[{"_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",6262560,"mediaKeyId","3115068-f305d56cc6bb8d3d8655c6ad7550ed94","parentId",3115068,"title","BZA approves three zoning requests, including two accessory‑building items, in April 23 meeting","audioSeconds",998,"startMs",11135000,"endMs",12133000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3115068-f305d56cc6bb8d3d8655c6ad7550ed94&start=11135&end=12133","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3115068-f305d56cc6bb8d3d8655c6ad7550ed94/thumbnail_11135000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6262560/BZA-approves-three-zoning-requests-including-two-accessorybuilding-items-in-April-23-meeting","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6262560-1e4003dc990fbb88108d2a7f9aae7b02/orig.mp4?Expires=1773650895&Signature=O9R1IlFj9BgOTL1w722O9nBOr64O5NvU3bZWL9tcOeWCNvkJk~4wHf6L8plitBDm1AX-P2lmUiS45Tfw-PMy5-j9tBOZfRTbJLboMHaUeB4QhxFwa52Sr~o5VXmAj~ODxvP7RN1hBrJvfcgWT45wovsJoKtjMdH7NMF9PskWXDKwD~qlStkm0p98E4hocc9bZ-2T6qjkjnWgoQOQvTh8-vQ3Q3jDcLKSw07Al450N9hq3PWU9uVntmNfhdAj7LMMN13fvdL3gVoiVvOfE66bBrL13XNf8CbtbaEAAiMP6Vwfzw04kkAlDiDB44lwHlNmNWMhA78JzEt5iBX-t~34yQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","DC Office of Zoning","date","2025-04-25T00:05:56.227Z","article","The District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment approved three items during its April 23 meeting: an expedited rear‑yard accessory building relief request at 3822 Van Ness NW and two special‑exception requests involving accessory buildings and apartments.

Expedited review: Application No. 21286 (3822 Van Ness Street NW) sought a special exception from the rear‑yard location requirements to allow a two‑story rear addition and one‑story side additions to a semi‑detached principal dwelling. Chairman Fred Hill reviewed the file and the Office of Planning and ANC reports; the board approved the expedited review by roll call. Vice Chair Carl Blake and members Kershaw Smith and Dr. Amir Imamura recorded votes in support; staff reported the motion carried by recorded vote.

Accessory‑building cases: Application No. 21272 (54 Randolph Place NW) sought special‑exception relief to legalize and then reduce an existing unpermitted rear carport to meet the 70% lot‑occupancy threshold. Travis Slocum, the former owner and agent for the applicant, described the built structure and proposed reductions (remove 6 feet of length and 1 foot on each side), presented photographs and said neighborhood groups including ANC 5E and the Bloomingdale Civic Association had voted to support the project. The board approved the request and the chair’s motion referenced the site plat in Exhibit 2 as the project description to be implemented.

Application No. 21274 (21 Channing Street NE) requested relief from the accessory‑building maximum footprint in the R‑3 zone to allow a two‑story addition to an existing one‑story garage and to convert the upper floor to an accessory apartment. Attorney Alex Wilson presented the proposal; Office of Planning staff recommended approval and ANC 5B filed unanimous support. The board voted to approve the special exception.

Why it matters: These approvals regularize rear‑yard work and allow modest additions that expand accessory units and living space. The Randolph Place approval resolved an enforcement notice in the sale of the property; the board required that the project conform to the plat filed in the case record.

Votes at a glance:
• Application 21286 (3822 Van Ness St NW) — Motion to approve; roll‑call approval (board recorded all votes in favor).
• Application 21272 (54 Randolph Pl NW) — Motion to approve with implementation based on Exhibit 2 plat; roll‑call approval (board recorded YES votes by participating members).
• Application 21274 (21 Channing St NE) — Motion to approve; OP and ANC recommended approval; roll‑call approval.

All three matters were decided at the April 23 meeting; the board recorded votes and directed standard case‑order follow‑up.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","BZA Public Meeting & Hearing of April 23, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","On April 23 the Board of Zoning Adjustment approved three items by recorded vote: expedited rear‑yard accessory building relief at 3822 Van Ness NW (application 21286) and special‑exception relief for accessory structures at 54 Randolph Place NW (21272) and 21 Channing Street NE (21274).","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},6262563,"ANC and neighbors press BZA on two proposed 16‑bed assisted‑living facilities; hearings continued for more evidence",3571,4428000,7999000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3115068-f305d56cc6bb8d3d8655c6ad7550ed94&start=4428&end=7999","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3115068-f305d56cc6bb8d3d8655c6ad7550ed94/thumbnail_4428000.jpg","/articles/6262563/ANC-and-neighbors-press-BZA-on-two-proposed-16bed-assistedliving-facilities-hearings-continued-for-more-evidence","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6262563-f2f64691c037e86ba21c51c8d777de15/orig.mp4?Expires=1773650895&Signature=Z4lU~IgZcCjbLd9vchz9YyDQwG3C6EkKaXhL-kPIURfbR1lrVKiUGNf4y8WqxujHaEyN2w2qb~pbCyTgoJ5zMmuVIgQyHGa~pnDDugv8z6BJoIAJ1fuMSO~6VLYoPth135c0GNPmZRJYRAYOwgdFmEl9O64hsn6yx945g5AscJyhl9XtFUL~ZjlVdYruRnDIzaUNDse2Qq~A9ITmedy2WCNU-PiUJYY8g51t-8QjyWVoHK2WSEfcO~JUP-fxQQ5rh-aCogqYu3Y537qTsUwIvI77vF43yEipRYFl9zJaEnjAmkA8mE71OEeoLhjhYI67lqxucFqu23SMDoSnSIhshQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Two separate applications to operate 16‑bed assisted‑living facilities in R‑2 zones drew scrutiny from ANC commissioners and residents at the Board of Zoning Adjustment’s April 23 hearing, and the board postponed decisions to allow additional evidence and responses.

The board considered Application No. 21240 for 4237 East Street NE (a proposed 16‑bed health care facility) and Application No. 21249 for 4231 Clay Street NE (a proposed 16‑bed assisted‑living residence). Alex Wilson, attorney for the applicant groups, said both properties are existing two‑story buildings and that the operators already run a small assisted‑living house on Clay Street. Wilson told the board that the facilities would operate like homes, with three staff on duty per shift, four screened off‑street parking spaces each, daily meal and waste deliveries and quiet‑hours and visitor policies.

Office of Planning staff recommended approval of the East Street application, telling the board that “the proposed use would be mostly confined to the internal building” and that on‑site parking and nearby on‑street parking mitigated traffic impacts. For the Clay Street case OP likewise recommended approval, noting the accessory building is largely internal, the alley setting and the presence of parking, and reporting that DDOT raised no objection.

ANC commissioners and nearby residents opposed expansion to 16 beds without clearer evidence that the uses would not create cumulative harms. Commissioner Kimore (ANC) said residents were “concerned about the over‑commercialization of our block” and that mail and outreach had not reached some neighbors. Resident Makeda Okolo of 4247 H Street NE told the board she was three doors from the Clay Street property and said certified notices did not reach her; she urged the board to deny the expansion and to require the owner to demonstrate successful operation at the current licensed capacity before seeking enlargement.

Commissioner Nelson (ANC) said the ANC acknowledged earlier lapses in outreach but had since engaged residents; she asked to submit a recording and summary of a community meeting and asked the board to accept additional evidence. The board’s chair and legal counsel examined whether the ANC could submit a video and related transcript. After legal consultation the board said audio/video evidence and an AI summary could be submitted but that the materials would be evaluated for relevance, good cause and any prejudice to parties; the applicant would have an opportunity to respond.

Scheduling and next steps: For the East Street case (21240) the board agreed to postpone and to take the matter up for decision at its next meeting (the chair referred to the “thirtieth” as the next decision date). For the Clay Street case (21249) the board set a schedule for additional filings (ANC evidence due by May 2 in the record, applicant response, and the board planned to decide the matter at its May 14 meeting). The board asked the applicant to provide an operations exhibit that consolidates staffing, delivery, trash, visitor and parking policies into a single record document and asked ANC commissioners to provide the meeting transcript or a concise written summary in advance of the decision date.

Why it matters: ANC and resident objections centered on parking, neighborhood character and transparency of developer outreach; both cases raise the regulatory question the board must weigh under Subtitle U §203.1(j) — whether a 16‑bed healthcare facility in a residential zone will create adverse impacts from traffic, noise or operations, and whether cumulative impacts with other nearby facilities are significant enough to deny special exception relief.

The board left the record open for both matters and directed parties to file documents into the OZ (Office of Zoning) docket per the schedule the chair announced.","Two separate special‑exception applications to expand assisted‑living capacity to 16 residents at 4237 East Street NE and 4231 Clay Street NE drew concerns from ANC commissioners and neighbors about parking, transparency and potential cumulative impacts; the Board continued both proceedings to allow parties to submit additional materials.",{"_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},6262568,"BZA denies appeal over detached accessory dwelling at 3021 15th Street NE",2229,1653000,3882000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3115068-f305d56cc6bb8d3d8655c6ad7550ed94&start=1653&end=3882","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3115068-f305d56cc6bb8d3d8655c6ad7550ed94/thumbnail_1653000.jpg","/articles/6262568/BZA-denies-appeal-over-detached-accessory-dwelling-at-3021-15th-Street-NE","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6262568-25a06a10ebe8043f235a49ab3b39bfaf/orig.mp4?Expires=1773650895&Signature=f83C53l25VU6-eCtGdDQNlBuceyEWU4UgEUtqd5dbWJ39gKzXB25-xao1zuX-x0AwXsgVc~VjHRpiy7CId9L2nyArgqrR8BIsa5xEqKvH-PPlLOkp06I6DLwCSF~dMs5GwzhpcwN6X-RCU8~~2Xw33y3PVxLzftEUDkXj6tMDbcQCuKcppOdIpCviXhpEwYTk0lbs14xQpHNrfjpC6CWQY4w5dH56nfQAuWTPW1D6TTz0Z~C5ONnWeOoRrnxgzol-Le4YlEdaHTL5bQrQCmSNF46n5R0WwBqtMndOtIce2fJlCcJGBHGmA2SNxmAqOrX9jiJ117f5EkX-xe7nHbtKw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment on April 23 denied an appeal by neighbors challenging the Zoning Administrator’s approval of a building permit authorizing a two‑story detached accessory structure with an accessory dwelling unit at 3021 15th Street NE.

The appeal, captioned Appeal No. 21231, was brought by Courtney Bollin and William Gabler and argued that the accessory building was a “detached building” subject to Subtitle D §208.2 side‑yard requirements and that the Zoning Administrator erred in reading the code. Chairman Fred Hill presided; Vice Chair Carl Blake and board members Kershaw Smith and Gwen Wright participated.

The board majority concluded the permit complied with the zoning rules governing accessory buildings. Vice Chair Carl Blake, leading the board’s discussion, said the accessory‑building standards are governed by Subtitle D, chapter 50, not by the chapter 2 principal‑building rules, and that the proposed structure met the matter‑of‑right standards for an accessory building and for an accessory dwelling unit under Subtitle U. Blake said he found testimony by Deputy Zoning Administrator Vitale “instructive and persuasive” and that the appellant had not met the burden of proof to show an error by the Zoning Administrator. He said, “I will be voting, to deny the appeal.”

Commissioner Kershaw Smith concurred, saying he agreed with Vice Chair Blake’s analysis. Commissioner Gwen Wright dissented, saying she believed the plain reading of the zoning text could be read to require side‑yard setbacks for a detached accessory building and that the issue warranted a zoning text amendment to clarify the rule. Wright said, “I will actually be voting to support the appeal,” and described her vote as intended to prompt a text amendment to resolve an ambiguity.

Chairman Hill moved to deny the appeal; Vice Chair Blake seconded. On roll call the board recorded votes in favor by Chairman Hill, Vice Chair Blake and Mr. Smith and opposition from Commissioner Wright; staff recorded the board’s decision as a denial of the appeal.

Why it matters: The decision upholds the Zoning Administrator’s interpretation that accessory buildings in R‑1B are governed by the accessory‑building provisions (Subtitle D, Chapter 50) and may include a matter‑of‑right accessory dwelling unit if they meet Subtitle U requirements. Commissioner Wright signaled the board’s decision could prompt rulemaking by the Zoning Commission to clarify whether detached accessory buildings must meet typical detached‑building side‑yard rules in all cases.

The record: The board’s discussion reviewed Subtitle B definitions (building, principal building, accessory building, detached building), Subtitle D §5000 series rules for accessory buildings, and Subtitle U requirements for accessory dwelling units. The affected Advisory Neighborhood Commission, ANC 5B, submitted a written report in support of the appeal calling for enforcement of the zoning regulations as written; the board considered that submission in its deliberations.

The board closed the matter after the vote. No further action on this case was scheduled at the April 23 session.","The District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment on April 23 denied an appeal by neighbors challenging the Zoning Administrator’s approval of a permit to rebuild a two‑story detached accessory structure with an accessory dwelling unit at 3021 15th Street NE.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

BZA approves three zoning requests, including two accessory‑building items, in April 23 meeting

ANC and neighbors press BZA on two proposed 16‑bed assisted‑living facilities; hearings continued for more evidence

BZA denies appeal over detached accessory dwelling at 3021 15th Street NE