Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Neighbors oppose two‑story accessory apartment at 3253 P Street NW; BZA delays decision
Loading...
Summary
Neighbors and easement holders opposed a two‑story conversion of a rear accessory building into an accessory apartment at 3253 P Street NW, citing loss of privacy, noise, parking pressure and construction concerns; the BZA held an emergency closed session with counsel and continued the matter pending additional review.
A contested application to convert a single‑story accessory building into a two‑story accessory apartment at 3253 P Street NW divided neighbors on July 23 and was left pending after the Board of Zoning Adjustment held an emergency closed meeting with legal counsel and said it would return for decision at a later session.
Why it matters: The proposal would add a second story above an existing garage and convert both floors to a dwelling unit that would be used as an accessory apartment. Opponents — including owners who hold the private easement that provides access to the garage court — said the conversion would change the character of a private court, reduce light and air for adjacent houses, increase noise and foot/vehicle traffic through the narrow shared easement and place additional stress on on‑street parking. The Office of Planning and ANC engagement diverged: OP recommended approval, and ANC 2E did not oppose; neighbors sought party status and presented expert and owner testimony in opposition.
Applicant presentation: Marty Sullivan represented the applicant and architect Eric Turan showed plans. The applicant proposed to build the second story directly over the garage footprint (an increase of 20.8 square feet over the 450‑square‑foot accessory building limit) and requested a waiver to allow the accessory apartment to occupy both floors and to waive the usual second‑story‑only configuration. The applicant said the added living space would be in keeping with the block’s pattern of accessory structures and that the project had Old Georgetown Board conceptual approval for its design.
Opposition testimony: Neighbors, represented by attorney Andrea Forster, introduced testimony from zoning/architectural expert Guillermo Rueda and from easement holder Ralph Sartorius. Opposition witnesses said the accessory structure reads as a public face within the private court and that a second story would intrude on privacy and light for multiple properties; they also said the applicant’s shadow study used an improper baseline and did not model longer shadows in spring/fall or after 3 p.m. Opposition raised construction‑safety concerns about attaching a new story to a 100‑year‑old garage with known water and foundation issues, and said an additional dwelling unit would increase trash, deliveries and party noise for the small courtyard.
Procedural developments: During the hearing the board granted party status in opposition to a neighborhood group. After extended testimony the board voted to hold an emergency closed meeting under the DC Administrative Procedure Act to consult with counsel and to deliberate; the board returned to open session and deferred a final decision, indicating it would take the matter up again after staff and counsel review.
Next steps: The board signaled it will revisit the case and may request additional materials (revised studies, precedent orders, or clarifications). No final vote was recorded on July 23.
