Zoning commission hears RA‑1 text amendment to allow up to four units by right, defers final action for more study

The Zoning Commission on Jan. 5 heard a proposal from the Office of Planning to amend RA‑1 zoning rules to allow detached, semi‑detached and row buildings of up to four dwelling units "as a matter of right," clarify lot‑size and side‑yard standards, and tighten special‑exception submittal requirements.

Office of Planning presenters Shepherd ("Sherpa") Beeman and Michael Jurkovich told commissioners the changes aim to "allow more flexible new development that is compatible with existing neighborhoods," reduce the number of BZA applications for less‑intense projects and provide clearer submittal requirements. Jurkovich said OP recommends the commission approve the text amendment. "OP recommends that the zoning commission approve the proposed text amendment," he said.

Why it matters: RA‑1 zones cover low‑to‑moderate density areas of the District, including concentrations in Wards 7 and 8, and the changes would shift a set of modest conversions and small multifamily additions from discretionary review to by‑right approvals in many cases. OP told the commission its review found roughly 30 percent of recent BZA cases in RA‑1 would be matter‑of‑right under the proposal.

Key provisions described by OP included setting a flat minimum lot size of 1,800 square feet (with a 1,500‑square‑foot minimum for inclusionary‑zoning developments), retaining an 8‑foot side‑yard minimum but allowing some nonconforming side yards to remain at 5 feet for row buildings, permitting up to four units by right in detached/semi‑detached/row forms while reserving larger apartment buildings (more than four units) for BZA review, and adding routine submittal items such as shadow studies and illustrations for special‑exception applications.

Public testimony and disagreements: Speakers from the Washington DC chapter of the American Institute of Architects, neighborhood lawyers and advocacy groups generally praised OP’s work but pushed for changes in three areas. Will Taze of AIA DC urged a higher by‑right cap — "In our opinion, 6 is the magic number, not 4" — and suggested revisiting habitable penthouse allowances and side‑yard rules to avoid encouraging basement units for added density.

Marty Sullivan, representing Sullivan & Barros, flagged design and administrative concerns with the side‑yard changes and recommended allowing special‑exception relief for side‑yard adjustments rather than forcing variances. He also urged clearer rules for when shadow studies are required. Laura Richards of the Committee of 100 said her group supports the two principal provisions (four units by right and modest permitted expansions) but warned that broadening by‑right development without stronger design standards risks losing meaningful public review and could result in intrusive adjacent development.

Technical correction accepted for review: Legal counsel for Golson & Storrs raised a technical correction affecting PUD density calculations. Shane Detman argued that inclusionary zoning (IZ) increased matter‑of‑right density to 1.08 FAR and that the PUD bonus should stack on that figure, which would make the correct maximum PUD density in RA‑1 1.296 FAR (rather than 1.0 FAR currently reflected in the regulations). Several commissioners, with input from legal counsel, agreed the correction merits being addressed in this proceeding and asked OP and counsel to pursue the fix.

Commission response and next steps: Commissioners generally expressed support for OP’s direction but asked OP to provide written responses on a short list of open items (side‑yard administration and potential proportional approaches, the possibility of allowing 6 units or other alternatives to four, OAG comments, handling of habitable penthouses, and the technical PUD correction). OP said it could file a written response in three weeks; the commission agreed to defer final action to allow time for those materials and legal preparation and discussed scheduling follow‑up at the commission’s February meeting cycle (staff proposed Feb. 12 as a target for additional briefing before proposed/final action).

The commission did not take a final vote on Jan. 5. The Office of Planning will supply the requested analyses and written responses; commissioners asked for the technical correction to be processed expeditiously. The case remains pending.