The Sweet Mango saga that began on August 4th with a kitchen fire seems to finally be drawing to a close. Upon the restaurant’s closure due to the fire, DCRA became involved and worked with Sweet Mango to ensure that recent construction was to code and permitted. Even after the restaurant’s November 28th reopening, there were still issues that needed to be address with ABRA regarding two violations of its Voluntary Agreement and failure to pay taxes in 2011.
Well, the ABRA Show Cause Hearing was held last Wednesday, January 9th, and the results from the hearing are as follows:
As shared on the Petworth listserv:
Violation of Voluntary Agreement, Failed to Obtain Entertainment Endorsement, Failed to File Quarterly Statements (1st and 4th Quarters 2011)Disposition: The Government amended the Show Cause Notice for Case No. 12-AUD-00030 (Sweet Mango) to drop one charge. The Board accepted an Offer in Compromise: $10,000 to be paid within 60 days ($8,000 for Case No. 12-CMP-00010; $2,000 for Case No. 12-AUD-00030), 5-1 (Jones).
While I agree that voluntary agreements need to be enforced once they have been entered into, I also feel that it is time to review the voluntary agreement in place for Sweet Mango. Their current VA is between Sweet Mango and ANC 4C, the Petworth Action Committee, and the United Neighborhood Commission. It dates to 2004 making it one of the earliest VA’s in the neighborhood — and I think it reflects its time. When comparing it to VA’s in place with other area businesses, such as Blue Banana, DC Reynolds, or Looking Glass, the one for Sweet Mango includes restrictions — such as a requirement for valet parking — that are neither in those for other Georgia Avenue businesses or all that relevant.
In this instance, I think it’s time to meet with Sweet Mango’s owner, discuss the problem areas with the current VA, and incorporate appropriate changes that are in keeping with other local businesses.