Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Neighbors oppose three‑story rear additions at 3546 Whitehaven Pkwy, citing privacy and grading concerns; BZA holds matter open
Loading...
Summary
Neighbors raised privacy and grading concerns at the BZA hearing on Oct. 22 for a proposed three‑story rear addition and accessory building at 3546 Whitehaven Parkway NW; the board left the matter open for decision pending further review.
Neighbors of 3546 Whitehaven Parkway NW pressed the Board of Zoning Adjustment on Oct. 22 over a proposed three‑story rear addition and a two‑story accessory structure that would include rear balconies and a new accessory apartment.
What happened: The applicant (represented by Marty Sullivan) submitted revised drawings and a proposed screening treatment. Neighbors, including Peter Courtois (3548 Whitehaven) and Wayne Huffman (3544 Whitehaven), argued the proposed balconies would extend deep into the rear yard slope, providing direct views into bedrooms and living areas and reducing privacy. They also questioned whether the plans accurately depicted grades and retaining walls and whether the proposal would require new retaining structures.
Why it matters: The case raises two common BZA issues—privacy impacts from elevated decks and the accuracy of grading/retaining‑wall depictions in plan sets. Neighbors said the proposed depth of decks would let occupants look directly into habitable rooms even from a second‑ or third‑floor balcony. The applicant’s architect, George Gordon, said the plan dimensions are taken from the land survey and that the depiction of slope varies by drawing section.
Screening, ANC and mitigation - Screening: The applicant offered lattice screening on some upper‑story balconies as a mitigative measure. Counsel said the owner of the immediately adjacent property (3544) objected to screening on that side and the applicant withdrew the east‑side screening proposal; screening remained part of the west‑side elevation package. Neighbors said screening is an imperfect remedy, raising trade‑offs between privacy and loss of light and air.
- ANC position: ANC input and neighborhood testimony were entered; the ANC opposed the application.
Board action: The board closed the public testimony portion of the hearing and left the matter for decision at the next public session to allow members more time to review the record and the additional exhibits. The applicant and neighbors were advised that any additional exhibits (photographs, site measurements, revised sections or a clearer grading plan) could be entered in the record before the continued decision session.
Next steps: The board scheduled a decision at its next public session. Parties may submit further technical clarifications (grading sections, survey‑backed profiles or revised drawings) before the board issues a final order.
