Zoning commission takes preliminary action to rezone Ward Memorial AME property, declines IZ Plus

On Sept. 15, 2025, the D.C. Zoning Commission voted 4–0–1 to take preliminary action to rezone three parcels owned by Ward Memorial AME Church in Ward 7 from RA‑1 to RA‑2, approving regular Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) but declining to apply IZ Plus. The commission’s vote approved the map amendment for Square 5088 (Lots 147 and 852) and Square 5987 (Lot 74) and noted the case will return for a second vote.

The change would double the site’s permitted residential density and increase the maximum floor‑area ratio (FAR) and height limits the commission discussed. Eric Dubeir, attorney for the applicant from Cozen O’Connor, and Pastor Rivers of Ward Memorial AME Church described the congregation’s long history on the site and said the rezoning would allow the church to pursue affordable, community‑serving housing, including “grand family” units and a small number of condominiums for local ownership. Dubeir said the church owns the property free of liens or mortgages and that the rezoning would give the congregation flexibility for future financing and design choices.

The proposal and the commission’s deliberations focused on three central issues: whether the rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, whether IZ Plus should apply, and how the church’s future development could be compatible with nearby single‑family homes. Joshua Mitchell and Joel Lawson of the Office of Planning (OP) testified that the rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s future land‑use map and generalized policy map and recommended approval without IZ Plus, noting the Far Northeast and Southeast planning area has exceeded its affordable‑housing target. The OP report is on the record as Exhibit 23. Alexandra Kane of the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) said her office supports the map amendment but recommended applying IZ Plus to help ensure higher set‑aside levels of affordable housing as mitigation against displacement risks; her written statement is on the record as Exhibit 22.

Commissioners questioned the applicant and agency witnesses about neighborhood compatibility, housing type, and programmatic details. Commissioner Wright asked whether the applicant opposed IZ Plus; Dubeir replied that the church is “not totally opposed” to IZ Plus but prefers the flexibility of the OP recommendation and noted the project would still provide IZ set‑asides under the existing IZ rules. Commissioners discussed design approaches such as stepping down building massing along the alley and rear facades to respect adjacent single‑family homes.

Agency filings in the record include a DDOT report (Exhibit 21) stating no objection and OP’s reports supporting approval without IZ Plus. The applicant presented a petition of support with 80 signatures, 18 of which are from households within three blocks of the site, and described community outreach that included meetings with single‑member district commissioners, the Marshall Heights Community Development Organization, and two community events at the church. The ANC had not submitted a written resolution as of the OP hearing report date.

OAG and OP also presented data and policy context during the hearing. OAG highlighted low rental vacancy rates and high rent‑burden levels in Ward 7 and the surrounding census tract, and argued IZ Plus would guard against displacement as the area sees new development around transit corridors. OP emphasized that the planning area has already exceeded its housing equity targets and therefore recommended not applying IZ Plus on that basis. Commissioners said they expect the Comprehensive Plan 2020–2050 update to revisit targets and distribution questions going forward.

The commission approved preliminary action on the map amendment without applying IZ Plus; the roll‑call vote was Yes — Commissioner Wright, Commissioner Imamura, Commissioner Hood and Vice Chair Miller; Not voting — Commissioner Stidham. Commissioner Rice made the motion for preliminary action; a recorded second was noted in the hearing transcript. The commission asked the applicant to prepare a draft order (rulemaking document) within two weeks and reiterated that the rezoning must return for a final vote.

Because this hearing was a map amendment rather than a project review, several substantive project specifics (total unit count, exact unit affordability levels, financing sources and tax‑incentive strategies) were not finalized and were described by the applicant as “conceptual.” Dubeir and Pastor Rivers said the church envisions "grand family" housing to serve custodial grandparents and other caretakers (the transcript cites a District program serving about 3,000 such households) and condominium units on a smaller parcel to enable local homeownership. The church representatives said they will explore tax‑incentive and subsidy options but did not identify specific programs or amounts during the hearing.

Next steps: because the commission took preliminary action, the case will return for its second vote; the applicant must file the draft order within two weeks as directed. The commission’s action allows the church to pursue denser, transit‑adjacent housing options, but any actual development will require later design reviews, financing commitments and possible additional agency approvals.