Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
BZA denies rear-deck variance at 1151 Abbey Place, citing failure to meet variance test
Loading...
Summary
The District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment voted 4-0-1 to deny application 21295, a request to legalize a rear deck addition at 1151 Abbey Place NE, finding the applicant did not satisfy the three-prong area-variance standard.
The District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment voted 4-0-1 to deny application 21295, a request by property owners Justin Ryan Gomez and Jesse Martinez Jr. to legalize a rear deck addition at 1151 Abbey Place NE in the RF‑1 zone.
Board Chair Fred Hill said he sympathized with the owners but concluded the proposal did not meet the three-pronged area‑variance test required under the Zoning Regulations. “I feel for the property owners, but I don't see how they meet this criteria,” Hill said during the decision meeting.
The board's discussion centered on the first two prongs of the variance test: whether the lot has an exceptional condition tied to its shape, size or topography, and whether the applicant has demonstrated exceptional practical difficulty that is unique to the property. Hill and other members said the lot is not sufficiently different from neighboring row lots to justify relief and that the practical difficulties identified were tied to an existing, already-built deck rather than a condition that would justify granting variance relief as if the deck did not exist.
Board member Kershawn Smith and Vice Chair Carl Blake both said they agreed with Hill's legal reading. Smith said the request “needs to be tied to the property itself,” and that the lot does not appear unique. Blake said he was concerned about privacy impacts and noted that the applicants could consider alternatives such as a rooftop deck. Commissioner Gwen Wright said she was uncomfortable with the amount of lot coverage being requested, saying she had “a problem with, you know, 90% lot coverage even if it is an open deck.”
The board rejected two late requests from the applicant to reopen the record for additional testimony. Hill and other members said the record from the June 11 hearing was already extensive and additional material would not change the legal analysis.
Chair Hill moved to deny the application and Vice Chair Blake seconded. In a roll-call vote, Hill, Blake, Smith and Commissioner Wright voted yes; one seat was recorded absent. Staff recorded the vote as 4‑0‑1 to deny application 21295.
The board did not adopt conditions or direct additional study. The decision closes this application pending any appeal or a new filing to present revised relief or different design options.
(Decision: motion to deny application 21295; mover: Chairman Fred Hill; second: Vice Chair Carl Blake; outcome: denied, vote recorded 4‑0‑1.)
