[RP TownTalk] Jeys Auto 5731 Baltimore Avenue

Mon Mar 4 20:25:58 UTC 2013

Bruce

They Mayor said that Jey must surrender and give up his property. It's a 
shame that the Town of Riverdale Park is so unfriendly to business in 
this Town.  Can the Riverdale Park Business Association assist Jey.  
Maybe Michael Herman will represent him. He is representing two other 
business owners in Hyattsville for the same issue.

I find it appalling that the residents of Riverdale Park forgot that 
there was a Dunkin Donuts shop on Route 1 next to the old McDonalds for 
about 50 years.  I remember going to buy donuts each Sunday after Church 
in the late 1950's.  I continue to purchase donuts there until it 
closed.  Dunkin Donuts was a fixture of Riverdale Park, just like the 
White Castle Hamburger shop, Peelers Dry Cleaners, the Riverdale Bicycle 
Shop and the old Shoe Repair Shop.

Hopefully Jey will Survive.

James D. Holmes

On 3/3/2013 6:01 PM, Bruce Wernek wrote:
>
> Hi Jonathan
>
> While we are on the subject of imminent domain, why has Jemal been 
> spared? His buildings have been vacant for almost as long.  It appears 
> that Jemal is doing something, but so has Jey. Jey's cleaned up his 
> place recently.
>
> I can't see the difference between Jey and Jemal.  To be honest, I 
> feel more confident about Jey getting something going vs Jemal given 
> his track record.
>
> Bruce
>
> *From:*towntalk-bounces at riverdale-park.org 
> [mailto:towntalk-bounces at riverdale-park.org] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan 
> W. Ebbeler
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 03, 2013 5:25 PM
> *To:* towntalk at riverdale-park.org
> *Subject:* [RP TownTalk] Jeys Auto 5731 Baltimore Avenue
>
> Hey Bruce --
>
> I am going to have to quibble with a couple of the points you brought 
> up or at least offer my sentiments.
>
> I was not in town during the original proposal you speak of so cannot 
> comment on the events that went down but the portrayal is factually 
> inaccurate from a zoning/land-use perspective.  Prior to land being 
> rezoned to M-U-TC zoning in 2004 the land parcel was zoned C-S-C.  
> When the gas tanks were removed and the Use and Occupancy permit 
> expired, specific land parcels only have 180 days under County Code 
> for 'grandfathering' the use.  After the 180 days of a U&O not being 
> in place, normal County zoning process and procedures apply.  A gas 
> station under C-S-C is treated in the identical fashion as under 
> M-U-TC -- it is only permitted under the satisfaction of the Special 
> Exception process.  It would not have mattered if Jey had filed the 
> paperwork before the zoning ordinance or after -- the impact would 
> have been almost identical.  Either before or after the U&O would only 
> be approved via the County's Special Exception processing which is a 
> fairly high barrier to overcome; the owner lost grandfathering on that 
> use a long time before the 2004 Ordinance.  The assertion that if Jey 
> had filed a few weeks prior to the 2004 Zoning Ordinance would have 
> been meant that he would then have a conforming use is factually flawed.
>
> I am not sure why a business owner's personal financial situation is 
> even being discussed, but to that point the property was paid off and 
> banks are a great source of equity financing when an asset owned free 
> and clear.  The developer has been approached numerous times by 3^rd 
> parties wanting to buy outright, lease, and/or develop it out as an 
> equity partner and to date has only made the most basic of overtures 
> of developing the site with non-conforming uses.
>
> Since I attended the M-U-TC meeting, I can share your frustration with 
> the process, but as someone who has had to apply the same standards 
> consistently with every developer in the zone, I respectfully have a 
> different memory of the meeting.  I listed out in a prior email what 
> everyone is required to bring to the meetings for evaluation of 
> permits.  His architect did come but only had a single copy of a site 
> plan; nothing was provided to committee members prior to the meeting. 
>   The site plan does not show the façade, schedule of materials nor is 
> an elevation drawing.  It does not show landscaping, lighting, 
> screening, tree canopy coverage, etc.  We were shown a color picture 
> of what looked to be an existing Dunkin Donuts from somewhere else 
> that looked larger than the existing building on the site and had no 
> correlation to this site.
>
> The fundamental problem with that night was that the applicant had 
> applied for permits under one use and came to the M-U-TC committee 
> prepared to talk about another use.  We can only consider a permit 
> that is in front of us, not permits that may or may not ever be 
> filed.  There was also an erroneous interpretation of the zoning rules 
> by the applicant in that they misinterpreted the language to read that 
> the M-U-TC standards do not apply since the existing building has some 
> form of grandfathering.  It is true that since the applicant only 
> proposed an addition of 245.99 square feet that is 3.595 sq. ft. under 
> the trigger for full-review; there is a caveat to that.  That trigger 
> only grandfathers the developer from not having to comply with the 
> Building Placement and Streetscape page (i.e. the building is not 
> required to be picked up and moved closer to Route 1); the rest of the 
> voluminous standards apply.
>
> If I wasn't down in the weeds with the details I would be completely 
> confused by what exactly we were supposed to evaluate.  Before the 
> meeting, the M-U-TC committee was told that we were going to be 
> considering a coffeehouse, when I looked up the permits I saw the 
> applicant had applied for a convenience store, and when presented 
> Shanty expressed that they had considered a Starbucks/Caribou but knew 
> the area could not afford a $4 cup of coffee so they decided to bring 
> in a Quick Service Restaurant/Dunkin Donuts. We are perfectly willing 
> and prepared to negotiate a development on the parcel but first need 
> to know what it is not just be told by the applicant to 'just approve 
> it and then I will give you quality.'
>
> The developer was provided a detailed checklist of all the mandatory 
> standards prior to the meeting that it could use for guidance.  We are 
> applying the same standards to this site that were applied to the 
> Spiropoulos' build-out of Town Center Market and the same set of 
> standards that will be applied to Town Center when Douglas Development 
> comes before M-U-TC.  This parcel and development is in no way being 
> singled out or treated any differently than anyone else that has come 
> before M-U-TC.
>
> At this point we have not heard any response to our requests for 
> additional information, items that should have been readily available 
> if the applicant was preparing to move forward, nor have we been 
> notified that the applicant has elected to pursue the Special 
> Exception process.  The Town would love a thriving business on that 
> site since it is a gateway property.
>
> Jonathan
>
> Jonathan W. Ebbeler | Councilmember - Ward One
>
> Chair, Economic Development Committee
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TownTalk mailing list
> To post to the list, send mail to TownTalk at riverdale-park.org
> TownTalk-request at riverdale-park.org is for automated subscription processing only
> http://riverdale-park.org/mailman/listinfo/towntalk
>
> For more information about Riverdale Park, visit http://www.riverdaleparkmd.info

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20130304/a21546b1/attachment.html>