Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Neighbors, ANC and OP spar over large Whitehaven Parkway addition; BZA continues case to Oct. 22
Loading...
Summary
The BZA continued the hearing on application 21326, a multi‑story rear addition and accessory apartment at 3546 Whitehaven Parkway NW, after neighbors raised privacy, shadow and plan inconsistencies; the board set supplemental filing deadlines and a continued hearing date.
The Board of Zoning Adjustment continued the public hearing on application number 21326, which seeks special exceptions to extend a rowhouse rear wall beyond the 10‑foot rule and to allow an accessory apartment in a new accessory building at 3546 Whitehaven Parkway NW.
Applicant attorney Marty Sullivan and architect George Gordon described a reduced proposal that trims the addition so the third story would be matter‑of‑right under proposed new regulations and reduced earlier retaining‑wall/grade work. Sullivan said recent revisions lowered lot occupancy from 63% to 57% and removed proposed yard grading and retaining walls after neighbor concerns. The application asks relief to allow a 16‑foot extension beyond the furthest rear wall of the adjoining property at 3544; the accessory building would include a second‑floor accessory apartment.
Neighbors and persons with party status in opposition, including Wyn Huffman and Peter Courtois, said the filings were submitted too close to the hearing for meaningful review and raised privacy and shadow concerns. Courtois described significant impacts from cumulative matter‑of‑right work plus the requested special exception and disputed some plan depictions of grade and deck projections. “To say that that’s minimal — we’ve already been adversely affected,” Courtois told the board, adding that skylights, decks and increased vantage points would affect privacy and that the plans contained inconsistencies.
The Office of Planning reviewed the materials and told the board it supported the applicant’s request based on the revised submissions. Joshua Mitchell of OP said OP had reviewed the recent filings and did not change its recommendation in light of the revisions.
ANC Tuohy (ANC notational reference in record) voted not to support the application at its recent meeting; that ANC action is in the case record. Neighbors noted the ANC vote and requested additional time to respond to the newest plan set, which several neighbors said was posted only days before the ANC meeting.
After extended discussion the board set a schedule for supplemental filings and continued the hearing. Parties were asked to submit any supplemental information by Wednesday, October 8; responses will be due by October 15. The board scheduled a continued hearing for October 22 to consider the updated filings and any new testimony. The board emphasized that the continued hearing will focus on the outstanding issues discussed during the session (plans, shadow/line‑of‑sight clarifications and any agreements with adjoining owners) rather than repeating testimony already in the record.
