Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Board approves covered deck and pergola at 4632 Charleston Terrace but requires screening; one commissioner opposes
Loading...
Summary
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.
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.
