Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Apartment Georgetown topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BZA approves second‑story accessory apartment at 3253 P St. NW over dissent
Summary
The District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment approved a special‑exception request to allow a second‑story addition and accessory apartment at 3253 P Street NW, with a 3–1 vote after debate about privacy, views and easement access.
The District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment on July 30 approved a special exception allowing a second‑story addition and accessory apartment at 3253 P Street NW, voting 3–1 with Chairman Anthony Hood opposed. The approval lets the owner expand an existing one‑story accessory structure in the rear yard of a two‑story row building in the R‑3/GT (Georgetown) zone.
The board’s decision matters because it authorizes an accessory apartment and a rear‑yard accessory structure that exceed building‑area standards, ruling that the proposal will not unduly harm the light, air or use of neighboring properties. Board member Vershawn Smith, who moved the initial support, said the application meets the special‑exception standard and “I will go out front and say, I'm in support for the very same reasons that the applicant and the Office of Planning have stated.”
Board members discussed two linked questions: (1) whether the incremental 20.8‑foot addition to the accessory building would unduly affect light, air, privacy or visual intrusion, and (2) whether allowing both floors of the accessory structure for an accessory‑apartment use would produce objectionable conditions such as greater density, parking loss or noise. Vice Chair Carl Blake described the review as split into a structural question and a use question, noting the board customarily compares only the incremental increase versus matter‑of‑right development when judging impacts. Blake said shadow studies and placement of windows toward the alley minimized light and privacy impacts and that the application met Subtitle D §5201 standards.
Several board members said privacy complaints raised by an opposition party were subjective and not dispositive under the zoning standards; Smith said the applicant had taken care to place windows so they primarily face the alley. Blake and other members said parking requirements for the zone (one required space) would still be met by the property and that speculation about parties or noise is not a zoning criterion and could be enforced under other ordinances if necessary. Chairman Hood dissented, saying he believed the party in opposition made a stronger case on intensity of use and the easement access and that prior court rulings had remanded similar orders.
The board recorded a motion by Chairman Fred Hill, seconded by Vice Chair Blake, and the roll call was: Chairman Hill — yes; Vice Chair Blake — yes; Board member Vershawn Smith — yes; Chairman Anthony Hood — opposed. The board directed staff to include the Office of Planning report in the record. The ANC did not file clear support but was not in formal opposition.
