Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Addition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BZA approves Georgetown rear addition; conditions require bathroom window frosting
Summary
The District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment approved a special exception for a two‑story rear addition at 27280 Street NW, imposing a condition that bathroom windows be frosted to reduce privacy concerns raised by neighbors.
The District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment voted to approve application 21262, a special exception to allow a two‑story rear addition to an existing attached dwelling at 27280 Street Northwest, with a condition limiting glazing that is meant to protect neighbor privacy.
Board Chairman Fred Hill said the application met the special‑exception criteria for lot‑occupancy and rear‑yard relief and that the Office of Planning’s recommendation supported approval. "I think they're meeting the criteria," Hill said, adding that frosting bathroom windows would "alleviate any real concerns."
The board considered neighborhood objections about a window that would be covered by the addition and concerns about privacy and light. Commissioner Gwen Wright and Vice Chair Carl Blake said the addition generally aligned with nearby structures and that, in an urban setting such as Georgetown, some close sightlines are expected. Board member Kershawn Smith noted the historic lot patterns in Georgetown and said the request did not rise to an "undue adverse impact."
The board approved the application with glazing limited to bathroom windows to address privacy concerns. The motion to approve was made by Chairman Hill and seconded by Vice Chair Blake; the secretary recorded the vote as 4 yes, 0 no, 1 absent.
The decision does not alter the underlying zoning map or regulations; it grants the property owner an exception under Subtitle D relief cited in the application. No further action was taken at the meeting on related enforcement or building‑permit matters.
The board heard the case as part of its meeting session and closed the record for decision after receiving requested submissions and testimony earlier in the process. The Office of Planning’s recommendation was part of the record considered by the board.
