Compromise Proposal


On Sept. 2, VPC ended its policy of rejecting neighbors’ requests for discussion of the cafe impacts. The owners asked the neighbors to meet. In response, we offered what we believe was a reasonable compromise proposal.

Families known to be concerned agreed to support VPC’s request for a change of land use if VPC owners as well as the owner of the building agreed to a binding commitment to the following:

1.  Upgrade and maintain the building and restaurant operation in compliance with all non-discretionary state and local regulations including for example fire/safety codes, building codes, public health and liquor regulations, etc.

2.  Use best available methods to mitigate the impact on the neighborhood in areas of garbage disposal, rodent control, and odor control.

3. Keep all customer eating and drinking and food preparation (cooking. barbecuing or similar activities) inside the building and maintain hours of operation as they have been this last summer.

4.  Assure an operation that curtails noise to be no greater than that which would be occasioned by a small grocery store or a single family residence.

5.  Insofar as possible, assure that patrons and employees respect parking regulations and assure that delivery vehicles follow an agreed to parking/unloading mitigation plan.

6.  Limit all eating and drinking establishment operations, including office uses, to the ground level.

 
Neighbors reiterated that our primary concerns were  VPC's:
  1. request to change the use of the property they leased from ‘grocery’ to ‘restaurant’;
  2. impacts on the neighborhood – issues VPC owners did not address when they installed a commercial kitchen and created the restaurant in 2007. Issues that would be exacerbated by expansion of the restaurant use now or in the future; and
  3. planned use of the backyard patio that VPC has built and would like to use for lunch and dinner service, and for grilling meats throughout the day and into the evening.

Neighbors and VPC discussed the above and possible mitigations. Ultimately, VPC turned down the proposal. They turned us down knowing full well that the result would be significant opposition to their request for land-use change.

%d bloggers like this: