Neighbors appeal DOB permit for 3021 15th St. NE accessory apartment; BZA schedules deliberation

The Board of Zoning Adjustment heard an appeal March 12 from two adjacent homeowners who challenge a Department of Buildings permit authorizing a two‑story accessory building with an accessory apartment at 3021 15th Street NE.

Appellants Courtney Bolin and William Gabler said they first learned of the permit after demolition began and argued the construction reduces light, air and privacy and exceeds the setbacks the zoning code requires for buildings next to neighboring lots. “I was not provided a neighbor notification letter, which, under the regulations, as a joint property owner, I should have also received,” Bolin said during testimony.

Why it matters: The case turns on how the zoning rules treat detached accessory buildings, where measured yards begin, and whether the accessory apartment may be approved as a matter of right in the remaining rear yard. If the board sustains the appeal it could require revision of the built work or a different permitting path; if it denies the appeal the accessory building will remain authorized.

Department of Buildings testimony

Alisa Vitale, deputy zoning administrator for the Department of Buildings, told the board that the accessory building in this case lies outside the required rear yard and therefore is governed by the accessory‑building rules in Subtitle D, Chapter 5, rather than the side‑yard rules for principal buildings in Subtitle D, Chapter 2. “The accessory building can be constructed as a matter of right,” Vitale said.

Vitale explained the measurements the department used: the required rear yard in an R‑1‑B zone is measured from the rear facade of the principal building toward the rear lot line; any depth beyond that required yard is treated as the (remaining) rear yard and may host an accessory building so long as the accessory‑building standards are met. She also pointed to Subtitle U §253.8, which allows an accessory apartment in an accessory building as a matter of right when conditions (including permanent access no narrower than 8 feet) are satisfied.

Property owner and counsel

Property owners Claire King and Brent Kroll, represented by Meredith Moldenhauer of Cozen O’Connor, said they obtained the permit after Department of Buildings review and that the permitted work complies with the accessory‑building and accessory‑apartment rules. Moldenhauer urged the board to rely on the plain language of the zoning code and on Vitale’s technical interpretation.

Procedure, late filings and standing

During the hearing the property owners asked the board to strike several arguments and exhibits they said were outside the scope of the original appeal. The board voted 4–0–1 to deny the property owners’ motion to strike and to hear all parties; Chairman Fred Hill explained the panel preferred to hear the evidence now and then decide whether any items were untimely or outside scope.

Board action and next steps

After hearing direct and rebuttal testimony from the appellants, the Department of Buildings and the property owners, the board closed the hearing and set the matter for deliberation and decision on April 2, 2025. Commissioners and staff said they will review the record and the competing statutory readings before voting.

What remains in dispute

Appellants say the accessory structure sits too near their lot line (they presented a sworn survey and a wall‑check report showing about a 2‑foot wall‑to‑lot‑line clearance and cited the eave/overhang as reducing that clearance); they contend the zoning administrator relied on inconsistent interpretations and on historical practice rather than the plain code language. DOB and the owners counter that the building sits in the remaining rear yard (not the required rear yard) and that accessory‑building rules and Subtitle U allow the accessory apartment as a matter of right when the stated conditions are met.

Ending: What to expect next

The Board of Zoning Adjustment will deliberate on April 2, 2025, and make a public decision afterward. Either party may file post‑hearing materials if the board requests them. If the board upholds DOB’s permit, the accessory apartment remains authorized; if it reverses, the owners may need to re‑submit or seek special exception relief.