[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},"mediaId",6092396,"mediaKeyId","2854046-08bb27a54351decdcca41ecb4527b5b2","parentId",2854046,"title","Board approves covered deck and pergola at 4632 Charleston Terrace but requires screening; one commissioner opposes","audioSeconds",5177,"startMs",17859000,"endMs",23036000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2854046-08bb27a54351decdcca41ecb4527b5b2&start=17859&end=23036","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2854046-08bb27a54351decdcca41ecb4527b5b2/thumbnail_17859000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6092396/Board-approves-covered-deck-and-pergola-at-4632-Charleston-Terrace-but-requires-screening-one-commissioner-opposes","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6092396-b723ea857667dd3cdd749e705c0cc26f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771136274&Signature=E4F7HdfAgLrNLkbSyykA7N0RtqA2tq7JfJIetlDokFv38LVPcKv3RU3YE~beKZekS0nwL2okWVv8Ron0dCv99SvpvyICvkRmwIrjyCudpyYrApmGc9B5dSzyDHDds1PxigOqAvpX9Ek7wJzhI6SroJrDPl975aEUnb8s9zXI-Fja8zRyVue99O0WvY-7~fK5w~OEdbBzWkORAvOTrU2E9r8YlunHYqDmNqI3D8R~1nsEp4KeFImInp166fbJ0Z5Upu-JjMWA8MRKYIsA8VpYABM2yxlgq2nYkwLCsth6RsPLNmdxhFuD6oohxP~KlyL2TIUaPJK0OZv7bLRqp7L9hA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","DC Office of Zoning","date","2025-04-03T00:16:35.127Z","article","The Board of Zoning Adjustment on April 2 approved an application by trustee Susan M. Tamberini to replace an uncovered rear deck with a larger covered deck and pergola at 4632 Charleston Terrace NW (BZA Application 21263). The proposed structure exceeds the 450‑square‑foot accessory‑structure threshold and is located within the required rear yard, so the applicant sought special‑exception relief.

What the board approved: The board granted the special exceptions to allow a covered accessory structure measuring approximately 652 square feet (as presented) and the associated lot‑occupancy increase required to accommodate the covered deck and pergola. The Office of Planning recommended approval. The board recorded a 3–1–1 vote: Chairman Fred Hill, Vice Chair Carl Blake and Member Kershawn Smith voted in favor; Commissioner Gwendolyn Wright opposed; one member did not participate in the vote.

Neighbor concerns: Deborah James, the immediate neighbor at 4634 Charleston Terrace, opposed the covered roof element. She said she had no objection to a larger deck but that the roof turned the feature into a permanent enclosed accessory structure and would substantially reduce the open rear yard and her enjoyment of it. She asked the board to weigh whether a roofed structure of this scale was consistent with the intent of accessory‑structure rules in the R1‑B zone and recommended the board require less intrusive alternatives.

Board response and mitigation: Office of Planning staff noted the covered deck would in several respects improve existing privacy because it replaces an uncovered deck, and the proposed screening would reduce direct sightlines to the neighbor’s sunroom. In response to the neighbor’s concerns and to address privacy the applicant filed renderings showing a screening design (Exhibit 31B) and the board incorporated that depiction into its decision. The board stated that the structure must be built in substantial conformity with the plans and renderings submitted at the hearing; the screening images in Exhibit 31B were referenced in the order.

Vote and conditions: The staff reported the vote as 3‑to‑1‑to‑1 to approve; Commissioner Wright recorded a no vote. The board did not attach an explicit covenant that would forever bar enclosure, but the approved order requires construction to match the approved drawings and the screening shown in the record (Exhibit 31B). DOB permit review will check compliance with the approved plans.

Why it matters: The case illustrates how a seemingly modest change — covering an existing outdoor deck — moves an element into the accessory‑structure rules and can trigger lot‑coverage and rear‑yard protections. Neighbors and ANCs continue to press the board for design changes or smaller footprints when covered structures are proposed on narrow city lots.

Speakers: Applicant trustee Susan Tamberini and architect Tony Dierro presented for the owner; Martin Sullivan of Sullivan & Barros presented as counsel. Opposing testimony came from Deborah James (next‑door neighbor). Office of Planning presented its recommendation in support. ANC representatives had previously expressed concerns about accessory‑structure scale.

Ending: With the screening renderings included by reference, the applicant may proceed to seek DOB permits and DDOT/public‑space approvals where required. Neighbors retain appeal rights and may review the final order once issued.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","BZA Public Meeting & Hearing of April 2, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Board of Zoning Adjustment approved a covered deck and pergola that exceed accessory‑structure limits at 4632 Charleston Terrace NW, but required screening and substantial conformity to the plan shown in Exhibit 31B.","taxTitle","Office of Zoning, Agencies, Organizations, Executive, District of Columbia","taxId",15857,"location","","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},6092401,"Neighbors press BZA to block rear addition at 2728 Oak St. NW over 'at‑risk' window; board allows more filings and defers decision",10574,2872000,13446000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2854046-08bb27a54351decdcca41ecb4527b5b2&start=2872&end=13446","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2854046-08bb27a54351decdcca41ecb4527b5b2/thumbnail_2872000.jpg","/articles/6092401/Neighbors-press-BZA-to-block-rear-addition-at-2728-Oak-St-NW-over-atrisk-window-board-allows-more-filings-and-defers-decision","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6092401-e5bf676b284d2183cd29c70a5ad63c09/orig.mp4?Expires=1771136274&Signature=VM2J9XnJznjFNAh2W4Ok1JrMVH0aFqcTw889bhJxC-wOgI1KmXmcnuDugPccJPElI0m5V6jhkc2zsRAE03MronCvOSKd8QZiRQ1WjQolmeX3Sig2f-r556nox6PDI06SL9lmuAv3xgEfrr2N~Z6t3Znl6y7CAQQhTvpC7QxmQD3~yVU9Xg1NZSvVQrzqTMSx3dDU3OsORncyxUDjS4qWiKCcuRGJCBSQ9rFzq5PCAFzclDZC7ZUkjqbFmTpyFxh1VUpN~O-DuIF5PpzaKFH~6iaYJ8LmiewWriyLU-UkDFsWApYw4sd904IO7wsqnqkXvwSC8gP5JpeAOROiLVWaog__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A contested application for a two‑story rear addition at 2728 Oak Street NW (BZA Application 21262) drew sustained opposition from immediate neighbors and the ANC at the Board of Zoning Adjustment hearing April 2, 2025. Neighbors said the project would block an historic hallway window on an adjacent 19th‑century building, intrude on privacy and exacerbate nonconforming lot coverage in the R3‑GT zone.

What the application requests: Applicants Ian Packman and Ellen Carlson filed for special exceptions to permit a rear 2‑story infill and higher lot coverage than permitted by matter‑of‑right development on a small row‑house parcel. The proposed work would enclose an existing single‑story screened porch, extend the rear wall to align with adjacent properties, and add an upper‑level office and small walk‑in closet space.

Opposition and core issues: Property owners Deborah LaRocca (corner building to the west) and April Bowler and Jamie Piva (immediately to the south) were granted party status and testified in opposition. Their objections centered on three points: (1) an “at‑risk” historic window in a multi‑unit building to the west that would be fully blocked by the new wall; (2) a significant increase in south‑facing living space and new windows that would bring activity within 9 feet of the southern neighbor (Bowler/Piva), and (3) the request would increase the lot occupancy for an already nonconforming lot.

Office of Planning and ANC positions: The Office of Planning recommended approval and stood on its staff report. ANC 2E forwarded a resolution opposing the proposal, and the ANC commissioner urged the board to prioritize lot‑coverage and rear‑yard protections. The ANC asked the applicant to consider reducing the footprint rather than expanding it.

Board action and schedule: The board exercised its discretion to admit late filings responding to the Office of Planning into the record. Chairman Fred Hill and members agreed to a supplemental schedule to allow extra materials and responses rather than render a decision at the hearing. The board set the following deadlines: applicant exhibits due April 4; party responses due April 11; ANC submissions accepted through April 29. The board scheduled deliberation on April 30.

Why the board deferred: Members said the record as filed raised factual questions (shadowing, the precise relationship of windows and floor levels, and the sequence of historic lot development) that warranted extra, focused evidence. Several commissioners said the hearing included both strong neighborhood opposition and technical arguments about whether an inherited “at‑risk” window imposes a legal constraint on an otherwise permissible expansion.

What happens next: The applicant will file supplemental materials by the April 4 deadline. Parties will have a single round of responses; the board limited iterative filings to avoid repeated rounds of submissions. On April 30 the board will deliberate and decide whether the evidence meets the special‑exception criteria for light/air, privacy and the character of the block.

Speakers and parties: Applicants Ian Packman and Ellen Carlson were represented in part by counsel Martin Sullivan (Sullivan & Barros). Opposing parties included Deborah LaRocca (owner, 1363x 20 Eighth Street) and April Bowler and Jamie Piva (owners, 1359‑20 Eighth Street). ANC 2E Commissioner Gwendolyn Lowe presented the ANC position. Office of Planning staff testified in support of approval.

Ending: The hearing underscored a recurring BZA dilemma — neighbors pressing protection for historic windows and privacy on narrow lots, while applicants point to consistent, matter‑of‑right development patterns and OP support. The April 30 deliberation will test how the board balances those competing interests when supplemental technical materials are in hand.","A contested application for a two‑story rear addition at 2728 Oak Street NW drew neighbor opposition over a blocked historic window and privacy; the board allowed late filings and set a schedule for supplemental evidence before deciding.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":72,"_74":72},6092406,"Board of Zoning Adjustment approves slate of variances, extensions and one modification; several contested items deferred",21697,1341000,23038000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2854046-08bb27a54351decdcca41ecb4527b5b2&start=1341&end=23038","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2854046-08bb27a54351decdcca41ecb4527b5b2/thumbnail_1341000.jpg","/articles/6092406/Board-of-Zoning-Adjustment-approves-slate-of-variances-extensions-and-one-modification-several-contested-items-deferred","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6092406-24a12821198994cff8c86ab30e45fb64/orig.mp4?Expires=1771136274&Signature=ef-kGjPzxVHaKNFB9fGANy4nFh3KLO3WnOQIebBBZV9XkkQc3nmkgwTAZo8FY9ca8urwBPfOGXnbPyIsgm1WapGPvh60afMmV5kq0mPtKBmnRKizk0A1ek0COIGMOze~N6HM0oY4sJlNNl6rJw01FP0skew~tcZqD5R5GqW3lG33IGv7e7rB1XROjJkc9FnG9C4oweWUOOPR~AualZGdZfd381em60R4uUC52Z~ZQerE-TWxHJCfyX8qP8sEcKoBsEaNDEgefp8Pnrh0gtkdIAjfKtoWE~abkbILbG5rGzWL2xWgp-q~rm80yOgIl9t6OgUw87pfHlEINM8iExesuw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment on April 2 approved a package of zoning requests including rear additions, an accessory-structure exemption and a time-extension request, while postponing decisions on two contested cases where neighbors raised privacy and historic‑resource concerns.

Why it matters: The approvals clear the way for several property owners and an organization to proceed with construction or permit actions in neighborhoods across the city. The board also set deadlines for additional filings and responses in two cases where neighbors and an Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) said the proposals could unduly affect privacy or historic fabric.

Votes at a glance
- BZA Application 21239 (John Heyman) — Special exceptions for a two‑story rear addition at 3220 Brothers Place SE (R2 zone). Approved 4–0–1. Motion by Chairman Fred Hill; seconded by Vice Chair Carl Blake. Staff reported the vote as four‑zero‑one to approve.

- BZA Application 20554A (Sasha Bruce YouthWork) — Request for a one‑year time extension for a youth residential care home at 1022 Maryland Ave. NE (RF‑1 zone). Approved 4–0–1. Motion by Chairman Hill; seconded by Vice Chair Blake. The board granted a one‑year extension through Dec. 19, 2025.

- BZA Application 21253 (1232 Maryland Ave. NE) — Special exceptions to allow a two‑story rear addition and increased lot occupancy (RF‑1 zone). Approved 4–0–1. Motion by Chairman Hill; seconded by Vice Chair Blake.

- BZA Application 21194 (Karen Marsh, 1837 Vernon St. NW) — Special exception and area variances to add an upper‑level apartment and exterior egress stair; includes a 64‑square‑foot addition (RA‑2 zone). Approved 4–0–1. Motion by Chairman Hill; seconded by Vice Chair Blake.

- BZA Application 16930A (National Association of REALTORS®, 500 New Jersey Ave. NW) — Modification with hearing and special‑exception relief to remove a previously required exterior loading area and to eliminate certain internal loading berths at an existing office building (D‑3 zone). Approved 4–0–1. The board’s order removes condition No. 3 from the earlier approval and requires a loading‑management plan; the board agreed to reference a submitted Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan in the order.

- BZA Application 21261 (John Means & Evelyn Ballard, 1825 S St. NW) — Special exception to add a third story with a roof deck on an existing two‑story row dwelling (RA‑2/DC zone). Approved 4–0–1.

- BZA Application 21263 (Susan M. Tamberini, Trustee; 4632 Charleston Terrace NW) — Special exceptions to allow an accessory structure larger than 450 sq ft and located in a required rear yard (R1‑B zone). Approved with conditions, 3–1–1. The board approved the accessory structure but accepted renderings showing screening between the new covered deck and the adjacent neighbor; Commissioner Gwendolyn Wright voted no. The staff recorded the vote as three yeas, one no, and one not participating.

Postponed or continued
- BZA Application 21231 (appeal of Department of Buildings permit B230‑9496) — The board agreed to reopen the record to accept an appellant exhibit and allowed seven days for parties to respond; the board set a later decision date. Outcome: Record reopened; responses due and decision deferred.

- BZA Application 21262 (Ian Packman & Ellen Carlson, 2728 Oak St. NW) — A two‑story rear addition in R3‑GT generated formal party status requests from adjacent owners and sustained public opposition focused on an at‑risk historic window, privacy and nonconforming lot coverage. The board allowed late submissions into the record and set a schedule for additional filings: applicant materials due April 4; party responses due April 11; ANC comments allowed through April 29. The board deferred decision and scheduled deliberations for April 30.

Board procedure and next steps
Most approvals were unanimous among the four participating members; several items with neighbor opposition prompted extra time for supplemental filings and a delayed decision. When the board approves an application, it does so by motion, with staff recording the tally and the maker/second recorded in the hearing minutes. A full written order will follow in each case. Applicant permits and public‑space work must still comply with the Department of Buildings (DOB) and, if applicable, DDOT public‑space approvals.

What to watch
- The April 30 deliberation on 21262, which will test how the board weighs historic windows identified by neighbors against an applicant’s right to expand on a nonconforming lot.
- Implementation of the loading‑management plan and referenced TDM measures for 16930A as the team proceeds through the public‑space review process.

Ending
The board’s April 2 session mixed routine approvals with two high‑stakes continuances. The deferred cases show neighbors and ANCs continue to press for tighter scrutiny on privacy, historic windows and lot‑coverage rules even as applicants point to narrow, site‑specific designs and Office of Planning support.","At its April 2, 2025 virtual hearing the District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment approved multiple special-exception and variance requests, granted a one-year time extension for a youth residential care home, and modified an earlier order for a downtown office building. Two contested matters were continued for additional submissions.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board approves covered deck and pergola at 4632 Charleston Terrace but requires screening; one commissioner opposes

Neighbors press BZA to block rear addition at 2728 Oak St. NW over 'at‑risk' window; board allows more filings and defers decision

Board of Zoning Adjustment approves slate of variances, extensions and one modification; several contested items deferred