Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Penthouse Relief topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BZA pauses contested penthouse and rear‑addition case at 1206 Staples St NE; party status denied
Summary
The BZA denied a late request for party status from Mark Stilp, heard public testimony and OP analysis, and continued application 21226 (1206 Staples St NE) to April 9 after requesting additional materials on penthouse height, setback, rooftop area, and clarification from the Zoning Administrator and Office of Planning.
The District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment on March 19 heard extensive testimony in application 21226, a request for multiple special exceptions and penthouse relief for a proposed third‑story and three‑story rear addition at 1206 Staples Street NE (RF‑1 zone; Square 4067, Lot 58). The board denied a late request for party status, received public testimony, and directed the applicant to provide additional illustrative and technical materials before a continued hearing on April 9.
Chairman Fred Hill and board members denied Mark Stilp’s February petition for party status and a related late filing; the chair said the filing was untimely and that Stilp would be permitted to testify during public testimony. The board recorded a roll call denial, 5‑0‑0. Mr. Stilp testified as a public witness later in the proceeding, telling the board, “I do not feel as though the applicant has met their burden…Granting 6 exceptions, in a situation like this essentially renders the regulations meaningless.”
Nut graf: The application sought relief from multiple provisions including penthouse height and setback (Subtitle C §1501.1(b) and related penthouse rules), Subtitle E rear‑yard and lot‑occupancy provisions, and relief to alter rooftop architectural elements. Office of Planning representative Philip Bradford recommended denial of the penthouse height relief, stating in the record that OP found the applicant had “not provided sufficient justification for the relief to the record” and that the requested penthouse would be “not within the purpose and intent of the zoning regulations.” OP did recommend approval of the other special‑exception requests tied to rooftop elements, rear yard and lot occupancy if the board were to decide to allow the penthouse.
Applicant Jaren Alexander Bennetts presented renderings and argued the rooftop access stair bulk would be consistent with other block examples and necessary for waterproofing and safe access. Board members pressed for clearer visual illustrations and technical justification. Commissioner Rob Miller and Board Member Kershawn Smith raised concerns about the visible impact of an enclosed stairwell penthouse and emphasized the intent of the penthouse rules to minimize front‑façade visual intrusion.
After extended questioning, the board directed the applicant to provide: a clearer demonstration of the visual impact and compliance options (renderings and sections showing a compliant alternative such as a hatch or a roof access that meets penthouse height/setback without the enclosed stair); a precise calculation or drawing of the rooftop deck square footage and how that area would change under a 1:1 setback; and clarification from the Zoning Administrator/Office of Planning on exactly which features must meet the 1:1 setback (guardrail/railing, penthouse, or third‑story addition). The chair set a schedule: applicant submissions by March 28; Office of Planning and ANC responses by April 4; and a continued hearing set for April 9.
Ending: The board left the record open for the applicant’s supplemental materials and the ANC/OP responses. The board did not vote on the merits of the requested penthouse height relief at the March 19 session.
