Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
BZA continues multiple "900‑square‑foot" conversion cases for further review; OP asked to supply legislative history
Loading...
Summary
The Board continued several related cases that seek to add units in existing apartment houses below the 900 sq. ft. per‑unit lot area threshold (applications 21303, 21319 and 21307). The board asked the Office of Planning for a supplemental report on the origin and intent of the 900‑square‑foot rule and set a continuation date of Oct. 22.
The Board of Zoning Adjustment on Sept. 24 continued three related cases that would add dwelling units in existing apartment houses on lots that result in fewer than 900 square feet per unit, asking the Office of Planning to supply additional legislative history and analysis before the board rules.
The cases continued are: - Application 21303 (1631 A Street SE): creation of two cellar units in an existing four‑unit apartment house (applicant: Jamal Ahmed). - Application 21319 (1332 Harvard Street NW): a request to legalize a fourth unit in an existing three‑unit apartment house (applicant: 1332 Harvard LLC / Wayne Jordan). - Application 21307 (725 Hobart Place NW): conversion to a three‑unit apartment house with less than 900 sq. ft. lot area per unit (applicant: Henry Tam and Lan Tran).
At the hearing attorneys and applicants described three recurring fact patterns the board has seen in recent years: (1) “inherited condition” cases where a buyer acquired a property with preexisting, longstanding units that were never added to the certificate of occupancy; (2) conversions that add units in previously unused cellar space after modernizing systems and relocating mechanicals; and (3) older “disrepair” situations where owners need additional units to finance rehabilitation. Office of Planning staff and applicants told the board those patterns have led OP and the board to a limited set of precedents where variance relief has been granted.
Several board members asked for more detailed background on the 900‑square‑foot rule and the policy reasons behind it. Vice Chair Carl Blake and Board Member Krishan Smith said they wanted OP to provide a supplemental staff report with a deeper legislative history and explanation of how the rule’s intent applies to the various fact patterns the board sees.
The board set a continuation date of Oct. 22. The Office of Zoning set deadlines for supplemental filings: applicants’ supplemental materials were due Oct. 8 and OP’s supplemental staff report due Oct. 15. The board left the record open to those filings and did not vote on the merits at the Sept. 24 session.
No formal approvals or denials were issued; the continuations preserve the record and schedule additional staff analysis requested by the board.
