RECENT COMMENTS
Captain Buzzy’s seeking SUP for ABC, longer hours
PHOTO via The images and words of Richmond
According to the minutes of the Monday, April 1 meeting of the Church Hill Central Civic Association, Captain Buzzy’s (“Church Hill’s original coffee house“) is seeking permission to be open longer hours and to be able to sell alcohol:
The city asked for our input on Captain Buzzy’s special use permit to extend their hours Mon-Thurs until 10 pm and sell alcohol. Since they’re outside our general area (Church Hill Central/North, plus the Chimborazo park area), we voted to respond with “No comment”
Captain Buzzy’s is already currently open until 9PM.
A lot has changed in the neighborhood since Buzzy’s opened in late 2004. The reality of the corner stores that dotted Broad Street have faded and been replaced by best-in-the-city bakeries and restaurants. Is there any reason Buzzy’s should not be allowed to change with the times?
I’d have no problem trusting Buzzy’s to be responsible.
“Is there any reason Buzzy’s should not be allowed to change with the times?”
Nope.
I geuss it depends what they want to do with it, is it going to be like globe hopper? Or are they going to try to run a bar there. Either way I wish bob the best of luck.
I think Bob has proven to be a caring, responsible part of our neighborhood. Hope he gets this!
no problem with approval
Go for it!
Great, I think Captain Buzzy’s should be allowed to sell alcohol and extend an hour.
If Buzzy’s is looking to draw in more business then this idea has already failed them.
I have found it very interesting over the last few months how none of the new restaurants and bakeries that have opened are using Buzzy’s coffee. Most are using lamplighter coffee instead so there definitely is a desire to use local. It is especially interesting to me how much cross promotion is going on with all of the new businesses (even among the 3 bakeries!) but again, none of them promote Buzzy’s in anyway. I’m not a coffee drinker so I cannot attest to the quality of their product but all of this should make one wonder whether it’s a matter of a) the product doesn’t meet their standards or b) Buzzy’s isn’t interested in working with the new businesses. In either instance, I think these are the issues Buzzy’s should be focusing on if they want to become more successful in this community. We definitely need a coffeeshop in this neighborhood but because Buzzy’s hasn’t had to deal with competition in a while they’ve gotten away with not being inventive/creative, etc.
It’s clear this community wants those things so I hope they decide to work on those issues instead of adding to a repertoire that needs an update.
@clay st resident, I’ve been to Buzzy’s once and their hot tea options are Kroger brand. I don’t drink coffee and didn’t really check out what they have, but I go to coffee shops a lot to work and drink a lot of tea. I was turned off that with so many other options, they choose to sell Kroger brand hot teas. I wasn’t into the overall vibe of this place, and there was a massive ant invasion on my table the whole time I was there.
Also I was a little confused by the fact that the Church Hill Civic Association considers Buzzy’s outside of Church Hill. Seems like it’d be included.
CHCA considers only the area around Libby Hill Park and St Johns Church. It really should be called the Libby Hill Park Civic Association, as they don’t have any interest in the rest of Church Hill.
What is the “Church Hill Civic Association”? I’ve never heard of it.
I’m aware of the Church Hill Association, Church Hill Central Civic Association, Union Hill Civic Association, Chimborazo Civic Association and a few other local organizations like Church Hill North Old and Historic District, New Visions Civic League of East End and Greater Fulton Hill Civic Association.
None of these have ever gone by “Church Hill Civic Association” that I’m aware of.
IMHO, all of these associations/organizations are interested in success for the greater Church Hill area. I’ve never seen statements from any organization that Buzzy’s is excluded from Church Hill. Nor have I seen the listed organizations place undue concern upon Libby Hill or St John’s Church.
My take on the local organizations is that they are concerned with the entire Church Hill area – not just localized points of interest.
I share a wall with Captain Buzzy’s (I’m the ground-floor unit in the same building). I’ve been there more than 8 years. He’s been a terrific neighbor and I support his effort to level the playing field a bit with all the residential-area restaurants that have brightened up our neighborhood. It’s natural for the conversation to shift to what people like and don’t like about his business model — and these are certainly some good observations — but that’s a different issue, I think. He’s invested in our neighborhood and I think we should invest in him a bit more.
As a long-time family friend of Bob and Mary Ann, as a patron of Buzzy’s since it was The Ugly Mug Coffee & Tea at The Market, and as someone who grew up in Church Hill, I would be thrilled for Buzzy’s to be able to stay open later and serve alcohol. Some of my favorite spots around the globe do the same and it’s a wonderful atmosphere, the same atmosphere I’ve always enjoyed at Buzzy’s, plus a glass of wine. The old friends, conversations, good times shared, and memories made. Many times, I’ve craved an after dinner treat from Buzzy’s, only to look at my watch and realize it’s past 9 p.m. I’ve shared family meals and after-meal splurges for desserts over a drink, and rest assured most of us have done the same. All Bob is asking for is the opportunity to sell a glass of wine with a dessert, or a beer with a sandwich, and stay open 60 more minutes. Church Hill is growing and changing quickly, and my priority is Bob and Buzzy’s continued success as a hallmark of the community. As I see it, that’s what this is about. Additionally, it allows Bob to stay in business and put his daughter through college. Bob, Mary Ann, and the Buzzy’s team have given so much to us for so many years. We wouldn’t have the “third place” we all know and love without them and their wonderful staff. Can’t we give just them one more hour of business each day and a permit to sell beer and wine? If you agree, check out this petition: http://www.change.org/petitions/richmond-city-council-approve-captain-buzzy-s-request-to-stay-open-later-and-serve-beer-and-wine-2.
A revision of the special use permit application for Buzzy’s has been completed by Planning. I have obtained a copy from Lorrie Markham at Planning. It should be available online soon. She tells me it will be presented to Council next Monday with the result being Council returning the application to Planning for review.
The revised application changes are (approximately):
#3( i) Strike restaurant. Insert coffee shop. Replace previously stricken language regarding seating with language limiting seating to 24.
#3 (k) Replace previously stricken language limiting the sale of alcoholic beverages with language allowing the sale of beer and wine only. Add language saying there shall be no areas outside the completely enclosed building used for service of or preparation of food or beverages. Add language stating that this permit shall automatically be reviewed upon change in ownership of the business or property.
The hours of operation as requested in the original SUP request are unchanged.
In summary, the new language allows coffee shop operations, no restaurant, sales of wine and beer on premises only, extended hours to 10:00 pm Friday and Saturday, no outside operations, and mandatory review of the permit upon change in control.
Ms. Markham said it is likely Planning will complete their review quickly and the matter will probably come before council again on July 22, 2013.
Russ
So….it is just as has been said and just as has been posted in the Window at Buzzy’s!
Imagine that! It was indeed true afterall!
Russ…would you consider posting this same info on the other Buzzy’s thread as well.
I have been asked for clarification of remarks I posted here (see #14) about the status of Mr. Buffington’s Special Use Permit application and the amendment request to that application related to Buzzy’s.
There are two applications under discussion. One is the application named 2013-112 and dated May 28, 2013 which proposed removing language from the origional
2004 SUP 2004-216-272 (under which Buzzy’s is currently operating) which does not allow ABC privileges, restricts operation of as full restaurant, etc. I will refer to this as 2013-112. It was originated by Mr. Buffington. It has
not been passed by Council.
The second is a request to amend the 2013-112 request which was originated by Mr. Buffington. I will call this the Amendment Request as it has no formal designation. It is a request to change language in the 2013-112 amendment request.
There are no other formal requests that were made by Mr. Buffington.
Mr. Buffington attended a meeting with the Planning department to discuss the changes proposed in 2013-112. Some Planning Department members pointed out that the provisions deleting the ABC restrictions, deleting the coffee shop only restriction and permitting full restaurant operations, and possibly others, would make it very difficult for it to pass the City Council.
Mr. Buffington then filed a request to amend his 2013-112 request with the ‘Amendment Request’. This asked that language be added to his original request (2013-112) limiting ABC to beer and wine and putting Coffee Shop
back in 2013-112, replacing restaurant.
The existence of 2013-112 has not been recognized the City Council. Because it has not been recognized by Council the ‘Amended Request’ cannot be considered. It is not possible to amend 2013-112 if does not yet legally exist.
Council is scheduled to review 2013-112 next Monday, July 8, 2013. They will then review the changes requested in ‘Amendment Request’ and, very likely, send both back to Planning for reconciliation.
While it is possible that Council could pass a motion approving 2013-112 without considering the ‘Amendment Request’ that would be very unlikely, even irrational, since the originator of 2013-112 has requested the amendments.
It is expected that 2013-112 will be returned to Planning on July 8 for incorporation of the ‘Amendment Request’ language. After Planning review it will be returned to Council, likely on July 22, 2013 for action.
I hope this helps clarify my previous post.
Russ
@15: “Imagine that! It was indeed true after all!
Jim, if it was so “true after all,” why would it be necessary to amend the SUP application now? Apparently, there must be a difference in “truth(s)” – what Bob has said / what’s posted on the window and what the SUP application (that was rejected by the Planning Commission) said.
Hey, Bob can shoot for the moon on his SUP request… But it is apparent that these discrepancies left this matter open for interpretation – as always, the devil is in the details.
Though the (purported) newly revised SUP application is much easier to swallow, there wouldn’t have been such an uproar if it was indeed the “truth” to begin with. Something smelled bad from my first reading of the posted (initial) SUP application…you can’t fault the other readers’ / neighbors’ scrutiny of this application. Bob knew the rules of the game (read: zoning & other restrictions) before opening, now he wants to change the rules…fancy that, some people would be upset by this.
It’s remarkable to me that Bob Buffington himself has not entered this discussion here, among his neighbors (supporters & detractors)…wouldn’t this be the perfect forum? Methinks he’s got something to hide….but I could be wrong – maybe Bob can clarify this whole matter.
Dear “G” ….”it is true after all” that the *modifications* Bob requested to be made to the original SUP are indeed as stated in post 14. In other CHPN threads on this subject , many NIMBY complainants have called the integrity of Bob and supporters into question for and accused supporters of falsifying the SUP amendment request, the Online petition and the signs in Buzzy’s window.
No one doubts the problems with the original SUP…including Bob himself! Persons such as you continue to go back to the original SUP and ignore the “whole Truth” that much has been done toward compromise since then. By continuing to say Bob has something to hide, you part of the very group attempting to skew the truth against the modifications and compromises that have indeed been made. By continuing to deny the current truth of the compromises and modifications, are you stating that you are unconditionally opposed to any and all changes at Buzzy’s? Are you unwilling to even consider any compromise to address neighbor concerns? Were those concerns ever anything more than a ruse to raise objections and assail Bob’s character as you continue to do?
As for Bob participating here, I don’t think he should participate here at all…especially when people hide behind initials, made up names and incomplete names rendering themselves unaccountable for their statements – some of which are intentionally slanderous and malicious.
I am glad that Bob is staying out of this fight. He has right to seek the SUP and the community has a right to comment. But most of these posts go beyond commenting to rumor and speculation. I am ashamed at the mean-spiritedness and wonder why in the world anyone would want to operate a business in such a place. I strongly support Bob and really hope that right wins out and mean gossip loses.
Jim and tiny
I am a strong advocate for using your real name on these postings. The use of ficticious names leads to posting half truths, and sometimes just manufactured “facts”. The Buzzy SUP issue is a prime example of this cowardley behavior.
If people were required to be accountable for what they say, it would eleminate the mean-spirited, questionable “facts”, rumors and speculations. Posters say stuff on these postings that they would NEVER say if someone could identify them.
If it’s worth saying, it’s worth owning—–unless you are ashamed of what you are saying.
Jim et al.,
I was making reference to the orignal SUP Application because it is actually the only one officially on the table. A second request to amend the original has not been formalized, as far as I know. (Russ has indicated that much.) In Bob’s original SUP Application (please note the operative word in SUP, “special”), Bob has set himself up for this whole mess. His wishes were indicated in writing (signed & dated) for everyone to interpret. With all of this fervor, he’s only now tempering his wishes…therein lies the confusion.
For all of Bob’s loyal supporters – who I assume came out (blindly) in favor of the original SUP Application – would you still favor the orignal request in retrospect? Surely, we all can see the can of worms that has been opened…
To tell you the truth, I am a firm supporter of the small businesses on the Hill. And I too support Bob’s endeavors on the Hill. I am not a big fan of Captain Buzzy’s (less than stellar coffee & food) – but I wish him well. I just wonder why Bob can not simply pen an open letter to the community – outlining his plans, his aspirations for Buzzy’s and what he would like to come from this SUP. He is asking for “special” consideration from the City, it may behoove him to try to drum-up some support from the community and address any misunderstanding on the matter in a forthright manner. Maybe he feels that he does not need to be involved in this online discussion – but wouldn’t he like to clear the air a bit? We’ve heard from everybody and their brother on this matter, let’s have him put it in writing – and leave no room for rumors or “fact bending”.
At the end of the day, I’m not really concerned about how Bob would run Buzzy’s with the SUP in hand – he’s a proven asset on the Hill, and an honorable man. My (and maybe other’s) concern is the next operator’s intended use of the SUP. I’ve held to the understanding that SUP’s are tied to the property, hence it will convey to the next owner / operator. I realize that there has been a “request” for an immediate review of the SUP upon the change of ownership of the business and/or property – but Bob’s original SUP would set a precedent for the next owners – again, this SUP will be granted to the property (zoning & other regulations in tow). The next owner will surely cite that if this “Special” Use Permit was granted to Bob, why would it not be available to them. For me (and maybe a few of his nearby neighbors), there is nothing against Bob…I’m (we’re) looking at it beyond Bob’s run at that location.
I, for one, am sad that the word “restaurant” was struck from the SUP. Buzzy’s food, which has been maligned on this site, suffers from limits on its kitchen. A business can be both a coffee shop and a restaurant with a hood (see Lamplighter and Crossroads Coffee) without turning into a den of depravity! Both those spots have much better food than Buzzy’s at least in part because they have access to real kitchens.