Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Zoning commission hears debate over larger accessory buildings, setbacks and ADU clarifications
Loading...
Summary
The Zoning Commission on Nov. 12 heard the Office of Planning's proposals to raise permitted accessory-building footprints, add small side/rear setbacks in R zones, clarify accessory-apartment language in multifamily zones, and remove an RF-specific 5-year conversion restriction as part of an omnibus ADU/accessory-building text amendment.
The Zoning Commission on Nov. 12 received testimony on a set of proposed text amendments intended to ease construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and update long-standing accessory-building rules.
Joel Lawson of the D.C. Office of Planning presented the package and said the changes aim to "remove unnecessary barriers to the provision of new housing opportunities" and to add clarity to regulations originally carried forward from ZR58 and updated under ZR16. "OP is proposing to increase the permitted size for an accessory building in the R1 and R2 zones ... from 450 square feet to 600 square feet," Lawson said, and added that OP proposes increasing R3 and RF footprints to 550 square feet.
Why it matters: OP and several housing advocates told the commission that the 2016 footprint limit (450 sq ft) is too small to accommodate reasonable ADUs, especially where owners need space for accessible design, parking and vertical circulation. Supporters argued modest increases would reduce the number of homeowners forced to seek time-consuming and costly Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) relief.
What OP proposed and alternatives: OP recommended a conservative footprint increase (600 sq ft in lower-density R zones, 550 sq ft in R3/RF), which still preserves lot-occupancy and rear-yard requirements. Lawson noted alternatives in the record: the Coalition for Smarter Growth and several ANCs recommended 650 sq ft in some zones, and other filings suggested measuring by gross floor area (for example, allowing up to 1,200 sq ft total) rather than footprint. Lawson said a floor-area approach would require additional study of lot-occupancy, impervious-surface, and historic-preservation impacts.
Setbacks and maintenance: OP proposed a new 3-foot setback from common side or rear lot lines in R zones to provide maintenance access and privacy. Commissioner Wright told the commission he "very strongly support[s] the 3 feet" on practical grounds: "it gives you a little more privacy, but honestly, 3 feet isn't that much ... it gives you a little more for maintenance of the building." OP said the setback would not apply in RF zones after ANC feedback, and that existing buildings sited against a lot line would become legally nonconforming but could be maintained and, with limited alteration, expanded only if conforming to the new setback.
Clarifying accessory-apartment rules in multifamily zones: OP also sought to clarify regulatory language that has caused administrative confusion in RF, RA and MU zones. Lawson said existing wording—"Accessory apartments shall not be permitted in any RF zone"—has led some owners to file BZA cases unnecessarily. OP proposed language to make clear that units permitted by right in higher-density zones are not subject to accessory-apartment restrictions intended for low-density R zones.
Removing the 5-year restriction and alley access alignment: OP recommended dropping RF-zone provisions that require an accessory building to be in existence before Jan. 1, 2013, or to obtain special-exception approval in order to place a dwelling unit inside it. OP also proposed streamlining alley-access requirements—endorsed by OAG and some advocates—by adopting a single minimum route width (15 feet) consistent with FEMS guidance.
Public testimony and split views: The Office of the Attorney General (Noelle Wurst) voiced support for the package, including eliminating the 5-year BZA-review requirement and aligning alley-access standards. Many neighborhood advocates and housing groups (Coalition for Smarter Growth, DC YIMBYs, Cleveland Park Smart Growth, DCMBs) urged adoption—some urged bolder steps (650 sq ft or a 1,200 gross-floor-area allowance and removal of owner-occupancy requirements). "I would urge the zoning commission to get rid of this requirement"—referring to owner-occupancy—Bob Ward of Cleveland Park Smart Growth told the commission.
Opponents—including Committee of 100 and some ANC representatives—argued the record does not justify upending the special-exception process and warned larger footprints would harm small RF lots and historic districts. Nancy McWood of the Committee of 100 said, "In our view, it is not good policy to conclude that the use of an appropriate relief mechanism is a reason to terminate the relief requirement." Some rowhouse-area ANCs urged exemptions from setbacks for narrow lots.
What the commission asked staff to do next: Commissioners repeatedly pressed OP for clearer, plain-language drafting and asked OP to work with the Zoning Administrator and OZLD staff to craft regulatory text that avoids confusion, especially about whether units are "accessory apartments" or otherwise permitted. OP said it would continue to refine language in consultation with agencies and OZLD staff before any final action.
Outcome and next steps: No vote was taken. Chair Anthony Hood closed the hearing and noted the commission will continue deliberations and scheduling; the record remains open while OP and OZLD refine language for publication and future action.
