformance to PUD Report
The Chair stated that this related to the driveway that was
constructed by St. Coletta that was aimed in the general direction of
Community Connections
– Letter of Support
The Chair stated that Community Connections has requested
the Commission’s support and he wanted to know if anyone from Community
Connections was present to represent their request. There was no one present.
The Chair then stated that the Commission received a letter
from Community Connections with is a non-profit agency located at
Commissioner Jarboe stated that he would object to the
Commission moving forward on this without more information. He further stated that when he represented
that area there was concern as to what the building would actually be used for
and he would like to have that aired before moving forward.
The Chair stated that this was in his SMD and he totally
agreed with Commissioner Jarboe’s assessment.
ABC Committee
The Chair turned the meeting over to the Commissioner
Wright, Chair of the ABC Committee, for their report.
Commissioner Wright made the following report:
License Renewals
Lic#2195, Safeway,
Since no representative from Safeway was present, the ABC
committee takes no position on the renewal.
The Chair asked if there was anyone present to represent
Safeway. There was no one present.
Commissioner Jarboe mentioned that the Commission has a
Voluntary Agreement with Safeway that they will not sell single beers.
Lic#25523, JJ Mutt Wine & Spirits, 643 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE,
Retailer A
Amarjit Bhuller was the representative for JJ Mutt’s
Although JJ Mutt’s adheres to the basics of a standard
Voluntary Agreement, Mr. Bhuller was not comfortable in renewing a voluntary
agreement at this time. Since then he
has signed a Voluntary (Cooperative) Agreement with the ANC. Since there were no objections or concerns
from the community, the ABC committee recommends the ANC support the license
renewal.
Commissioner Jarboe wanted to know what changes were made in
the new Voluntary (Cooperative) Agreement.
He stated the reason he asked is because voluntary agreements last the
life of the license and there was no need to renew the voluntary agreement.
The Executive Director,
Commissioner Glick stated that the Commission does not
support an application, it either opposes or not oppose the application.
Commissioner Jarboe responded that the Commission only
supports an application if there is a ban on the sale of singles, which has the
same effect as to not oppose.
Commissioner Glick then offer a friendly amendment that the
Commission change the Committee report to read that ANC 6B does not oppose the
application. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Jarboe.
The Chair then asked all in favor of adopting the Committee
Report as amended to raise their hands.
The vote was unanimous (7-0).
License Modifications
Lic#71793, The
Ugly Mug,
Gaynor Jablonski, the representative for The Ugly Mug,
requested the support of ANC 6B for a sidewalk café. The outdoor café will have 6 tables and 12
chairs. There will be no music and no
DJ. Hours of operation will be
11:30-1:30 Sunday-Thursday. The hours
for Friday and Saturday are 11:30 am to 2:30 am. Mr. Jablonski indicated community support for
the outdoor café and no objections were voiced from the community. He also
indicated that due to some type of mix-up with ABRA, his original application
was misplaced (lost), but he did not have a placard on display at the
business. However, according to him,
ABRA assured him that he would have a placard to put in place by Tuesday, June
13, 2006. He also indicated plans for
possible future expansion.
The ABC committee recommends support of the outdoor café.
Mr. Jablonski stated that since ABRA lost his application
and his application for public space has been approved, it was suggested by the
staff at ABRA that he request a Stipulated License because his hearing is not
until August 16th, which would allow him to begin serving effective
July 1st.
The Chair asked if he had a copy of the placard, which he
did not. He responded that he did not
because they only give him one and he put that one up.
Mr. Randolph seeking a clarification asked Mr. Jablonski, asked
if he was correct in saying that he wanted to change his request to seek a
stipulated license instead of an actual license to serve liquor on the
sidewalk. To which Mr. Jablonski
responded that he was correct. He went
on to say that since the application was put in two (2) months ago, he should
have had a placard over a month ago and he would have been in position to
secure his license to serve liquor on the sidewalk in concert with obtaining
the approval of his public space application.
With the approval of a stipulated license he will need to appear before
ABRA on August 16th to receive his actual license to serve liquor on
the sidewalk.
The Chair asked if there were any questions or comments
regarding his request.
Commissioner Glick stated that this is the only business on
The Chair asked him what specific complaints he was speaking
of. Commissioner Glick responded that it
was complaints of loud music and the landlord tenant issues that were brought
before the Commission previously. He went on to say that he would support a
stipulated license with the stipulation that the applicant does not serve after
10 pm on the sidewalk.
Commissioner Jarboe stated that he was a little concerned because
he did not like voting on something without the paperwork, especially an
alcoholic beverage case before the Commission where there is not placard in
place.
Commissioner Garrison asked if he was not correct that the
purpose of placards was to provide the community with some notice that a liquor
license application, so the Commission’s ability to assess the community impact
of this license is partly depending on this.
However, he does understand the Ugly Mug’s position with the lost of his
original application. He stated that it
does put the Commission in an awkward position.
Commissioner Jarboe said that the liquor laws state that in
order to protest a license such as this, the ANC has automatic standing, but
individuals do not. It must be a group of five (5) or more. Therefore it is extra incumbent on the ANC to
get the community’s input. He went on to
say that having said that, the stipulated license process is similar to a test
case. This is because the Commission
could approve a stipulated license, but if there was one complaint the
stipulated license goes away (pulled).
Commissioner Garrison asked if the Ugly Mug would have an
opportunity to be heard on the matter and Commissioner Jarboe responded that
there would be a hearing held and they would be given an opportunity to respond
to the complaint. He went on to say that
if there was a complaint and because the applicant is asking to be given a
license before they go through the public hearing process, so one (1) complaint
would mean the license could be yanked.
He concluded by saying that since it appears that the Commission will be
holding a Special Meeting in July, the Commission can support the stipulated
license because it will have an opportunity to review the stipulated license
situation and if there are any complaints the Commission can protest the whole
license.
The Chair then made the motion that the Commission supports
a Stipulated License for the Ugly Mug.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wright. The Chair then asked all in favor to the
motion to raise their hands. The vote
was 6-1-0.
Marvelous Market
Seth Shapiro, franchise owner
for Marvelous Market, which will be at 7th and
Commissioner Jarboe stated
that it was his understanding that this would be on of the cases that the
Commission will be hearing at the Special Call Meeting in July. Commissioner Wright responded that he was
correct.
Commissioner Jarboe added
that the owner has committed to signing a Cooperative (Voluntary) Agreement to
not sell single beers, to which, everyone was very pleased.
Committee reports
and announcements
There were none.
Approval of
Commission Minutes
The Executive Director stated that he had e-mail each
Commissioner copies of the minutes for January, February, April, and May and
they were asked to review them and make any corrections they saw fit, and he had
not gotten anything back in response, therefore he was assuming that the
minutes as prepared were correct.
The Chair then asked the Commissioners if they had any
comments regarding the prior minutes.
There were no comments. The Chair
then made to motion to approve the minutes for January, February, April, and
May. Commissioner Garrison stated that
since he was not on the Commission during these months, he should not vote,
therefore he will abstain from voting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Wright. The Chair then asked all in
favor of approving the minutes to raise their hands. The vote was 6-0-1.
Financial Report
Corrections
Commissioner Jarboe stated that when the auditor looked at
the commission’s 3rd Quarter Report he noticed that there was a
discrepancy between the 3rd quarter and 4th quarter
reports in that there was a typo in the 4th quarter report where the
ending balance did not match the balance forward amount in the amount of
$2.07. As a result, the Commission will
have to go back and amend the 4th, 1st and 2nd
quarterly reports because the $2.07 error flowed through all subsequent
reports. He went on the say that none of
the items in the quarterly reports have changed. He then made the motion that the Commission
to adopt the revised Quarterly Reports for 4th quarter of 2005 and
the 1st and 2nd quarters of 2006. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Wright.
The Chair then asked all in favor to the motion to raise
their hands. The vote was unanimous
(7-0).
The Chair announced that the Commission does not normally
meeting during the month of July, but since there are certain matters needing
action the Commission will hold a Special Call Meeting on July 11th.
Adjournment
There was not further business and Commissioner Hill made
the motion that the meeting be adjourned until its next meeting date of July
11, 2006. The motion was seconded, and
the vote was 7 to 0.
Meeting Adjourned.
Prepared by
Attested: