Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Rehab topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer seeks use variance to add four cellar units to fund historic rehab at 2222 Q Street NW
Summary
Urban Investment Partners told the Board of Zoning Adjustment it needs four new cellar units to make a comprehensive, historic‑compliant rehabilitation financially viable. Office of Planning recommended approval; neighbors raised trash and move‑out concerns; the board asked the applicant for clearer lender/financial evidence and tenant relocation documentation and set a decision contingent on those filings.
Urban Investment Partners presented a proposal July 1 to comprehensively rehabilitate the contributing 1920s apartment building at 2222 Q Street NW and requested a use variance to create four dwelling units in the cellar to generate revenue to support the work.
Lawrence Ferris (applicant counsel) and Jeff Sasimo of UIP described the property as a five‑story apartment house in the Sheridan Circle historic district, currently in a state of substantial disrepair with deferred maintenance affecting the roof, windows, building systems, and cellar. The team said hazardous materials (lead and asbestos) and a disused fuel tank were identified in environmental reports, and that the cellar’s clear height (~7.5 feet) constrains adaptive reuse options.
To finance the heavy scope of work — including a new roof, elevator upgrades, façade restoration, full systems replacement and hazardous‑material abatement — the applicant proposed converting cellar storage into four units (three two‑bedrooms and one three‑bedroom). The applicant reported that the lender’s financing offer would decrease significantly if the four cellar units could not be realized; a supplemental filing submitted by the applicant states the loan would shrink by roughly 27% in that scenario.
Office of Planning recommended approval, finding the property’s status as a contributing structure in a historic district and the unusually poor state of repair supported an exceptional‑condition finding and an economic‑hardship argument under the use‑variance standard. ANC 2D submitted a supporting report. DOT filed no objection in the record referenced by OP.
Board members pressed the applicant for more documentary evidence linking the four cellar units to the financing terms. Commissioners asked for a clearer, evidentiary nexus showing how the units affect lender underwriting and pro‑forma returns rather than just a descriptive statement. The applicant said some financing details are commercially sensitive but offered to provide additional lender letters or redacted evidence and a fuller pro‑forma on the record.
Neighbors also testified. A nearby resident reported repeated problems with bulk trash and alley‑side dumping when tenants move out and said she expects improved management but asked the board to require a formal trash plan. Applicant representatives said existing tenants had been offered buyouts (TOPA agreements) and that most residents have moved; the applicant said it will implement professional trash contracts, interior trash/recycling shoots and active property management, and offered to put a management/relocation plan on the record.
The board left the record open and required the applicant to supply clearer financial evidence on the lender nexus and to file tenant relocation/TOPA documentation. The board scheduled a decision meeting for July 22, 2026 contingent on receiving the requested materials by July 15.
Next steps: applicant to file lender documentation, pro‑forma (or redacted equivalent) showing the financial impact of four cellar units, and TOPA/tenant buyout documents; board to review those items at the July 22 decision meeting.
