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

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.