14 .? *I: 94-31 NO,

SCOTT-GRANT ESTATE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

GOVERNMEN't 

Storage

T

KAN sA

" 11 TS

AP R 2 8 (

isliVe.KSITY

(94-37)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

[IC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS

OP THE

COMMITTEE ON

PU WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 10306

TO AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES TO ACQUIRE CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE DISTRICT

OF COLUMBIA FOR USE FOR FEDERAL PURPOSES

JANUARY 22, 1976

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Public Works and Transportation

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1976
" ,..4tIN • t t 1

- • ' • .

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION

ROBERT E. TONES, Alabama, Chairman

JIM WRIGHT, Texas

HAROLD T. JOHNSON, California

DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina

RAY ROBERTS, Texas

JAMES J. HOWARD, New Jersey

GLENN M. ANDERSON, California

ROBERT A. ROE, New Jersey

TENO RONCALIO, Wyoming

MIKE McCORMACK, Washington

JAMES V. STANTON, Ohio

BELLA S. ABZUG, New York

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana

BO GINN, Georgia

DALE MILFORD, Texas

NORMAN Y. MINETA, California

KENNETH L. HOLLAND, South Carolina

ALLAN T. HOWE, Utah

ELLIOTT H. LEVITAS, Georgia

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

JEROME A. AMBRO, New York

HENRY J. NOWAK, New York

ROBERT W. EDGAR, Pennsylvania

MARILYN LLOYD, Tennessee

JOHN G. FARY, Illinois

TED RISENHOOVER, Oklahoma

WILLIAM H. HARSHA, Ohio

JAMES C. CLEVELAND, New Hampshire

DON H. CLAUSEN, California

GENE SNYDER, Kentucky

JOHN PAUL HAAIMERSCHMIDT, Arkansas

BUD SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

WILLIAM F. W.A LSH, New York

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

JAMES D. ABDNOR, South Dakota

GENE TAYLOR, Missouri

BARRY M. GOLDWATER, JR., California

TOM HAGEDORN, Minnesota

GARY A. MYERS, Pennsylvania

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS

TENO RONCALIO, Wyoming, Chairman

RAY ROBERTS, Texas

DAVID N. HENDERSON, North Carolina

BELLA S. ABZUG, New York

BO GINN, Georgia

DALE MILFORD, Texas

NORMAN Y. MINETA, California

KENNETH L. HOLLAND, South Carolina

ELLIOrPT H. LEVITAS, Georgia

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

MARILYN LLOYD, Tennessee

JOHN G. FARY, Illinois

TED RISENHOOVER, Oklahoma

WILLIAM F. WALSH, New York

BUD SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

JAMES D. ABDNOR, South Dakota

BARRY M. GOLDWATER, JR., California

TOM HAGEDORN, Minnesota
CONTENTS

H.R. 10306—To authorize the Administrator of General Services to acquire certain property in the District of Columbia for use for Federal Page purposes IV

TESTIMONY

Atherton, Charles, secretary, Commission of Fine Arts; accompanied by Donald B. Myer, assistant secretary 19 Dunn, Reid, accompanied by Terry Lenzner, Esq 29 Evans, Col. Robert F., Foundation for the Preservation of Historic Georgetown 37 Fortas, Hon. Abe 21 Frye, Janice 33 Henderson, Laurance 39 Oberl ander, George, Director, Federal Revenue Division, National Capital Planning Commission, accompanied by Terry O'Connor, assistant general counsel 8

Panuzio, Nick, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration 6

Rawlings, Irene 41 Russell, Constance 32 Scheuer, Hon. James, a Representative in Congress From the State of New York 1

Vidor, Quinton 34

MATERIAL RECEIVED FOR THE RECORD

Washington, Hon. Walter, Mayor of the District of Columbia, report on

H.R. 10306 43
Iv

94T1 CONGRESS .H. R. 10306

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 22,1975

Mr: RoNcAmo introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation

A BILL

To authorize the Administrator of General Services to acquire

certain property in the District of Columbia for. use for

Federal purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

2 That the Administrator of General Services (hereafter in this

4 Act referred to as the "Administrator") shall, by purchase,

5 condemnation, or otherwise, acquire the fee simple title

to the real property known as the Scott-Grant House on the

7 land in the District of Columbia known as 3238 H Street

g Northwest, and more particularly described in section 3 of

Y this Act.
9

1 SEC. 2. (a) Upon acquisition of the real property re2 ferred to in the first section of this Act, the Administrator

3 is authorized to carry out only such reconstruction, repairs,

- 4 and refurbishing of such property ds may be necessary to

restore and maintain such property in a restored condition

6 based upon its external and internal appearance and charac7 teristics on the date of enactment of this Act.

8 (b) -Upon completion of the initial reconstruction, re9 pairing, and refurbishing of such property, the Administra10 tor shall make such property available to the Federal depart11 agency, or instrumentality (including any board, coñi12 or commission having a Federal responsibility)

13 which the President determines can best utilize such property

14 in carrying out its functions and responsibilities.

15 SEC. 3. The real property referred to in the first section

16 of this Act known as the Scott-Grant House, 3238 R Street,

17 Northwest, District of Columbia, is described, in accordance

18 with a plat of survey recorded in Survey Book 177 at.page

19 194 in the Office of the Surveyor of the District of Columbia,

20 asiollows:

21

22

23

24'

25

Beginning for the same at the end of the 2 following

courses and distances from the southwest corner of said

lot numbered 1— (1) north 21 degrees 12 minutes 30

seconds west 139.49 feet (computed) —(2) north 02

degrees 29 minutes 00 seconds east 3.42 feet and running
VI

1 thence south 89 degrees 19 minutes 30 seconds east

2 64.05 feet;

3 thence north 42 degrees 33 minutes east 4.56 feet

4 to a peg; thence northeasterly on the arc of a circle

5 deflecting to the left, the radius of which is 30.50 feet,

6 an arc distance of 18.10 feet to a peg and a point of

tangent;

8 thence north 41 degrees 57 minutes 30 'seconds east

9 14.00 feet to a point of curve;

10 thence northeasterly on the arc of a circle• deflecting

11 to the right, the radius of which is 16.50 feet an arc

12 distance of 13.25 feet to a peg and a point of tangent;

13 thence north 87 degrees 57 minutes 30 seconds east

14 47.75 feet to the westerly line of said lot numbered 71;

15 thence along the westerly line of said lot numbered

16 71 north 03 degrees 35 minutes 30 seconds west to the

17 northwest corner of said lot numbered 71;

18 thence along the north line of said lot numbered 71

19 north 88 degrees 18 minutes 30 seconds east 23.42 feet

20 to the westerly line of a public alley;

21 thence along the said westerly line of said public

22 alley north 04 degrees 06 minutes 00 seconds west

23 23.05 feet (computed) ;

24 thence north 88 degrees 18 minutes 30 seconds east

25 32.70 feet (computed) ;
VII

4

thence north 04 degrees 06 minutes 00 seconds west

163.11 feet (computed) to the south line•of R Street;

thence along the south line of R Street north 85

4 degrees 58 minutes 00 seconds west 184.14 feet (cornputed) to the northwest corner of said lot numbered 1;

thence along the westerly line of said lot numbered

1 south 02 degrees 29 minutes 00 seconds west to the

place of beginning.

9 Such property is now known for assessment and taxation

10 purposes as lot numbered 987 in square numbered 1280:

SCOTT-GRANT ESTATE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 22, 1976

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 :17 a.m., in room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Teno Roncalio (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. RONCALIO. The Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds of the Public Works and Transportation Committee will coine to order.

First I would like to apologize for being late, and I am sorry- about that. We have been caught up in some terribly busy days and long, sleepless nights.

This legislation, H.R. 10306, which I introduced last fall, would authorize acquiring the property by purchase or condemnation of

the title to the real estate known as the Scott-Grant House at 3238 R

Street, NW., Washington, D.C.

Upon acquisition of this property to be acquired, the Administrator is authorized to carry out such reconstructing, repairs and refurbishing and restoring and maintaining as directed by a Federal

agency for the best utilization of the property.

I am going to skip the description of it. I think it is known to all

who are here and who have an interest one way or the other.

We are happy to have as our first witness, my colleague, James

Scheuer, of New York.

TESTIMONY OF HON. JAMES H. SCHEUER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. SCHEUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am very grateful for your courtesy in arranging these .hparings

and for your kindness in inviting me.

I am of course very strongly in support of the legislation that you

are considering that would save this house and save the environment,

save the purity and delight of the present Georgetown atmosphere

and I hope that we will preserve this property from the depradations

of the genus developer.

I know a lot about the genus developer because I used to be a

developer and I sympathize with their role. It is an important role

in this country. I believe in the free enterprise system. I believe in the

contributions of developers in building the new businesses in -resi-

(1)

67-690 76 2
2

dential and shopping neighborhoods, all of the infrastructure of our

commerce and industry of our new residential neighborhoods. They

play a vital role in our society but there ought to be a few places

in this country—an infinitesimal fraction of 1 percent of the land

in this country that should be declared off limits to the developers and

Georgetown should be one of these areas.

Georgetown does not need developing. Georgetown is a precious and

glorious and delightfully sparkling remnant of our past, our noble

heritage, going back 200 years of our existence as a nation and in the

beginning of our 200th anniversary, I cannot think of a more noble

role that. this committee could play dian to help preserve that precious

historical ambience in this great city of Washington.

I think it is tragic that this land—this precious site—should be the

subject of new modern development. It is egregiously unsuited for this

land and this neighborhood. It is a gross intrusion on the quality of

the neighborhood.

I do not blame the developer because there should have been laws—

there should have a fabric of administrative rules and regulations that

would have prohibited this kind of activity. So I can only hope that

this committee will provide a final fail-safe protection to the neighborhood and to our lovely past.

The number of historical sites in Washington is continuously decreasing, despite the 1950 Georgetown Act and the act of 1966 delayino." 

demolition provisions of the building code which requires review

of proposals for demolition and building on historically significant

properties.

Even now, approximately one property per year in Georgetown of

i these precious old historical properties s being demolished. So not

only are these historical sites decreasing, but the quality and the attractiveness of the existing sites and their surroundings is also being

denigrated because the estates are being subdivided and some are piecemeal, and modern structures are being placed directly alongside the

architectural landmarks of our past.

According to the Commission of Fine Arts, less than 20 subsites now

remain in Georgetown and, of these, 3 are presently under construction and another 3 are being considered for subdivision which, in my

view, is an unmitigated tragedy.

On December 19 of last year, the Chairman of the Commission of

Fine Arts wrote to the Chairman of the District of Columbia Zoning

Commission his deep moral concern about what was going on in

Georgetown and I would like to read a few sentences.

He says—

Under provisions of the Old Georgetown Act, our Commission—

That is, the Commission of Fine Arts—

has been required to pursue a continuing study of the visual aspects of Georgetown's historic qualities. This must logically include not only buildings, but their

settings, streetseapes, open spaces, and relationships to each other.

The ultimate inning of all sideyards and vacant garden land in Georgetown

would obviously be contrary to the intent of the act—to promote the general welfare and to preserve and protect the places and areas of historic interests—by

substantially altering the character and scale of this historic district.

Any individual ease must, it seems to us, be taken in context of

what the historic district would become. If an accumulation of such
3

actions were allowed to continue unchecked and, unfortunatley, that is

exactly what we are faced with now on the present site that we are

discussing this morning—and the Chairman continues—

Mr. C. F. Murphy, of the Corporation Counsel's Office, in a memo to the Office

of the Surveyor on February 18, 1975, expressed the opinion that, desirable as it

may be to safeguard historic properties by controlling their adjacent land use,

it remains a piece of unfinished legislative business, and until addressed by the

legislature is not to be dealt with on an administrative level.

The Corporation Counsel nevertheless says to the Chairman of the

Fine Arts Commission that this Commission must in all conscience in

the interim express deep moral concern—express deep moral concern

about any attention or action that would tend to threaten the very

values that they have statutorily been charged to protect.

So we have the tragic situation that, although the Fine Arts Commission feels deep moral concern at what is going on in Georgetown

and what is being threatened with this particular site, they feel that

because there is no sufficient legislative basis for them to act, they cannot take any action.

Well, Mr. Chairman, this house is a unique house in our history.

The Scott-Grant House is 119 years old, was rented during the Civil

War to Lt. Gen. Henry Hallock, commanding chief of the Northern

Forces. At that time, that site on the hill was populated by many

southern aristocrats and I am told—I have learned from my historical researcher that General Hallock used to parade the northern

troops on River Road as our street was then called, and this was considered as an insult heaped on injury by the southern aristocrats who

were living: there who, of course, were southern sympathizers.

So this house during the Civil War was a bastion of northern

yankeeism, I guess. It was used as the summer retreat by President

Grant. At that time it was, of course, as it is today, occupyingthat

unique site on the ti: p of the hill on R Street, then known as River

Road, and it was the coolest, breeziest place in Washington. So that

was selected by General Grant as his summer home and, of course, in

the early, thirties, four of President Roosevelt's braintrusters lived in

that house and much of the legislation that emanated during the first

9 years of the Roosevelt administration was born in that spacious and

lovely living room.

It was known as the Little Red House on R Street.

It is now in the initial throes of agonies of being subdivided and

construction of a modern one-family townhouse apparently is presently underway and a large hole is being dug.

If this construction is completed it will severely degrade the architectural and historical value of the Scott-Grant House. It will impair

the quality of the neighborhood. It will intrude a new dwelling unit

where there should not be a new dwelling unit. It will eliminate the

lovely carriage house and spacious lawns with beautiful trees.

The National Park Service pointed out in a letter to the 'executive

secretary of the Zoning Commission that:

In a neighborhood designated an old and historical district such as Georgetown, the value of its visual identity as a neighborhood stands in direct relationship to some of its parts which consist of the buildings, the spaces around them,

the sidewalks, the streets and accourterments of street furnishings such as trees

and signs.
4'

One cannot Consider any of these entities in isolation from another in:determining -the tOtal quality of the neighborhood and its importance.

Mr. Chairman, this is a beautiful home for the neighborhood. It is a

lovely space for the neighborhood and for the city and, in terms of the

Federal Government's acquiring it for the use of a Federal official or

whomsOver would be the lucky person, I can personally attest that it

is a charming and delightful place in which to live.

I lived there for 10 years of my congressional tenure and I can

assure you that, in terms of amenities and convenience and charm and

delight, there is no Federal official who would not find it a charming

and attractive and appropriate and convenient place to live.

It is perfectly fine for entertaining. We have had entertainment in

which Vice President Humphrey came and we have ha,d many important officials with little modicum of police protection, literally

hundreds of people can be entertained there.

So it.would be an appropriate house for a high Federal official for

whom entertaining was a part of, you might say, almost of his job

description.

They Fay around the world that Americans are soulless and we are

materialistic.

Mr. Chairman, I think all of us know that this is a basic lie. It is a

canard. In the last generation our country has given away around the

world almost $200 billion of our resources We are probably the most

idealistic nation that civilization has produced in 2,000 years of

recorded human history, at least, and we are a nation that is idealistic :

it values its past and cherishes its moralist heritage and I think that

at our 200th anniversary, no challenge remains more important to us

than preserving the best of our past as we move ahead to a proud and

noble and meaningful future, and certainly in this, our capital city,

we can show our love, our deep and meaningful love of our history in

this 200th anniversary by taking the necessary steps to preserve the

beauty and the tradition and the meaningful evidence of our past that

still exists,

, The juggernaut of progress, and I put the word "prozress" in ouotation mark's, should not be permitted to obliterate the beloved and

precious elements of our treasured past; and I hope and pray that this

committee will take action to preserve one of the finest reputations of

our noble historic past in the city of Washington.

Thank You very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RONCALIO. I want to thank you.very much for the eloquent and

effective statement.

If there are questions, I am goint,v to ask that we hold and observe

the 5-minute rule because we have 10 witnesses this morning, and we

do want to try to finish by 11:45.

Any questions to the left of me?

Mr. Cor,TTRAN. I WPS (Toing to ask our colleaplie from New York

whether this pits the Subcommittee on Public Building 'and Grounds

in 9 Position of sort of a super appellate review board looking over

the shouldnrs of the board of zonina adjustment and, in effect, overturning a 'decision previously made ? I am not so sure we should be in

this position. The decision has already been made by the proper

tribunal and probably with the benefit of agreement such as you -have

made today.
5

Mr., ScipauER. Well, I cannot answer that question., .There .is a bill

before you that provides for a specific action. I think the city, officials

would welcome this action. I think they would appreciate,having some

indication of congressional support. I have heard, that directly . . from

very high officials in the city administration. • ,

There is a gap in the law that has prevented them, froriaaking the

effective action that they would have liked to have taken i and I can

understand your reluctance to be involved in the adminisk4ive• or

judicial process of the District of Columbia • but I do .not see, that as

a problem.

You are faced with a condition, not a theory and the condition is

that the bill before you provides for the acquisition by the Federal

Government of one building for a specific Federal purpose axid I do

not see any reason why anybody has to go beyond that.

Mr COCHRAN. One other observation, Mr. Chairman, if I:May, is

that while the Commission of Fine Arts has very serious Moral concern for the welfare of the Georgetown area which I am sure it does,

as all of us do, nonetheless, in a statement already filed with the committee by the Secretary of that Commission, although they request

the record be left open for further statements to be made after some

additional consideration at a January 27 meeting that is planned? they

seem to come down on the side of at least suggesting to the committee

that this matter has already been considered and, because of considerations such as the enormous tax burden on the property, that probably

the correct decision has already been made by the board of zoning

adjustment in permitting the owner to subdivide the property and

have it occupied as it is now.

Mr. RONCALIO. MT. Roberts?

Mr. ROBERTS. I want to say basically I wee with our diStinguished

colleague. The gentleman from Mississippi has summarized it exactly,

that this has gone through the courts and now they have fisked us to

override the court, and I for one am going to oppose it. L think this

should have been done 10 years ago and I think our colleague:Should

have bought it then, but I do not think we have any business overriding the courts.

Mr. RONCALIO. Mr. Ginn?

Mr. GINN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank and commend our

colleague for the sincerity of his statement. It obviously is sincere. I

must admit, though, I share the same concern that is expressed by the

distinguished colleague from Mississippi—the position that, it places

this subcommittee in, this committee and the Congress.

May .I ask simply one question, though; is there a specific plan in

the legislation at this time as to how the home would be used by the

Federal Government?

Mr. SCHETJER. Well, I think you would have to ask the representative from the GSA, I think, who is following me. I have no knowledge of exactly what they would do. I presume that the home Would

be made available for an appropriate Federal official, but' I have no

knowledge of that and there are representatives of GSA, who will be

testifying this morning.

Mr. GINN. Thank you.

Mr. RoNcAzio. Any further questions? Thank you very m-uch.
6

Mr. SMELTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate

your courtesy.

Mr. RONCALIO. Our next witness will be Mr. Nicholas Panuzio, who

is the Commissioner of Public Buildings Service in the General Services Administration. I think this is your first occasion to be testifying

before us and we welcome you before the committee.

TESTIMONY OF NICHOLAS PANUZIO, COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC

BUILDINGS SERVICE, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

MI'. PANUZIO. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the

committee.

Mr. RONCALIO. You can insert your statement in the record verbatim,

comment, or read it, either way you wish.

Mr. PANUZIO. Well, I would like to read from the statement, if I

might.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am Nicholas Panuzio,

Commissioner of the Public Buildings Service. On behalf of Jack

Eckerd, Administrator of General Services, I am here to testify on

H.R. 10306, a bill to authorize the Administrator of GSA to acquire

certain property in the District of Columbia for use for Federal

purposes.

H.R. 10306 would authorize the Administrator to acquire title to

such real property known as the Scott-Grant House in Georgetown.

I interpret the intent of this legislation to authorize the preservation

,of property of historical significance.

S. 865, a bill now being considered by Congress, would give the

Administrator general authority to acquire buildings of historical

significance for use as general-purpose office space when there exists

no alternative for preservation in the private community. In addition, S. 865 authorizes limited commercial use of space in Federal

buildings. Both of these concepts are supported by GSA.

On May 18, 1975, before the subcommittee on Buildings and Grounds

of the Senate Committee on Public Works, GSA testified to the following regarding S. 865:

As the principal manager, builder, owner and lessor of Federal buildings

In the United States, the General Services Administration has a fundamental

commitment to the betterment of the total environment of America's cities and

towns. We feel a special sense of responsibility for promoting the integration

of the human element into the planning, construction, use and maintenance of

buildings.

We in the General Services Administration support the concepts introduced

in S. 865. As mentioned, we have long promoted the concepts of historic preservation and the multiple use of Federal structures, where appropriate, and therefore feel that such a combination of activity would be well worth pursuing.

Because restoration and renovation usually requires a higher level of handcraft trades, these projects will nurture trades and crafts which are fast becoming nonexistent in the United States. Through S. 86:5, we could augment

Federal efforts to preserve and rejuvenate historic buildings while helping to

preserve the valuable cultural resource.

The General Services Administration has, I believe, an admirable

record of preserving buildings for historical purposes. Examples of

some buildings we have preserved are the courthouse/customhouse in

Galveston, Tex., and Portland, Oregon, as well as the old Denver Mint.

As recently as 2 months ago, GSA received an award from the Wash-
7

ington chapter of AIA for our preservation work with the Old Post

Office here in the District.

H.R. 10306, while granting the Administrator specific authority to

acquire property of historic significance, poses several questions which

require further study before this committee makes its decision.

The Scott-Grant House property is currently zoned residential,

R.-1B and R-3, which does not allow for use as general office space.

GSA in its desire to be a partner with local communities, has a policy

of conforming to local zoning codes. The acquisition of this property

to satisfy a program requirement for general purpose office space

would be inconsistent with this stated policy.

In connection with this, we have not had the opportunity to determine the suitability of this property for use as Federal office and

related space.

Furthermore, we have not had the opportunity to determine the

cost of this property. Therefore, we do not know whether acquisition

of this property would prove to be cost effective.

I might add that I listened to the eloquent statement by the Congressman and I have some significant views in the fact that historical

areas such as Georgetown and particular homes such as the ScottGrane home should be preserved. However, I would have to add and

say from our standpoint we do not have any specific use for it at this

time; and we also find that there is some conflict in relationship to

the local community who have already made the decision going along

somewhat with the comments you make, Congressman.

We do hope that this building will be looked upon for its

significance.

I think the comments made by the Congressman about the use of

it by President Grant and the later use during the brain trust days

of the early Roosevelt years and a lot of other purposes that make it

of signficance are important and, from the personal standpoint, I

would recognize that; but from a General Services standpoint, I

would also have to indicate that we would have to do a good deal

more study to see how we could accomplish the use of that and the

use of the yard to the local requirements.

Mr. RONCALIO. In effect what you are saying is, "Tough, but no."

Thank you. Any questions?

Mr. WALSH. I have one question, Mr. Chairman.

I have not had a description of the building. I assume we will get to

that later; but can anyone tell me the number of square feet in the

various buildings?

Mr. PANuzio. I do not have that information, Congressman. We can

certainly ket it for you.

Mr. WALSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RONCALIO. Mr. Roberts?

Mr. ROBERTS. First I want to congratulate Mr. Panuzio. I believe

that is the first time he has been before this subcommittee, and we will

have an opportunity to see him on many occasions in the future; and

I just want to say that you are taking on a great job, with excellent and

outstanding people; and I am sure you will perform just as well or

better; and we look forward to working with you and really we are

not that mean all the time.
Mr.'RONCALIO. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Mineta ?

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call attention to the

matter brought up by the distinguished Commissioner here. I have been a toiler in the vinyards as a former mayor; and I know the Com- missioner has an outstanding record in that field. Because of your prior experience, Mr. Commissioner, as a former mayor, do you have any feelings about the Federal Government's intrusion into a matter such

as this which might be considered more appropriately aà a local landuse planning matter? In addition, even if we could find a suitable use for the property and the bill is very broad in terms of including any board, Committee or commission that has the Federal responsibility as

as potential occupant, it assumes a nonresidential use. It appears to be precasting the land use decision in terms of an office use. I am just wondering if that is not really something we ought not to try to avoid.

Mr.. PANUZIO. Conaressman, both from the standpoint of beinc,a

former mayor, and also from the position we have taken as GSA, id()

not think we want to get too involved in an area in which local government has made some decisions in terms of what they want to preserve

a certain area for; and I think that is one of the things indicated

in my statement that concerns me.

I do, not want to have local government think we are coming in—

you and I have gone through that before, where they think we are

coming in and making some decisions at the Federal agency which

forces them down a different road than they want to go and so that is a

consideration that would have to really be dealt with.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, to follow through, there was a recent

article in Parade Magazine concerning several very fine estates in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island—very large 36—

40—room estates. I am wondering whether or not this bill would set a

precedent that would have us bailing out people in the future who

came to us saying these grand estates—these noble places—ought to be

preserved for historical purposes, and since there is no one who can

afford the utility bills for heating 36 rooms up in Connecticut; could

we do something to bail them out? Are we opening ourselves up to a

Pandora's Box in that kind of precedent.

Thank you very much.

Mr. PANUZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RONCALIO. We appreciate your coming this morning.

Mr. RONCALIO. Our next witness is Mr. George Oberlander, Director

of the Federal Review Division for the National Capital Planning

Commission.

Mr. Oberlander.

Who do you have with you?

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE H. F. OBERLANDER, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL

REVIEW DIVISION, NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION:

ACCOMPANIED BY TERRY O'CONNOR, ASSISTANT GENERAL

COUNSEL, NCPC

Mr. OBERLANDER. I have with me Mr. Terry O'Connor, Assistant

General Counsel.
9-

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee:

My name is George Oberlander. I am the Director of Federal Review for the National Capital Planning Commission. I am pleased

to testify on behalf of Charles H. Conard, the Executive Director of

the Commission, to provide the committee with a historical summary

of planning proposals and activities of the Commission supporting

historic preservation.

The Commission is the central planning agency for the Federal

Government in the National Capital Region. Among its prineipal

functions are the preparation and adoption of Federal elements—and

the Federal interest review of local elements—of the Comprehensive

Plan for the National Capital.

Some of the elements have been adopted and others, including a

proposed Landmarks element, are still in the preparation and adoption stage.

The Landmarks element will include policies for the preservation of

the important historical and natural features of the National Capital.

In the Proposed Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital,

prepared in February 1967, special reference was made to historic

buildings which should be preserved for their symbolic meaning as

important reminders of past national and local achievements and

events and of notable personalities, as examples of earlier styles of

architecture and as community focal points.

I would like to submit for the record the Proposed Comprehensive

Plan for the National Capital, published in February. 1967 (the

Green Book) , which outlines the Commission's proposed policy on

historic preservation.

Mr. RONCALIO. Without objection, it will be received for the file.

As I said at the beginning of the statement, the Commission is concerned with historic preservation matters and its current and earlier

proposed policies can be found in the green book as well as in the

adopted Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital, which I also

would like to submit for the record.

To assist in its historic preservation responsibilities, in, 1964,, the

Planning Commission joined with the Commission of Fine Arts in

establishing the Joint Committee on Landmarks of the National Capital to prepare an inventory of significant 'structures and places and to

advise on a preservation program for the District of Columbia and its

Federal environs.

In 1968, the Mayor of the District of Columbia joined with the Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts in sponsoring the

Joint Committee and designated the committee as the professional review committee required for District participation in the historic

preservation grants-in-aid program established by the Secretary of

the Interior pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of

1966, Public Law 89-665.

The Joint Committee is composed of nine distinguished citizenmembers with expertise in the fields of architecture, history, archeology, landscape architecture, urban planning, and the law.

I am also submitting a statenient of functions and membership of'

the Joint Committee.

C7-690-76-3
10

JOINT COKAITTEE ON LANDMARKS

OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL

Statement of Fonctions and Memaership.

The Commissioner of the District of Columbia, the National Capital Planning Commission, and the

Commission of Fine Arts establish the following functions and membership for the Joint Committee on

Landmarks of the National Capital:

1. Authority.. The Joint Committee on Landmarks of the National Capital (hereinafter called

"Joint Committee"), established and constituted by the National Capital Planning Commission

and the Commission of Fine Arts on May 7, 1964, and designated by the Commissioner of the

District of Columbie as the state review committee for the National Register of Eistoric

Places on July 26, 1968, is hereby reestablished. The Commissions and the Commissioner

jointly are hereinafter called "Sponsoring Agencies".

2. Functions. The Sponsoring Agencies assign the following functions to the Joint Committee:

a. Compile and maintain a current inventory of significant landmarks in the District

of Columbia and on Federal property in the remainder of the National Capital Region

and, in connection therewith, adopt and publish appropriate procedures.

b. Serve as the District of Columbia's professional review committee to review all

nominations to the National Register, and, in connection therewith, adopt and

publish appropriate procedures.

c. Advise the Sponsoring Agencies on Federal and District of Columbia projects which

may affect designated landmarks.

d. Advise the state liaison officer of the effect of undertakings carried out, licensed

or financially assisted by the Federal Covarmment where the undertaking may affect

a property listed in the National Register.

e. Recommend to the Sponsoring Agencies programs fcr the preservation of designated

landmarks.

3. Me.be.ELL.R.

a. Composition. The Joint Committee shall be composed of nine members appointed by

the Sponsoring Agencies. At least one member shall be from each of the following

disciplines: history, architecture, and archaeology.

b. Term!. The term of each memher shall be three years, except that the terms of the

members first appointed shall be so fixed that the terms of three members shall

expire on September 30 in each of the years 1973, 1974 and 1975. Thereafter, the

teth of each member shall expire three years from the date of the expiration of the

term of his or her predecessor. Notwithstanding the expiration of trle term of any

member, he or she shall continue to serve as a member until the appointment of his

or her successor.

4. Office, The Joint Committee shall provide in its By-Laws for a Chairman and such other

officers as it deems necessary for the conduct of it, activities, except that the Exec,cive

Director of the National Capital Plavnino Commission shall designate, from time to time, a

member of the Commission staff to serve as Secretary to the Committee, and the General

Counsel of the National Capital Planting Commission shall serve as Counsel to the Committee.

0As approved by the National Capital Planning Commission, the Commistion of Fine Arts, and the Mayo:-

Commissioner of the District of Columbia.

3/20/74

Mr. OBERLANDER. Over the past decade, the Joint Committee has become an important force in historic preservation in the National Capital, serving as an effective mechanism through which the District of

Columbia Government, the Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts coordinate their various reponsibilities in the historic

preservation field, advising each of its sponsoring agencies on historic

preservation matters which come before it and recommending preservation programs for designated landmarks.
11

Perhaps the most important recent example of a joint committee

recommendation which has been carried out was the adoption by the

District of Columbia Council of regulation No. 73-25, providing, under

appropriate circumstances, for the delay of demolition or alteration of

historic buildings, structures, and places.

This regulation, an amendment to the District of Columbia Building

Code, authorizes the mayor or his agent to delay the issuance of a permit for the demolition or exterior alteration of buildings and

structures 

Mr. RONCALIO. May I interrupt right there to ask you why the Mayor

declined to forestall the granting of a license which resulted in the construction now going on

Mr. OBERLANDER. There was no alteration being sought. After a review by the Joint Committee, the Joint Committee advised the Mayor

there would not be inappropriate changes and therefore both the subdivision of land and variance application for which this property

had been applied for could be granted.

Mr. RONCALIO. In other words, you declined reserving the ScottGrant—you declined doing what this bill would ask us to do.

Mr. OBERLANDER. The Joint Committee advised the Mayor to that

effect yes.

Mr. RONCALIO. Because I have a letter just handed me from the

Mayor saying he is very reluctant to do anything about this lecrislation and there could be a potential loss of $8,000 in taxes and even

more once the additional buildings are built.

Did your Joint Committee object to the five or six townhouses that

were constructed in front of West House on R Street, around the

corner from Reservoir Road about 1970 or so?

Mr. OBERLANDER. I do not believe so sir.

Mr. O'CoNxon. That was not within the purview of the delay of

demolition or alteration of historic buildings act, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RoNCALIO. All right. Thank you.

Mr. OBERLANDER. As important as this regulation is, however, it does

not contain any language pertaining to the control of land subdivision

of historic properties.

Recognizing this deficiency, the Chairman of the Council of the

District of Columbia, on January 13, 1976, introduced on behalf of

Mayor Washington, a bill to amend District of Columbia regulation

No. '73-25.

This bill would provide for the review, and a possible 180-day delay

in granting, of subdivision of historic properties. If passed by the

Council, this bill will provide a reasonable period of time for public

agencies and interested citizens groups to negotiate with property

owners to try to find a means of preserving these historic properties.

Such a negotiation would be of particular importance to Georgetown, which contains a substantial number of large properties prone

to subdivision and intensified development.

Georgetown is a unique area in the District of Columbia and its

special qualities were recognized by the Congress in 1950 when it

enacted the Old Georgetown Act,

In order to promote the general welfare and to preserve and protect the places

and areas of historic interest, exterior architectural features and examples of

the type of architecture used in the National Capital in its initial years.
The Secretary of the Interior also recognized the importance of

Georgetown in 1967 when he designated the Georgetown Historic

District as a National Historic Landmark.

Older than the city of Washington itself, Georgetown retains the

narrow street patterns and a few buildings constructed before the

establishment of the Federal City in 17907

Scattered throughout the Georgetown Historic District are a number of large, freestanding houses generally constructed between the

late 18th and mid-19th century. These mansions, sited on substantial

landscaped grounds, are interspersed with densely-constructed rowhouses generally dated from the last half of the 19th century.

This mixture of large freestanding houses with generous open

spaces and the tight rows of smaller houses is an essential component

of the historic and architectural integrity of Georgetown.

One of these important, large Georgetown properties is the ScottGrant House, an individually-designated Category II landmark of the

National Capital.

I would like to define what we mean by a "Category II Landmark,"

landmarks of importance which contribute significantly to the cultural

heritable or visual beauty and interest of the District of Columbia

and its environs and which should be preserved or restored if possible.

This house was built about 1856 and purchased by Alfred Vernon

Scott in 1857.

General U.S. Grant lived there briefly after the Civil War and

later used the house as a summer White House.

Fashionably Italianate in design, this substantial pre-Civil War,

brick mansion is located on R Street at the north side of approximately

39,000 square foot site at one of the highest and most scenic points

in Georgetown.

The garden south of the house is exceptionally well-designed, containing many fine old trees and other plantings.

There are three outbuildings. A guest house, at the southwest corner

of the property, was apparently part of the original construction.

A one-story addition was made to the rear of the guesthouse in 1910.

A garage with a second story apartment was built at the southwest corner of the property in 1909. In the 1930's, a long brick shed

was added to the aarage and a second guesthouse was built nearby.

In April 28, 1975', the owners of this property applied to the District

of Columbia government for a permit to make certain alternations:

(1) Move the guesthouse approximately 20 feet northward;

(2) Remove a portion of the existing carriage house amounting to

about 80 square feet;

(3) Remove the roof of the woodshed, thus making it a garden

wall:

(4) Move the garage portion of the carriage house northward about

8 feet; and -

(5) Add a 3-foot-wide connecting link of brick and glass between

the two existing structures that comprise the carriage house.

Pursuant to District' of Columbia regulation No. 73-25, the Joint

Committee on Landmarks reviewed this permit 'application at its

meeting on May 28.

The applicants appeared before the committee and expressed their

intention to subdivide the property into four portions. A new house

would be built at the northeast corner of the property.
13

The garage and 1930's guesthouse would be remodeled into a single

residence. The main house and the original guesthouse would become

separate residences. According to the applicants, the proposed subdivision had been planned in such a way that the open space and

plantings would remain largely undisturbed.

• Mr. RONCALIO. How many trees will be cut down?

Mr. OBERLANDER. I do not know specifically.

Mr. RONCALIO. You do not know?

Mr. OBERLANDER. I do not know specifically; but the intention was

to maintain the landscape to the maximum possible.

Additional subdivision would be impossible. There would be only

one curb cut on the property.

The new house, conceived like the guesthouses and garage as an outbuilding, clearly subordinate to the Scott-Grant House, had been

designed during several months of consultation with the Commission

of Fine Arts, pursuant to the Old Georgetown Act, and had been approved by it.

While the applicants desired to maintain the existing appearance

and ambiance of the property as nearly as possible, the alterations requested were necessary to conform with local zoning regulations.

The original guesthouse is too near the rear property line and the

garage and 1930's guesthouse are too near the side and rear property

lines to allow subdivision of the property without alteration of these

structures.

The applicants indicated that they preferred not to make these

alterations and had filed with the Board of Zoning Adjustment on

April 23, 1975, seeking a variance application from the yard

requirements.

They stated that "should they be unsuccessful in obtaining the necessary variances, that as a last resort, they would have to alter existing,

structures to bring them into conformance with the current regulations." The permit application was intended to expedite this should

it become necessary. The Board of Zoning Adjustment did approve the

application for the variance; therefore, they do not have to move the

buildings as they had intended.

The Joint Committee, after reviewing the permit application,

recommended that the State Historic Preservation Officer, who acts as

the Mayor's agent in administering the District of Columbia regulation No. 73-25, determine that the alteration of the buildings would

not be contrary to the public interest and should not be delayed.

Though opposed in principle to the subdivision of historic properties

and properties within historic districts, the committee felt that the

alterations proposed were minor and would permit, under the present

zoning regulations, the continued preservation of this important landmark in as nearly its original state as possible.

It did, however, prefer that the buildings be left largely unaltered

on their original sites.

In a letter dated July 17, 1975, to the Board of Zoning Adjustment,

the Joint Committee supported the granting of a variance from the

side yard requirements in the R-1—B district and a variance from the

rear yard requirement in the R-3 and R-1—B districts. as sought by

the applicants.
14

The committee stated "it is our understanding that, if these variances are not granted, the applicant intends to move and alter the

existing structures in order to bring them into conformance with the

current regulations. The committee believes that leaving the outbuildings' in place is the more preferable of these two alternatives."

In recent months, there has been an alarming increase in the number

of properties in Georgetown for which subdivision applications

similar to that for the Scott-Grant House have been sought.

Several examples of these are: the Bliss Honse a the southeast

corner of 28th and Q Streets; the Robert Dodge House at the southwest corner of 28th and Q Streets, which is category II landmark individual listed on the National Register. Another property associated

with the Dodge family at the northeast corner of 29th and P Streets;

and Prospect House at the southwest corner of 35th and Prospect

Streets are other examples. The Prospect House is also a category

II landmark listed individually on the National Regiser.

Thus, although the Scott-Grant subdivision is an excellent case in

point of the threat presently posed to the character of Georgetown by

the breaking up of large estates for increased development, it is by no

means the only case and, because of the relatively sensitive manner in

which it has been planned, it is perhaps not the most critical one. '

H.R. 10306 directs the acquisition of a fee interest in the Scott-Grant

House by the Federal Government. This, of course, would be the safest

insurance against any alteration of this historic property.

However, in view of the widespread threat of subdivisions throughout Georgetown, legislation addressed only to the Scott-Grant House

or to fee acquisition may not be sufficient to meet the emerging

problems.

Mr. RONCALIO. What emerging problems?

We were _discussing in this bill Just the Scott-Grant House.

Mr. OBERhANDER. I realize that, sir.

Mr. RONCALIO. This is the statement for H.R.. 10306 and was there

an update for this particular thing today?

Mr. OBERLANDER. There are similar situations, if I may, in nearby

parts of Georgetown where subdivision problems are emerging similar

to the one we are discussing today.

Mr. RONCALIO. Does your statement have a conclusion regarding this

particular property?

Mr. OBERLANDER. Our conclusion is basically that the Planning

Commission would not have any major objections to the bill as such;

but we feel that there are similar problems beyond the one identified in

this bill, which are not being met by H.R. 10306 in full.

There are alternatives which I would like to identify briefly.

Mr. RONCALIO. You may proceed.

Mr. OBERLANDER. Outright Federal acquisition and Federal office

use of residential properties in Georgetown would be inappropriate,

except in exceptional cases.

What is needed rather is a broad program which will protect these

properties but leave them in private ownership, in private residential

use, and on the District of Columbia tax rolls. There are a number

of alternatives through which this might be achieved.

One alternative is to purchase from the owners a facade easement.

In this way, the owners would retain their property but give up their

right to alter the exterior of the landmark.
15

The value of the property may be somewhat reduced so the property's tax yield to the District would be slightly reduced but the cost

to both the Federal and District governments would be considerably

less than fee acquisition.

In addition, operation and maintenance expenses would remain with

the owner and not the Government.

Another alternative would be to purchase the development rights of

the property. This means that the right of the owner to develop his

property to the maximum height and density allowed by the current

zoning on his property woud be purchased by the Government.

This preservation device, the purchase of development rights, has

already been used to preserve the Heurich Mansion in the Dupont

Circle area.

This alternative has the same tax revenue, operation and maintenance advantages as a facade easement. This alternative would

discourage—hopefully preclude economically—the demolition of the

landmark and its replacement with a building whose height and

density would not exceed that existing on the site.

Using the above two alternatives in tandem the existing facade

could be preserved and no other buildings constructed on the site.

A variation of this alternative is a historic preservation covenant

between the District of Columbia government and the owner pursuant

to Public Law 93-407. In return for the owners promise to use and

maintain the landmark for at least 20 years in a manner which will

preserve the landmark, the District provides the owner an opportunity

for real property tax relief.

The committee may be interested in the excellent study done for

the National Park Service, "Should 'Easements' Be Used to Protect

National Historic Landmarks." This study thoroughly examines the

use of easements discussed above, and I have a copy for the committee

if you prefer to see it.

As we have discussed, there are a broad range of alternatives to

outright fee purchase by the Government.

Mr. RONCALIO. Those alternatives do not exist now for this property,

do they?

Mr. OBERLANDER. That is correct. They do not exist for this property.

Mr. RONCALIO. I fail to see why they have been applicable to our

problem this morning; but that is quite all right. I am sorry to interrupt you.

Mr. OBERLANDER. The General Services Administration or the Park

Service could be authorized to buy easements of this particular property and not go to the fee simple acquisition; so the bill conceivably

could be modified to include that alternative.

Mr. RONCALIO. That is not necessarily what you are recommending.

That is an alternative that we may select; but you do not think we

recommend it.

Mr. OBERLANDER. We have not said this specifically; but we would

prefer that alternative rather than the outright acquisition.

We would urge that the committee give further study to the use

of these devices in preserving historic properties, including the ScottGrant House and others in Georgetown, and other parts of the

District of Columbia threatened by demolition or by alteration or subdivision in a manner which destroys their integrity as part of the his-
16

tonie and anhitectural values which make Washington one of the

great national capitals of the world.

I will be glad to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. RONCALIO. Thank you for your statement and forgive me for

the interruptions.

Mr. Roberts, I will call on you.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Oberlander, do you not have authority—does not

the city of Washington—did we not give them authority to set up their

own zoning and planning commission?

Mr. OBERLANDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROBERTS. Why are you coming to us?

Mr. OBERIA/cDER. The property is zoned for residential.

Mr. ROBERTS. Why do they not rezone it? It is very difficult for me,

Mr. Chairman, to follow, without a map or something, to follow Mr.

Oberlander. I think he made an excellent statement but in trying to

follow him it would seem that the main house is not going to be used

at all; and is this house just going to cover a fourth or third of the

ground—is this thing divided into three or four pieces and just going

to take a fourth of it that they are going to build a new house on, the

fourth of it?

Mr. OBERLANDER. That is correct.

Mr. ROBERTS. Does this new house meet your requirements?

Mr. OBERLANDER. It meets the zoning regulations and it meets the

subdivision regulations of the District of Columbia.

Mr. ROBERTS. Then I do not understand what it is all about.

Mr. OBERLANDER. I have a plat here if you care to see it. It is the

only copy that we have in our files, but I would be glad to—

Mr. ROBERTS. But it does meet the zoning requirements established

by the city?

Mr. OBERLA,NDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROBERT'S. It meets the Fine Arts Commission requirement and

it does not touch the main house?

Mr. OBERLANDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. RONCALIO. Any other questions to the right?

Mr. Mineta ?

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Oberlander, you said, "In recent months there

has been an alarming increase in the number of properties in Georgetown for which subdivision applications have been sought." In the

next paragraph you talk about "The threat presently posed to the character of Georgetown bythe breaking up of large estates for increased

development."

I am just wondering in contrast to such subdivision, is Federal acquisition for possible office occupancy more suitable than leaving the

property in private hands for residential purposes?

Now, if I were to weigh those two alternatives, I would have to say

that the threat of Federal acquisition is much more demeaning to the

character of Georgetown than keeping the property in the hands of

people who are willing to preserve it, to put their own money into their

own properties for retention of the historic character for residential

purposes. I am just wondering if there is anything in this plan that

might be deleterious to the interests of your planning commission;

and why that plan might be worse than—and you have talked about

these alternatives—something that was built there?.
17

Mr. OBERLANDER. I do not believe the testimony indicated sir, that

there is really anything deleterious to the interests of the National Capital Planning Commission or to the Joint Committee on

Landmarks.

The issue here is whether there are sufficient controls to preserve this

property in its historic setting and its historic nature.

The Joint Committee on Landmarks felt the changes that are proposed by the current owners would not seriously affect the historic

nature of this particular site.

Mr. MINETA. You would rather have them keep the facade than moving the buildings around in order to conform to the side yard?

Mr. OBERLANDER. That is correct.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I have no other questions.

Mr. RONCALIO. Mr. Fary, any questions?

Mr. Fr. No.

Mr. RONCALIO. OK, gentlemen.

Anyone to the left

Mr. WALSH. I have some questions.

Mr. RONCALIO. Yes, Mr. Walsh.

Mr. WALsn. Mr. Oberlander, could you tell me what the present

condition of these buildings are?

Er. OBERLANDER. Present condition?

Er. WALSH. Yes.

Mr. OBERLANDER. They are in good condition. The main house is in

excellent exterior condition and the outbuildings are in good condition.

They are not substandard in terms of the definition used by the

census as to substandard structure. They are in reasonably good

condition.

Mr. WALSH. Do they meet all of the requirements of residential

buildings in the District of Columbia?

Mr. OBERLANDER. To my knowledge, they do.

Mr. WALSH. Zoning requirements?

Mr. OBERLANDER. Zoning requirements as well as the subdivision

requirements.

Mr. WALSH. In order to put them into the type of condition that you

would like to see all historical buildings put into, do you have any

idea of the estimate of the cost of doing that?

Mr. OBERLANDER. No; I do not, sir.

Mr. WALSH. I would like to ask a question of your counsel here.

Congress has given—and this has been alluded to several times—

self government in the District of Columbia. I wonder if there is—if

this question is really before the proper committee here? Does the District of Columbia Committee have any jurisdiction in this matter?

Mr. O'CoNNoR. Sir, I have not examined that question. There are

certain national interests in Georgetown. It has been declared by the

Congress as a historic district. Georgetown is not completely—I do not

think a local interest, and I am certainly not speaking for the Planning;

Commission's position; but it is a hybrid situation where there is arguably some Federal interest in Georgetown.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Oberlander, on page 9 you mention several alternatives the owner may have or the owners.

The chairman has indicated that these alternatives are no longer

available to the owners.

67-690-76 4
18

Now, I am confused. Do they have these alternatives or do they not

ye these alternatives?

Mr. OBERLANDER. They do not have these alternatives. These alternatives are alternatives to the outright acquisition of the property by

the Government.

Mr. WALSH. Now, suppose in the middle paragraph there where

you mention tax relief, could the owner now go back on his plans, do

as you suggest in paragraph 2 on page 9, and would he be entitled to

the tax relief that you mentioned?

Mr. OBERLANDER. If a facade easement or a convenant on the property were established he could apply for a tax relief provision. At the

moment he cannot.

Mr. WAusx. Has there been any discussion with the owner of the

possibility of doing this; do you know?

Mr. OBERLANDER. I do not believe so.

Mr. WALSH. What would that tax relief amount to?

Mr. OBERLANDER. I do not know sir.

Mr. WALSH. Do we have any idea of the assessed valuation of the

total properties?

Mr. OBERLANDER. The assessed valuation for the total properties

as of June 30, 1975, was $247,500.

Mr. O'CONNOR. Mr. Walsh, may I respond to a question you just

asked a minute ago about the possibility of the existing authority ?

A national historic landmark which is declared such by the Secretary of the Interior would allow an easement to be purchased. At the

present time, the Scott-Grant House is not a national historic landmark, a comparable example of a national historic landmark being

Bunker Hill and the Alamo. So it might not be in that stature of a

landmark; but where the Secretary of the Interior to declare it such,

there is existing authority for the Park Service to buy an easement.

Mr. WALSH. It is on the register of historical sites?

Mr. D'CoNxoR. It is on the inventory of sites; yes, sir.

Mr. WALSH. Again, I would like to ask counsel this question: What

is the appeal in this situation from a ruling of the Planning

Commission?

Mr. O'CONNOR. There has been a decision, not of the Planning Commission, but of the Board of Zoning Adjustment, and an appeal was

taken directly to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, and the

Board of Zonino. Adjustment was upheld by the court.

Mr. WALsH. SO there is really no question of someone being in

violation involved here?

Mr. O'CONNOR. No, sir.

Mr. WALSH. It is all approved?

Mr. O'CONNOR. Yes, sir.

Mr. WALK'. Thank you very much. I have no further questions, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. RONCALIO. Any questions?

Mr. COCHRAN. No questions.

Mr. RONCALIO. All right.

Thank you very much, Mr. Oberlander, for an excellent presentation.

Next, Mr. Charles Atherton, Secretary of the Commission of Fine

Arts.
19

TESTIMONY OF CHARLES H. ATHERTON, SECRETARY, COMMISSION

OF FINE ARTS; ACCOMPANIED BY DONALD B. MYER, ASSISTANT

SECRETARY, COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS

Mr. ATIdERTON. Mr. Chairman, I am Charles Atherton, secretary of

the Commission, and with your permission, I would like Mr. Myer to

read our very brief statement and save my voice for any questions you

might have afterwards.

Mr. RONCALIO. YOU may proceed.

Mr. MR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will paraphrase some portions of this.

We are here today to recommend against H.R. 10306, which would

authorize the acquisition by the Federal Government., of the ScottGrant House at 3238 R Street, NW.; in Georgetown, D.C.

Though the Commission heartily endorses preservation of the ScottGrant House .under the provisions of the Old Georgetown Act, Public

Law 808, we feel, however, that singling out this particular property

would obviously set a precedent that could neither be sustained nor

by any means be considered appropriate as a preservation technique

for the large number of historic properties equally worthy of preservation throughout the city of Washington.

In Georgetown alone, the Commission of Fine Arts is aware of at

least four other properties in similar situations to the Scott-Grant

residence: the former Bliss residence on the southeast corner of 29th

and Q Streets; the property right across the street on the southwest

corner of 29th and Q; the northeast corner of 29th and P; and the

well-known historic property of Prospect House on the street of the

same name.

Under existing local provisions, the Commission of Fine Arts has

inspected the site and given intensive review to designs for alteration

to the Scott-Grant house property between July 1974, and March

1975. • •

This review resulted in a technique for preserving this fine house

and its outbuildings through subdivision of the property to make the

main house, the guest house, and the carriage house individually owned

residences.

Through negotiation with the Commission of Fine Arts, the owner

abandoned his original scheme for flanking the historic house with a

pair of new monumental residences which would have destroyed a pair

of magnificent trees and agreed to add only one additional residence

which would be low and similar in concept to an outbuilding of the

inain house.

The eventual scheme, which is now underway, effected a minimum

of change to the setting of the main house and was a quiet and appropriate technique for preserving a large property with a very considerable tax burden.

Though subdivision of the Scott-Grant property shows a relatively

admirable restraint in the potential overall development, we foresee

continuing demand for speculative subdivision in historic districts in

Georgetown and throughout the city.
90

We would like to underscore our concern about the immediacy of the

problem, and offer to assist the Congress as well as the District of

Columbia government in finding possible solutions that will protect

the public interest.

Under provisions of the Old Georgetown Act, our Commission has

been required to pursue a continuing study of the visual aspects of

Georgetown's historic qualities.

This must logically include not only buildings, but their settings,

st reetscapes, open spaces, and relationships to each other.

The ultimate infilling of all side yards and vacant garden land in

Georgetown would obviously be contrary to the intent of the act,

"* " to promote the general welfare and to preserve and protect

the places and areas of historic interest," by substantially altering the

character and scale of this historic district.

The District of Columbia corporation counsel, in a memo to the

Office of the District of Columbia Surveyor on February 18, 1975,

expressed the opinion that, desirable as it may be to safeguard historic

properties by controlling their adjacent land use, it remains a piece of

unfinished legislative business and, until addressed by the legislature,

is not to be "dealt with on an administrative level."

This effectively prevented the Commission of Fine Arts from reviewing or advising on the merits of any proposed subdivision. We understand that the District of Columbia Council has drafted a bill to deal

with this problem. We welcome the interest of the Congress as well.

We doubt that the public will be sympathetic to the outright Government purchase of every historic property that may be subject to

some sort of change, either in the Capital of the TTnited States, or

elsewhere.

it would seem to us that proper local review of all proposals, control

of land subdivision or assembly, and tax incentives would provide a

far better framework for protecting our cultural heritage.

At its meeting on January 27, 1976, the Commission of Fine Arts

will formally consider H.R. 10306 and discuss this matter further.

We respectfully request that the record be held open for our additional comments.

Mr. RONCALIO. I think that is a good suggestion, that we do intend

to hold it open.

Are there any questions?

Mr. WALSH. Just one comment, Mr. Chairman.

I take it then that the Commission, which you represent, Mr.

Atherton, would far prefer to have a historical site preserved by

private individuals than to have the Government take them over and

preserve them?

Mr. A THERSON. I think you can assume that, sir.

Mr. WALSH. Is this a policy you hope to pursue locally?

Mr. ATHERSON. Yes; it would be.

Mr. WALSH. No further questions.

Thank you very much.

Mr. RONCALIO. Mr.*Mineta ?

Mr. MINETA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Atherton. in your statement, there is a phrase: "we foresee continuing demand for speculative subdivision."
21

Is there not a control mechanism now in existence governing what'

can be done? Does that process not presently exist?

Mr. ATHERTON. There are within the District of Columbia regulations considerable regulations that determine the size, the amount of

building for a specific lot; all of this is possible within the existing law

today.

Mr. MINETA. So then, in terms of the previous testimony from,

Mr. Oberlander—which you heard, he talked about a threat

Now, you are talking about a continuing demand for speculative subdivision. Aren't all of these kinds of fears really within the purview of

local control right now?

MT. ATHERTON. I think they are; yes.

Mr. MINETA. Thank you very much, Mr. Atherton.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RONCALIO. Thank you very much, Mr. Atherton. We appreciate

your statement.

I am going to ask unanimous consent to take out of order retired

Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas; and Justice Fortas, would you

mind coming forward and becoming our next witness.

TESTIMONY OF HON. ABE FORTAS, FORMER ASSOCIATE JUSTICE,

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

Mr. FORTAS. Good morning Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RoNcALIo. Mr. Fortas, I welcome you to this inauspicious chamber and look forward to your• helping us with a solution to this

problem.

Mr. FORTAS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am

very grateful to you for hearing me.

I should like to first say that it is a very moving thing that this

committee and the chairman of this committee will take their time in

this Bicentennial Year to consider this particular problem. I think

the reasons why it is particularly appropriate to the Bicentennial

Year have already appeared; and I hope in a very brief statement to

emphasize why I think it is particularly appropriate.

I was Under Secretary of the Interior many, many years ago, in the

administration of President Roosevelt, when Harold Ickes was Secretary; and so I bear the bruises and wounds of a number of fights about

the preservation of lands and historic monuments in the District of

Columbia and in various places in the country.

I should like to address myself to the narrow question before you.

I believe that this bill should be enacted. I favor it.

I live a few doors from this property, but that is not my reason for

favoring the bill. Whatever happens to this property really will not

affect my house, its value or my own enjoyment of living in my house.

But I am deeply moved by the significance of this particular property,

and I should like, with your indulgence, to tell you why, which I do not

believe has been stated here.

Please visualize Wisconsin Avenue—Wisconsin and R Street.

On the corner of Wisconsin and R Street there is a public library,

a very attractive

'

large building. The next property is the property

under discussion here, the so-called Grant House. Then about half a
22

block or perhaps a block away there is the marvelous Dumbarton Oaks

property, which I am sure some of you have visited.

Dumbarton Oaks is owned by Harvard University, having been

given to Harvard University some years ago and Dumbarton Oaks has

unique library facilities. There is a very famous Byzantine art collection and also a famous pre-Columbian museum housed in the Phillip

Johnson Building.

Dumbarton Oaks houses scholars. It runs scholarly programs and it

also has a musical program that is of unique character and significance.

My wife and I see, every year, and particularly in the summertime,

large buses that come along R Street. Out of those buses come children

and the children walk down R Street and they go to Dumbarton Oaks

and sometimes, I do not know how often this is pointed out to them—

this house, the Grant house

'

this property that you have under consideration is pointed out to them. I have heard, as I have sometimes

joined the children, on occasion a description by a well-informed guide

about this house and this property.

On the back of this property in the gardens, Union soldiers were

quartered during the Civil War. Mrs. Scheuer, Jim Scheuer's wife,

showed me a picture which I would have brought this morning except

that I just got back from New York, delayed by weather, showing

Union soldiers quartered on the back of this property.

This property, as you know, is the most dramatic illustration that I

am aware of, of how the officials of this Government lived during the

Civil War—how President Grant would get in his carriage and he

would be driven up the hill to R Street to reside in this house during

the summer heat—because the house is on a hill, and it. is much cooler

up there then in the swampland where the -White House is located.

History comes alive, if the committee pleases, in this house. History

comes alive. The way the officials of this Government lived during the

early days—the fact that they got in their carriages and made a long

trip from the swampy White House to the outlying area which this

was—Georgetown Heights as it was then called; and there they spent

their time during the summer and there they relaxed. Perhaps there

are other properties like this in Georgetown. I do not know. This is

history, if the committee pleases; not just the house but the grounds

surrounding this house are part of history.

I tell you gentlemen that I believe we are depriving our children of

an opportunity to have history come alive if we permit the grounds

around this house to be cluttered with a townhouse or with two townhouses as may eventually result.

Please permit me to say to you that I believe tins is a matter of

Federal concern. We all hope that the local government has a concern

for the unique history of the District of Columbia for the seat of

government. But I know that that concern is offset by many other concerns, tax rolls and so on; but the concern of the Federal Government

is unique, is paramount, and if I may respectfully say so, overwhelming to preserve a place where history can be demonstrated to the

children and our children's children. It is not a matter of attracting

children to the area. They come there; they come there in busloads

and by the hundreds of thousands and millions because of Dumbarton

Oaks.
23

• Now, this is why I do not think that this problem is just a part of

the general Georgetown problem. I am interested in the Georgetown

problem; but this is something else.

Now, second, let me turn to the possible uses to which this house

may be put.

This house could very well and very profitably and fruitfully be put

to a number of uses of the Federal Government, particularly when

you consider it in conjunction with Dumbarton Oaks. The Smithsonian will have many uses for it.

I would like to suggest to you, as I will to GSA, if this bill should

pass, and I hope I have the cooperation of the chairman, who is a

.distinguished and hard-working trustee of the Kennedy Center—I

would like to suggest one use to you.

I am a trustee of the Kennedy Center and on its executive committee.

We need for Kennedy Center a residence. We need a place where the

great artists who come to Kennedy Center and to Dumbarton Oaks,

the musicians, the actors, the playwrights, the dancers, can be put up

where they can reside, where they will agree to stay for a week or two

weeks; and when we can bring from our schools the promising young

people from all parts of this area and, perhaps, from all over this

country, we can bring them to talk with the great artists of our country,

to have master classes with the great artists of our country.

For that purpose. this house, as Congressman Scheuer has indicated

to you, would be uniquely designed. Please do not think about this just

as a place for another Federal office. This is a house where history

resides. It is a house where history can continue to be made—a history

of the development of the human spirit—the history of the development of what is finest and greatest on the American scene.

Now, I would like to say that we, the neighbors who are deeply conscious of the value of this property for the country and its historical

value, its esthetic value, have done everything we can with the cooperation of the Foundation for the Preservation of Historic Georgetown—and Colonel Evans is here and you are going to hear from him—

we have done everything that we can to work out an amicable and

lasting solution to this problem.

We have even tried to make an arrangement with the developer so

that he would preserve it intact, not just the house but the grounds,

and particularly the grounds fronting on our street.

We have even tried to raise some money, and we did raise some

money, to try to buy from the developer a pledge that the house and

the grounds would be kept intact. We did not succeed in doing that.

But we did not succeed because the developer insisted upon a sum of

money which was far beyond our means to raise by voluntary methods.

What we want is very simple. gentleman. We want the front of this

house—this house and the front of the grounds facing on R Street

to be preserved intact just as they are so that when the schoolchildren

are brought along 11 Street this coming summer and in our Bicentennial Year and in the years to come, they can be told that here in front

of you is a replica—a representation of how the great men of history

lived when they ran our Government; of how General Grant and then

President Grant, and General Halleck and the great men that you

have read about in your books, how they lived.
24

You can visualize that long hill along Wisconsin Avenue. They

came up it. They came up that hill in their carriages from the White

House and it probably took them an hour or so and this is the house

to which they went for a surcease from the swamps and the heat of

the White House in those days.

It is for that reason, without taking any more of your time, Mr..

Chairman, and with assurances that I speak to you not as a nearby

property owner but as an American and one interested in the significance of this Bicentennial; one enormously interested in conveying

to our children a sense of what this country is, what it is about, what,

its history was like.

It is in that spirit and from that position that I come here and

express to you again my deep thanks that you have taken your very

valuable time to consider this problem.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RONCALIO. Thank you very much.

Any questions on the left?

Mr. WALSH. Just one comment, Mr. Chairman.

I guess there is no more eloquent person than a neighbor whose

neighborhood is threatened and I want to congratulate Mr. Fortas for•

a wonderful, wonderful description of the historic value of this ScottGrant property.

The thing that I am concerned a little about is that I cannot see

the difference between housing a family with children in this piece of ,

property and the proposal you made, sir, of turning it into sort of

an overnight rest stop for the artists at the Kennedy Center; and

I would submit that I would much prefer to have a family living there

than have this property suffer the extensive alteration that would be

necessary if we followed the routine you suggest.

Mr. FORTAS. Mr. Congressman, I am sorry, but perhaps I have not

made myself clear.

Our primary interest is in preserving the grounds around it as well 

as this house. The bill that is before you provides for governmental

use of the house. I think this house can be put to very good use by the

Government. I think that if the developer had agreed that he would

not put one or two townhouses cheek-to-jowl with this historic house,

we probably would not—we would not have been before this

committee.

But you must realize, if I may put it that way, what is proposed

here is that very close to this historic house there will be placed a

townhouse. I hope that it is true that neither the present developer

nor any successor in ownership will put another townhouse on the

other side of this historic property.

But as I understand it, the subdivision makes it possible to put

another house there. I do not think that history's message will come

through if you take children along there and say this house in the.

middle was the house occupied by President Grant and right next

to it, on the left side, is a townhouse, or on the right side is another

townhouse; and we are talking about very little space, if the committee please: we are not talking about a lot of space there. It will

be really cheek-to-jowl to the big house.

I do not think that there will be an impact on the minds of the

children—the visual impact that there should be and that exists at

the present time.
25

What happens inside that house, I say again, is of secondary matter. What happens to the land on either side of it is a primary matter. Mr. WALSH. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the record should be made perfectly clear here that the developer, as I understand it, origi- nally planned to put in two townhouses. The Fine Arts Commission turned down that plan and has allowed only one townhouse to go in;

so I think it is perfectly clear the developer only has permission to

go ahead and develop one townhouse; and I think we are clouding the issue if we talk about the possibilities of two houses.

Mr. FORTAS. Mr. Congressman, with all respect, experience with respect to zoning indicates that a developer fails to secure permission for two townhouses instead of one, that next year the application is renewed, perhaps by the same developer or perhaps by another developer.

The year after that, the application is renewed and, eventually at

some time, and quite often, it is granted.

I have heard nothing suggested by the developer. I have heard no suggestion by the developer that he is willing to give the foundation

or the preservation of Historic Georgetown or any similar agency an easement which will guarantee that the other townhouse will not be built.

. Mr. WALsii. Again, Mr. Chairman, I would submit that this is purely the responsibility of the Board of Zoning Appeals, as I call it. I do not know what the title is here; but I think I have a little more faith than you do, sir, in the responsibilities of the Fine Arts Com- mission, the Board of Zoning Appeals, and the Planning Commission

and the Government of the District of Columbia.

Mr. FORTAS. I have some doubt as to whether this existing authority

would prevent that; but whether it would or not, I suggest to you again that, in my opinion, this is a Federal matter—a matter of

proper Federal concern, regardless of the attitude taken by the

local government or the local governmental agencies.; and it is on this Federal basis that we are appealing to you.

Mr. WArasir. Again, I would like the record to indicate, Mr. Chairman, as I read from the statement that has been submitted to the committee but not yet been presented, by Reid Dunn, regarding this

property. He said:

This plan is not a development. The zoning in this area would• permit seven

dwellings on this property. I am building only one for my own use and have

repeatedly offered to place a covenant on the west side of the main house to

insure that it remains unbuilt in perpetuity, if only I am allowed to proceed

unimpeded with this plan.

Mr. FORTAS. I hope that the developer will indeed give an easement

to that effect to the Foundation for Historic Georgetown, which has

obtained such easements from many others—from a number of other

porperty owners.

I hope he will do that. That avenue is available to him immediately,

as I understand it: and then we would have only half of a tragedy.

in the Scott-Grant House.

Mr. RONCALIO. Any other questions?

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

I would simply like to say, too, Mr. Justice Fortas, that it is an

honor to hear you. As a fellow lawyer, your reputation for skill in
26

advocacy precedes you here. I am delighted to be here and hear you,

and I want to compliment you on your statement, which I think has

been very helpful to the committee in its deliberations with respect to

the bill.

Thank you very much.

Mr. FORTAS. Thank you, sir.

Mr. RONCALIO. Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. Holland?

Mr. HOLLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Justice Fortas as a brother in the profession

'

I consider this

an honor to have you here today. I struggled at the bar for 10 years

and, by a quirk of election, I find myself here and you there; and I

would not miss this opportunity to ask you a question.

The statement you made is eloquent. I compliment you on it. By

the way, you made reference in your statement to the fact that General Grant was slow to speak. I may take issue and would you not

agree that he is probably one of the most interestina

b

characters to us.

But might I ask this—you made reference to the fact that the developer had been offered a sum of money and had declined that offer.

For the record, what was the purchase price demanded by the

developer for this project?

Mr. FORTAS. The offer that was communicated to the developer

was as follows: In return for a scenic and historic easement which

would prevent building on either the east side or the west side of the

main house, the Scott-Grant House, the developer would be paid

$40,000.

Now, that $10,000 would be—was to be contributed in the following

fashion—I cannot tell you that any of this is absolutely firm except

that the proposal was made. The money was to be raised as follows:

As I understand it, the developer had made a contract to sell the two

outbuildings to two people who I notice are on your program here

today and they were going to put up $22,000, according to the communication that I received, indirectly from their counsel.

The neighbors along R Street, including my wife and myself, were

going to supply the additional $18,000, and for that $40,000, the

developer would give a historical easement on this property which

would keep the main house in private ownership but would prevent

any building on either .side of the main house.

The word I received—Mr. Dunn will be testifying and he can check

this out—but the word I received from our counsel was that Mr.

Dunn wanted $70,000 or $75,000, I forget which, just for this easement; and that was totally out of reach of anything that could be

raised by voluntary contributions from the neighbors.

Mr. HOLLAND. Do you have any idea what it would cost the U.S.

Government for acquisition of this property in a condemnation proceeding or otherwise?

Mr. FORTAS. I do not know, Mr. Congressman. I understand that the

developer has sold the principal house, and I believe you are going to

hear from the purchaser; and I am told that the purchase price was

in excess of $250,000, and I am told that the developer also made

contracts to sell the two outlying buildings.

do not know what that would be. So I suppose that the cost of

acquisition might run well over $300,000, perhaps, around $400,000.
27

This is testimony for which I hope you will grant me forgiveness because it is testimony from ignorance. I know that intially—as a

matter of fact, I have with me the initial advertisement of this total

property, I think that advertisement appeared in Prevue magazine.

1 do not know whether the advertisement was placed by the prior

owners or by Mr. Dunn, because my copy does not have a date on it. but it advertised the total property for sale of $475,000. That, of

course was the asking price.

I will be glad to leave that copy of that advertisement with you if

you like.

Mr. RONCALIO. We would like to have that for the file.

Mr. Mineta ?

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I really have no questions of the very

distinguished Justice before us, except to thank him for being here;

and, frankly, as a personal observation, I miss your wisdom and your judgment and eloquence on the Court and only wish you were there.

Mr. FORTAS. Thank you, sir.

Mr. RONCALIO. Mr. Fary ?

Mr. FARY. No questions, except my gratitude.

Mr. RONCALIO. Let me say in conclusion, Judge Fortas—thank you

for coming and thank you for showing this interest in what is going

on—and also for the man who is responsible for my being alive in

many, many ways, and the man in Laramie, Wyo., the mayor of our

town, and his brother was the dean of the law school and his brother

Carl said to me once in 1938, "If we can just get you to speak a little

more slowly and read and write we may do something with you, young

man," and he was the kind of man you associated with Arnold, Porter

& Fortas and was the result of great careers and I am sorry you lost

both of your founding partners, but we are happy you are surviving,

and hale, and hearty, and glad to see you here.

Mr. FORTAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You have been

very kind.

Thank you.

Mr. RONCALIO. We thank you for the reason that men of stature, as

Mr. Justice Fortas has asked us this question and we want to have a

(rood hearing.

Mr. Dunn, will you please come forward. We will include in the

record the full text of your prepared statement.

[The statement referred to follows:]

STATEMENT OF REID A. DUNN

My name is Reid A. Dunn. I am a partner in the architectural firm of Dunn &

Preston, of Washington, D.C. I reside at 3311 Ross Place, N.W., Washington,

D.C. I am the owner of Lot 96 in Square 1280, a part of the original Scott-Grant

Estate. My house is currently under construction on this property.

The bill under consideration would take my land and house for public purposes.

It was introduced on October 22, 1975. I was informed of this on January 12,

1976, exactly ten (10) days ago. I find it unusual that such a bill could be introduced without at least a courtesy call to inform the affected parties, if not a

more detailed consultation to hear out another viewpoint, especially when a local

phone call was all that was required.

Before detailing my objections to this bill and why I believe it improper, inequitable and illogical, I would like to offer some background information:

I purchased the Scott-Grant Estate with the intention of subdividing it into

four (4) parts. Three (3) of these parts were the existing buildings on the site,

the main house, a guest house, and a carriage house and a fourth new residence
28

aq•be occupied by myself and my family. At the time I purchased the estate it had

been for sale for approximately six (6) years, was vacant, and was badly deteribrating. The outbuildings had been illegally rented for several decades, presumably in an attempt to offset the cost of ownership of the property.

It was abundantly clear at the time of purchase that the estate was no longer

:functioning as one; it was instead a conglomeration of three (3) rental properties. Furthermore, the difficulties in marketing the property over a six-(6) year

,period were ample evidence that no purchaser was available who could maintain

it as an estate. The taxes were over Eight Thousand Dollars ($8,000.00) annually, and the maintentance of the extensive landscaping and the three (3)

antique buildings burdensome to say the least. It was with a firm belief in the

Jost viability of the estate that I purchased it. I believed that viability could be

returned by the intended subdivision into four (4) parts, that the only alternatives were either continued decay or a much more extensive full-scale

development.

I would like to emphasize that this decision to purchase was not taken lightly.

Being in the practice of architecture, I was acutely aware of the aesthetic implications of what I was doing. Being a Georgetown resident, I was concerned

for the future of the neighborhood. Ultimately I made a decision: A subdivision

.and a new house would not adversely affect the property aesthetically. It was

justified as the only ready means of returning viability to the property.

This plan of a four- (4) part subdivision involved no major change in the

functions or looks of the property. The existing three (3) buildings were occupied by separate families anyway—all the plan would do is legalize this use.

The new house was carefully designed with the cooperation of the Fine Arts

• Commission to insure its compatibility on the estate. It has been designed as

.an additional outbuilding. It is low, small in scale, with an architectural flavor

not Unlike the existing carriage house. A garden wall separates it from R Street.

In fact the new house will not be visible from the south side of R Street, and

barely so from the north side. All this was done to maintain, at all costs, the

-existing character of the estate.

This plan is not a "development." The zoning in this area would permit seven

(7) dwellings on this property. I am building only one (1) (for my own use),

and have repeatedly offered to place a covenant on the west side of the main

house to insure that it remains unbuilt in perpetuity, if only I am allowed to

proceed unimpeded with this plan.

I object strenuously to the notion that the Federal Government should intercede in this project at this time. First, there has been ample time to do so

prior to now. As I have told you, the estate had been for sale for six (6) years

before I purchased it. My plans for subdivision were known more than a year

and a half ago. Lot 96 was subdivided over six (6) months ago. Variances

-legalizing the remainder of the subdivision were obtained five (5) months ago;

the building permit for the house on Lot 96 was also obtained five (5) months

ago. In short, at this point the plan is essentially completed, with the property

in three (3) different ownerships and the house under construction. In fact,

all excavation is complete, the foundations in place, and lower floor walls in

progress. Furthermore, advance commitments have been made with subcontractors and materialmen and much of the remaining work is already scheduled.

Second, the logic of this bill is faulty, for its clear purpose is to "save" the

Scott-Grant Estate and that has, without any question, been already done without government intervention. To date, over one hundred thousand dollars

($1.00,000.00) in restoration funds have been pumped into the main house and

grounds, reversing the deterioration of decades of neglect. The purchasers ofthe outbuildings stand ready to make similar restorations. In fact, they are

scheduled to take possession tomorrow and begin work in the near future. They

intend to- live in these properties indefinitely, anti to care for them in the way

they deserve. Any observer would agree, I am sure4 that the property is today

in better repair than any time in the last decade. Lost viability has been

returned.

Third, as a taxpayer, I am appalled at the wastefulness this bill calls for.

The market value of these four properties is between seven hundred fiftythousand dollars ($750,000.00) and one million dollars ($1,000,000.00). It is

clear that the real reason for this bill is to prevent the construction of a single

new house. How can this be jusified? G.S.A. will obtain about six thousand

(6,000) square feet of highly unsuited office space, for which it has not even-

-expressed a need.
29

This logic pales, especially in light of the highly questionable benefit that might

accrue. Will this new house destroy the Grant Estate? The Commission of Fine

Arts, a Federal body specifically empowered to answer such questions, has

plainly said no, as have numerous other government agencies. Indeed, no one

outside .of a small group of self-interested parties has objected. What benefit

will this bill have?

What can be detailed with fair precision are the adverse effects of such a

bill. It 'will bring commercial uses to a street that has never before had them.

A street where, in fact, zoning does not permit them. It will exacerbate the

already untenable parking situation in Georgetown. Conceivably, fifty (50)

people could work at the estate, should this bill become law, bringing dozens

of cars into the area when only six (6) or so can be parked on the estate. Most

importantly, the bill will change the very essence of the Scott-Grant property,

from a residential place perfectly suited to residential uses to an office complex,

replete; with banks of filing cabinets, clacking typewriters, switchboards and.

secretarial ppols. This would destroy the essential character of the place, and

sterilize it: How can this be construed as historic preservation? Surely, in -terms

of preservation, one new outbuilding is preferable to the wholesale -destruction

of the yeti, toncept of the estate.

Furtherniore, how can this bill possibly be construed as in the public interest?

To be sure, it is in the private interest of a few local residents who do not wish

to be deprived of their heretofore privately financed open space but in no way

can it be considered in the interest of the neighborhood, for it will bring unwanted .commercial uses and additional congestion to the streets. Surely, it is

not in the best interests of the city, which will be deprived of badly needed

real estate tax revenues, or of the nation, which can derive no benefit whatever.

Finally, I raust object to this Bill on the basis that it takes the property and

the homes of four (4) families who cherish the opportunity to live there,

families- who have in good faith pursued for nearly two (2) years now this end.

We have, as you know, secured the approval of numerous government agencies

over this period of time, including the Commission on Landmarks, D.C. Zoning

Administrator, D.C. Building Permit Division, and D.C. Board of Zoning Adjustment, We have fought a legal battle with dissenting neighbors over a multitude of issues, all of which have been decided in our favor. At this date, the legal

aspects of this case are at an end. Now, it appears, we must take our case to

the Congress, even though no one outside of a narrow group of self-interested

persons has expressed displeasure with our plans.

We four (4) families are not investors or dabblers in real estate. These properties are tiy be our homes into the indefinite future. In my own case, I know

that my family has thought of little else for eighteen (18) months. We have been

uprooted, placed in limbo, and delayed, but our devotion to the idea of living

there remians adamant. I cannot believe that the government can, in good

faith, take our property now.

TESTIMONY OF REID A. DUNN, PROPERTY OWNER, WASHINGTON,

D.C.; ACCOMPANIED BY TERRY LENZNER, ESQ.

Mr. RON'CAT.10. Who is with you at the table, please ?

Mr. LENZNER. My name is Terry Lenzner, counsel to Mr. Dunn.

Mr. Durric. I have, sir, here copies of a drawing which identifies the

various buildings involved, which I think would help a great deal in

clarifying what this matter is all about; and perhaps this could be

circulated.

Maybe I could just explain the physical parts of this property that

we are talking about.

The entire parcel is known as the Scott-Grant Estate, and this is

R Street, Northwest, underneath here. The main house is here.

This is a little guest house that had been there for 100 years or

more; and this is a small carriage house.

This is the new house, which is now under construction.

Mr. Rk7thcALIo. How far under construction is that, Mr. Dunn?
30

Mr. DUNN. The foundations are in sir.

Now, this project has been repeatedly referred to as a development;

and let me assure you, sir, that this is not the case.

I think it has been pointed out previously that up to seven dwellins would be legal under the curernt dwelling law here. Only one is

proposed. Only one is under construction and I do not believe I would

characterize that as being cheek-to-jowl with the main house. It is as

far away as possibly it could be.

The other side we intend to leave vacant, and the testimony of the

other persons will substantiate this.

We are creating a covenant to leave that open in perpetuity and that

is a voluntary thing on our part.

Mr. RONCALIO. Will that be filed and made a matter of record?

Mr. DUNN. A matter of record as of Friday, sir, when the settlement on these two back houses is to occur.

Now, the main house has been sold to Mrs. Russell, who will testify

after me. She has completely restored and renovated this house at a

cost to her of $100,000 or more, and she is understandably upset that

the Government would consider taking it from her.

The other two parcels are under contract to two other people who

will testify here later. They, by coincidence, are taking possession of

this Friday. All of us intend to live on this property and to maintain

these buildings indefinitely.

When we came along, the Grant House had come on hard times.

This place was deteriorating. It had been for sale for 6 years and it

was vacant.

This seemed to me to be a reasonably pri rate alternative to saving

this place; and, quite frankly. the only reason I am embarking on

this project is because I want to live there.

Mr. RoNcsmo. You also are going to be a tenant in the building?

Mr. DUNN. Sir?

Mr. RoNcsmo. You are the designing architect and you also will

live on the premises when you build the building?

Mr. DUNN. Yes, sir.

Mr. RONCALIO. Thank you.

Mr. Dux-N. The new house has been designed very carefully as an

additional outbuilding on the estate. It is meant to be subordinate to

the main building, and this was worked out in cooperation with the

Commission of Fine Arts so that we could maintain the estate-like

character of the place. This has always been our intention.

This is the reason it has been attractive for us to live there.

As far as the suggestion of building two houses, there was a time before I bought the property and in some preliminary discussion with

the Commission of Fine Arts when I thought this project would not

work without building two houses, and I became convinced that it

would, and those plans were scrapped, along with negotiations with

the Commission of Fine Arts, and it has never been my intention to

build more than one house there.

I would like to also respond to Mr. Fortas' testimony rega 1 111, "

the attempted purchase of the development rights by the neighbors.

This was a last-ditch thing that came from them after 18 months

of continuous harrassment that eventually got us in the District of

Columbia Court of Appeals. The house was under construction at the
31

time this offer was made and it was made only through the help of two

of the other purchasers who will testify later. They were putting up

the major part of the money and the reason they were doing it was to

make the problem (Yo away; and I personally was not—did not feel

right taking money'-from them in order to make this happen.

I did not feel at that stage of the game the offers of Mr. Fortas and

the neighbors was in good faith and furthermore it was for an amount

that was far less than the property was worth, and what I had invested in it.

Let me just see if there is anything else that I would like to touch

on here.

The new house is constructed in such a way that it is behind the

garden wall so that literally it is invisible from the south side of

Street and it is only from the north side that you would begin to

see the table end of the house peeking above this wall; and I do not

think this is going to have a deleterious effect on the ambiance of the

estate and other main building.

It was carefully done to be compatible.

Mr. RONCALIO. The townhouse plan under construction now is a

single-family unit townhouse?

DUNN. Yes, sir.

A townhouse does not properly characterize it. I have a drawing of it

also. Maybe if I could hold this up.

Mr. RONCALIO. That is the existing house you are now pointing to?

Mr. DUNN. Yes.

Now, this little house which appears at the carriage house is the new

house.

Mr. RONCAMO. Yes; in the rear of the land.

Mr. DUNN. It is not in the rear, sir, but it is back from the street.

It is behind this garden wall and, as I say, from the mechanics of the

elevation from the south side of the street, the house will not be seen.

This is the next house on down the street and the one after that is

Mr. Fortas'.

Mr. RONCALIO. Who lives in the next house down the street? Is that

a foreign diplomat?

Mr. buNN. It was very recently resold and I am not sure who owns

it,.

Mr. RONCALIO. I used to live across the block from there in the 89th

Congress until I got a little overzealous and started shoveling and sold

the house, of course.

All right, sir.

Mr. DUNN. I believe that sums it up, sir.

Mr. RONCALIO. Any questions? Mr. Walsh?

Mr. WALsll. Mr. Chairman, a question. Thank you.

I hate to raise this question, Mr. Dunn, but you estimate that the

value of this property is $750,000, and I do not like to put you on

record as to the value, but could you tell me what the assessed valuation is?

Mr. DUNN. Well, the property very recently has been subdivided and

I do not know what the various parts will be assessed at. What I do

know what we all paid for them, and the amount of the improvements

that have gone into them, and that is a conservative total, and I know

in general property values in Georgetown and I think the market value

of these four parcels will be close to $1 million.
32

Mi WALsu. But you have no idea as to what they 'are oil the ássèss.

mer0111 -

ME DTINiq. I believe the last assessment we had on the total parcel

was around $600,000. That was before it was sold—before the new

dwelling was begun and before the subdivision had been made.

WALSH. Do they assess the full value, market value, or a percentage Of true value ?

Mi.'D-triciv. That would have been the percentage converted to full

market value.

Mr. WAisx. Thank you, Mr. Dinin.

No further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr, RekiveAtio. That was the basis upon which there was an $8,000

a year tax.paid ; is that right ?

Mr DtTNN Yes, sir, yes, sir.

Now, since that time, as I say, these various figures will change that

in someway.

Mr. RONCALIO. Mr. Cochran?

Mr...cool-IRAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to say hello to Terry, as I have not seen you since I met

you when a good friend of mine was on your staff when you were

over at,* 0E0 Legal Service.

Welcome to the committee.

Mr. LRIUNER. Thank you, sir.

Mr. RONCALIO. Mr. Abdnor ?

Mr..ABDwoa. No questions.

Mr. RoNcAmo. Congratulations on yesterday's great work. You and

I were late yesterday and we •were busy until the wee hours..

Mr. Holland?.

Mr. Mineta ?

Mr. Fary ?

Mr. FARY. No questions.

Mr. RONCALIO. All right.

Thank you very much, Mr. Dunn. We do not mean for you to go.

through this thing and have it dealt with preemptorily. If you want

to take some more time, fine; but I think the old adage holds, "You

are at an advantage when you are ahead." I think you are ahead on

this.

Thank you very much.

Our next witness is one of the owners of the land, Connie Russell;

and we welcome you to the panel.

TESTIMONY OF CONSTANCE RUSSELL, 3238 R STREET,

NORTHWEST, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Ms. RUSSELL. My name is Constance Russell; and I purchased the

main house—the Scott-Grant mansion. I looked at this house a number of years ago (I have lived in Georgetown for years) and decided•it was the home I wanted to live in. I got as far as the point

of making an offer on the house when I found out what they were

asking" for it, what the taxes were and the size of the outbuildings. I

found it was absolutely beyond my means.

When I found Mr. Dunn had purchased the property I went to‘

him to find out what he planned to do with it. He went over his

plans with me, which made it feasible for myself as well as the other-
33

two purchasers to be able to afford the property, to renovate it as

well as maintain it and pay taxes on it. . .

At that particular time when I purchased the house, I was delighted

and did a certain amount of work that obviously need to be done and moved in.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, whatever, after I moved in—and it has been 12 months of absolute depression. Nothing in the house

worked properly simply because it had not been lived in for years.

Every time you turned water on in one part of the house it was. leaking in another part and almost to the point that I wished I had

not got involved with it; but, in any event, I have spent to date over

$100,000.

I am just about finished with some exception of a few minor things.

I do plan to make this my residence.

Mr. Dunn spent a lot of time and a lot of effort before I signed

my contract as well as the other individuals to go over what he:planned

to do to make sure it was to everybody's liking. Ile spent a tremendous amount of money, which I think is very unfortunate and I too,

have been fighting the neighbors so to speak; and the only reason I

can see why they seem to be concerned is merely a vendetta against

Mr. Dunn; including one of the people that has opposed this was a

child who had lived in the house. I think if they were so concerned

why did they not buy the house years ago?

So basically I am definitely opposed to this bill. I would be absolutely shocked and mortified if I was asked to move from my home

which I have spent a fortune on and I now have over $400,000 personally invested in the house. . • •

Mr. RONCALIO. I get your message loud and clear.

Any comments?

Mr. COCHRAN. No.

Mr. WALSH. No comments.

Mr. RoNcArito. Any comments on this?

Mr. HOLLAND. No. • .• •

Mr. MINETA. No.

Mr. RONCALIO. Mr. Fary ?

Mr. FARY. NO.

Mr. RONCALIO. All right.

You make a. strong impression on us and I would appred'iate that

this is not the only way to get all the facts and that is having :a; hearing like we are having here now. . • .

Thank you very much.

Next, Ms Janice Frye.

TESTIMONY OF JANICE FRYE, 3238'R STREET, NW.;

WASHINGTON, D.C.

MS. FRYE. I -aID Janice Frye. I am the contract owner to the•Carriage

house and studio behind the Grant Mansion. I go to settlement on this

property tomorrow and my two children—my son and ' daughter—

plan to live there.

For 20 years I have had a strong interest in historic preservation.

My educational background it is in. I was lecturer Oil the -staff.of the

Metropolitan Museum for 4 years, specializing in American history.
34

Later, I went on to the cultural staff at Mount Vernon Ladies Association on George Washington Homes.

I think the Scott-Grant estate is an excellent example of seriousminded, esthetic-minded citizens preserving our historical heritage.

Thank you. I oppose the bill.

Mr. RONCALIO. Thank you very much.

Do you have any questions ?

Thank you very much for appearing.

Our next witness is Mr. Quinton Vidor.

TESTIMONY OF QUINTON VIDOR, 3238 R STREET, NW.,

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. VIDOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am the contract purchaser of the property known as the "Guest

House" of the Scott-Grant estate. I am planning to go to settlement

on the property January 23, 1976.

My purpose in purchasing the property is to use it as my personal

residence. I am buying the property because of its good location,

beautiful surroundings and historical value. When signing the contract to purchase this house. I was aware that Mr. Reid A. Dunn, one

of the sellers, was planning to build a fourth dwelling on the estate.

Additionally, I knew that some of the neighbors were opposed to

Mr. Dunn's subdivision plans and especially the new house. I gave

careful consideration to whether or not a new dwelling would be

harmful to the estate. My conclusion was that it would not.

The estate is approximately 40,000 square feet and is located in a

zoning area which requires minimum lot sizes of 5,000 square feet.

Walking through the estate convinced me that an additional dwelling

would not diminish the beauty and historic feeling of the whole

property. Obviously this is my esthetic judgment, and I can understand that someone else might come to an opposite conclusion.

My support of Mr. Dunn's plans, however, is not based solely on

esthetic grounds. Aside from the fact that I want to live there and feel

the "Guest House" would be a valued property. I also feel that subdivision is the most economical way to preserve the estate. When I first

looked at the "Guest House," it was evident that the dwelling had not

been kept in first-rate condition. There was a leak in a gas connection,

paint and plaster were peeling off the walls and ceilings, and the roof

was leaking. Based on what I saw, I could only conclude that the

former owners, for whatever reason, were not able to adequately maintain the building's interior improvements. I don't say this as a criticism, for I believe that as a rented dwelling, it was and is probably

not economical to repair and maintain the property. My feeling is that

only an owner-occupier would spend the necessary funds and give

sufficient attention to preserve the house. Subdivision, therefore,

seemed to be both the most economical course to follow and best means

of maintaining the estate.

When signing the contract to purchase. I also agreed to place a

convenant on the front part of my lot, preventing the construction of

a fifth dwelling. This covenant, I believe, is ample proof of my desire,

along with the sellers, to preserve the open feel of the estate, as well as

its historical qualities.
35

Mr. RONCALIO. I have personally been down there and there were

one or two trees that were to be cut down and would it make it possible

for one building to go up there now or three trees? I am vaguely

familiar with the property. I used to wheel my first-born son along

there in many, many pleasant hours.

Mr. DUNN. Would you like me to answer?

Mr. RONCALIO. How many would you cut down to make this?

Mr. DUNN. We cut down two trees. One was roughly 5 inches in

diameter and the other one was a little smaller. None of them were

major trees on the estate and none of the major trees were touched or

will be touched.

Mr. RONCALIO. All right.

Thank you very much.

Mr. VIDOR. That is all.

Mr. RONCALIO. You oppose the legislation?

Mr. VIDOR. Yes, sir.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I do not think it has been clarified.

Mr. Chairman, if I could raise a question; and I am not sure you

can answer it, Mr. Vidor, or we may have to call back the counsel for

Mr. Dunn; but I think the record ought to show just what the contracts and the purchases will do to this property, who will own the

entire piece of property.

Mr. VIDOR. It will be owned by four different people.

Mr. WALSH. Four different people will own the immediate land

around their homes?

Mr. VIDOR. Yes; that is correct.

Mr. WALSH. So in effect you are subdividing the property into four

different parcels with four separate owners?

Mr. VIDOR. Yes.

Mr. WALSH. Thank you very much.

Mr. RONCALIO. Will all of this area of the estate be owned by the

four of you, or will there be a fifth portion left?

Mr. Du-NN. None left.

Mr. WALSH. I think I do have another question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Dunn, could you tell me whether under the District of Columbia

law that this then becomes a subdivision? I know in New York State

a subdivision is four or more properties. Is this now classified as a

subdivision?

Mr. DUNN. There is no such rule here, sir. In fact, it is possible to

subdivide a parcel in one part which is known as obtaining a record

lot. There is no such law here.

Mr. WALSH. So then there is no separate regulations that apply to

this so-called subdivision as a subdivision? This is just individual

pieces of property?

Mr. DUNN. This is a regulation of the District of Columbia subdivision regulations. Any subdivision of a parcel into one or more

parts is a subdivision.

MT. WALSH. I see.

Thank you very much.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, may I ask two quick questions!

You indicate your willingness to place a covenant on the front part

of your lot. Is that going to be a part of your closing tomorrow?

Mr. VIDOR. Yes.
36

Mr. MINETA. I was just wondering, Mr. Chairman, and would like

to ask our committee counsel, whether our inaction on this legislation

today will place any kind of a cloud on the title or on the property, or

any of the closing proceedings going on tomorrow ?

Mr. RONCALIO. I would say no as does a half a dozen laWyers over

there. Mr. Lenzner ?

Mr. :LENZNER. I do not think there will be a cloud legally. It will

just give People continuing concern but here there is no legal cloud.

Mr. RONCALIO. Thank you very much, Mr. Lenzner.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, since there was a fear expreskd about

another house being placed facing the Grant House to the right, is

there a covenant or anything in tomorrow's action that would prevent,

let us say, that fifth, or another house from being constructed to the

right of the Grant House?

Mr. DurNx. Yes. There is a deed restriction which will be written.

Mr. MINETA. There is a deed restriction preventing another home

from being built to the right, as you face the Grant Rouse?

Mr. purrisr. Yes.

Mr. MINETA. Thank you very much.

Mr. RONCALIO. Thank you, Mr. Mineta. We are relying on the fact

that there is this evidence before us today and it shows that there

will not be another building built even if the worst turns out to the

cries of those who would criticize the half tragedy instead of the

whole one; and at least it will be a half tragedy, not a whole one.

That is the way I understood your question, to sustain us in that belief

that there will not be another townhouse built on these premises.

Who knows what is going to happen 20 years from now'? But

assuming this easement of confidence will bind and run with that

landMr. DuNN. That is our intent, sir.

Mr. LENZNER. We would be glad to send a copy of the covenant

after it is signed tomorrow.

Mr. RONCALIO. That will be fine.

[The following was received for the record:]

TRUITT, FABRIICANT, BITCHLIN & LENZNER,

Washington, D.C., February 20, 1976.

Congressman TENO RONCALIO,

Chairman, House Subcommittee of Public Works and Transportation, U.S. House

of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR' CHAIRMAN RONCALIO : During the hearings before your Committee relating to proposed legislation H.R. 10306, we represented that the parties involved

in the purchase of the land were prepared to covenant that no structure would

be constructed on the remaining vacant portion of the land. •

PurSua'nt to said representations, I enclose herein a copy of the cc4renant

entered into by said parties that we believe adequately protects the remaining

land that faces on the street from any further construction.

I hope that this information will be of assistance to you.

Very truly yours,

TERRY F. LENZNFR.

This deed, made this the 23 day of January, 1976, by and between Reid A.

Dunn and wife, Eleanor B. Dunn, and Christian Dutilh. unmarried ; party or

parties of the first part, and Quentin C. Vidor, unmarried; party or parties

of the second part.

WITNES SETH, that for and in consideration of the sum of Ten and no/100

($10.00) -Dollars, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, the said party or

parties of the first part do grant unto the said party or parties of the second
37

part, in fee simple, the following described land and premises,- situate in -District of Columbia and known and distinguished as: Lot numbered Ninety-seven (97) in Square numbered Twelve Hundred Eighty (1280) in a subdiviSiOn made by Reid A. Dunn and Christian Dutilh, as per plat recorded in Liber 164 at folio 71 in the Office of the Surveyor for the District of Columbia.

Subject to a prohibition of above ground structures (excluding landscaping,

fences and garden walls) in the area north of a line coincident with the south facade of the now existing dwelling on Lot numbered Ninety-eight (98) in Square numbered Twelve Hundred Eighty (1280). '

The party of the second part does hereby covenants and agrees for himself, his heirs, successors and assigns that no above ground structures (excluding

landscaping, fences and garden walls) shall be constructed within and parallel

to an area to the east of a line drawn fifteen (15) feet easti,vard of the now existing dwelling located on the property described herein. The said fences and garden walls shall not exceed a height of five (5.00) feet. This covenant is for the benefit of the owners, heirs at law, successors and/assigns of Lot numbered Ninety-eight (98) in Square numbered Twelve Hundred Eighty (1280) and is to be considered as running with the land.

Together with all and singular the ways, easements, rights, privileges and

the appurtenances to the same belonging or in anywise appertaining, and all

the estate, right, title, interest, and claim, either at law or in equity, or other wise however, of the said party or parties of the first party, of, in, to, or out of the said land and premises.

And the said party or parties of the first part covenant that they, he or she will warrant specially the property hereby conveyed; and that they, he or she

will execute such further assurances of the said land as may be requisite.

In witness whereof, the said party or parties of the first part have hereunto

set their, his or her hands and seals on the day and year first hereinbefore

written.

REID A. DUNN,

ELEANOR B. DUNN,

CHRISTIAN DUTILH.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, SS:

To wit: I. Gerald Perras, a Notary Public in and for the said District of

Columbia, do hereby certify that Reid A. Dunn, Eleanor B. Dunn, Christian

Dutilh, who are personally well known to me as party or parties to and who

executed the foregoing and annexed Instrument bearing date on the 23rd day

of January, 1976, personally appeared before me in the said District of Columbia,

and acknowledged the same to be their, his or her act and deed.

Witness my hand and official seal this the 23rd day of January 1976.

GERALD R. PERRAS,

Notary Public.

My commission expires: July 14th, 1976.

Mr. RONCALIO. Our next witness is Colonel Robert F. Evans.

TESTIMONY OF COLONEL ROBERT F. EVANS, FOUNDATION FOR THE

PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC GEORGETOWN

Colonel EVANS. I am the president of the Foundation for the

Preservation of Historic Georgetown. You have my statement before

you which I presume is being entered in the record, so I will omit a

lengthy description.

Mr. RONCALIO. Let me at this time, without due objection order it

into the record at this point.

[The statement referred to follows:]

STATEMENT OF ROBERT F. EVANS, FOUNDATION FOR THE PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC

GEORGETOWN

Mr.- Chairman, I am Robert F. Evans, Colonel. •USA, Retired, President of

The Foundation for the Preservation of Historic Georgetown. The Foundation
38

welcomes this opportunity to respond to your invitation and express its views

on H.R. 10306, a bill that would authorize a governmental acquisition of the

historic Scott-Grant 'House in Georgetown.

The Foundation was established in 1965 by a small group of dedicated citizens

including Dean Acheson, David Finley, Robert Hale, Noel Macy and Admiral Neil

Phillips. The objective of the Foundation has been not only to preserve the historic

buildings of Georgetown but also the open spaces and general atmosphere of the

townscape. It has no endowment and depends on annual contributions from its

membership which is now between three and four hundred. Examples of its work

include the preservation of the two small historic cemeteries in north-east Georgetown which were in danger of becoming housing developments. By providing two

grants at the appropriate times the Foundation was instrumental in saving this

open area, and the cemeteries have now been designated historic landmarks. Another example is the provision of funds for structural repairs to the eighteenth

century building at 3210 M Street that once was the Town Hall of Georgetown.

Recently the Foundation has been acquiring scenic and facade easements to be

passed on to the National Trust for Historic Preservation. These easements preclude demolition or changes in the appearance of significant houses and preserves

them for future generations.

The Scott-Grant house at 3238 R Street is a house of major historical significance, and should be preserved. Built about 1854 on the highest point in Georgetown it was used by President Grant as a summer White House. To Democrats

it has a particular significance as it was during President Franklin D. Roosevelt's

administration, the famous "Little Red House" of the "Brain Trust."

Several years ago, after the home had been restored and refurbished it went on

the market, and the Foundation was offered a chance to buy it for $475,000, a

sum beyond our resources. Last year the Foundation offered to purchase a scenic

easement from the new owner but the offer was refused.

Mr. Chairman, we of the Foundation strongly support the proposed legislation

as an excellent solution to the problem. Acquisition by the General Services

Administrator will insure the preservation of this property. It is particularly

appropriate in this Bicentennial year.

May I, Mr. Chairman, also state that I am representing at this bearing another

organization, also dedicated to historic preservation, The Committee of 100 on the

Federal City, the oldest planning organization in the District of Columbia. At its

meeting of November 20, 1975. the Committee voted unanimously to support efforts

to preserve the Scott-Grant House and specifically to support H.R. 10306. At that

meeting I was asked to express at this hearing the Committee's strong support for

the proposed legislation.

In conclusion there are three reasons why the Foundation and the Committee

believe this legislation should be passed. The first is that this property is a highly

significant part of the Historic District of Georgetown, established by Public

Law 808-81st Congress, and placed on the National Register of Hiclorie Sites in

accordance with the Historic Preservation Act of 1966. P.L. 89-665. The second

is that the property itself has been designated an historic landmark by the Joint

Committee on Landmarks of the Fine Arts Commission and the National Capital

Planning Commission. The third is that this Bicentennial year is a highly appropriate time for the Congress to insure the preservation of a former summer

White House of one President and a staff base for another President.

This concludes our comments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RONCALIO. Proceed, sir.

Colonel EVANS. I Will omit a description of the Foundation and its

300-odd Georgetown residents who have banded together trying to

preserve our community.

will also omit a description of the Scott-Grant House. I think this

has been well covered in the discussions as have previous actions in

attempting to get control of it.

We strongly support the proposed legislation, as it is an excellent

• solution to a problem which cannot otherwise be solved. We have tried

other ways.

We fee) in the Bicentennial year, that a former residence of a President of the United States deserves some special attention, and it is a

national problem, as I believe has been pointed out.
39

I would like to say that that I am representing not only the "Foundation" but the Committee of 100 on the Federal City, which is the

oldest planning organization, I believe, in the District of Columbia.

At their meeting on November 20 last, they voted unanimously to

support this legislation, and I was directed to appear and report this

action to you.

We feel there are essentially three reasons why this legislation

would be desirable.

First, this is a significant part of the historic district of Georgetown, which was established by Public Law 808 of the 81st Congress

and placed on the National Register of Historic Sites, in accordance

with the Historic Preservation Act of 1966.

Second, the property itself has been designated a historic landmark by the Joint Committee on Landmarks of the Fine Arts Commission and the National Capital Planning Commission.

And, third, this is a Bicentennial year and this is the year, if Congress should choose to preserve places of historic interest as individual

places, that would be ideal for doing it. I hope I have abbreviated my

remarks sufficiently.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RONCALIO. I hope you did not abbreviate your case so as to

damage your case.

I do not want you to mean that much damage.

Colonel EVANS. In that case, I would be happy to continue.

Mr. RONCALIO. We have the crux of your position in the sustaining

evidence, that you supplied us.

Thank you.

Any questions from the left? [No response.]

Mr. RONCALIO. Any to my right?

[No response.]

Mr. RONCALIO. Thank you very much, Colonel Evans.

Before we call Mr. Henderson. we have in our midst former Congressman Robert Hale. from Maine; and you were going to say something this morning to us?

Do you want to acknowledge your presence? And it is nice to see you

back on the Hill.

Do yon want to say something in regard to this particular bill?

Mr. HALE. It gives me great pleasure to be here and I most hearilly

endorse what Colonel Evans has said.

Mr. RONCALIO. Thank you very much, Mr. Hale; and we are happy

to have you here and nice to see you.

Our next witness is Mr. Laurance Henderson.

TESTIMONY OF LAURANCE G. HENDERSON, 2400 VIRGINIA AVE.

NW., WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement. I think

I will summarize the points that I want to make in about 2 minutes.

Mr. RONCALIO. There being no objection, the full statement will be

admitted in the record and please proceed.

[The statement referred to follows:]
40

STATEMENT OP.LAURANCE G. RENDERSON

My .naine'ls Laurance G. Henderson. My permanent residence 'IS in Chatham,

Massachusetts. I -maintain a residence, as vvell, in Washington, D.C. at 2400

Virania Atvenue, N.W. -Between 1961 and 1970, 1 owned and occupied a house in

Georg.etown, located at 3413 P Street, N.W., a few blocks from the Scott-Grant

Estate. '

I have been active in the field of urban planning and historic preservation for

28 years -since 1947:- For several years I served as staff directOr on: the Urban

Growth Subcommittee of the United States House of Representatives Committee

on BaniOrtg and Currency. In 1965, while serving as Director ,of the _Special

Committee on Historic Preservation? appointed by the United States Conference

of Mayors, I directed the publication of a book entitled, With Heritage So Rick

(Randbm'HoUse, 1966). The book, which was funded impart by the Ford Foundation, served as a major impetus for the enactment of the Notional Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. S470 et seq.), which I personally authored.

Between 1963 and 1970, I served, by appointment of President Lyndon B. Johnson, as a 'Member of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (established

by 16 U.S.C. § 470 (I) ).' I also served under President Lyndon B. Johnson,

Richard M. Nixon, and Gerald R. Ford, and continue to serve thday, as a Member

of the-President's Advisory Council on National Parks Historic Sites, Buildings

and Monwr.tents, established by 16 U.S.C. § 463,2 which has the task, among other

things; of designating buildings for the National Register.

I am opposed to H.R. 10306. I am personally familiar with the Estate, both the

interior of the buildings and the grounds surrounding the buildings. In addition,? I have reviewed Mr. Dunn's plans for restoration of the Estate and construction of a new dwelling.

The Scott-Grant Estate has been confronted with a problem that is typical

of large properties in these times. Although magnificient, the property has ceased

to function- as an estate due to rising taxes and maintenance costs, and changing

life styles.. Without constant attention and care, it has been permitted to languish

and deteriorate over the past few years. Realistically, the cost of the estate is

beyond the means of most individual families. Further, given the large size of the

main house, those individual families who could afford the estate would not

require, in all probability, the use of all three buildings. Practically speaking,

therefore, the estate is no longer viable as an entity.

Any plan for preservation that would reverse the deterioration of the estate,

while at the same time preserve and maintain its essential character, is to be

commended and encouraged. As one who is engaged in the preservation of historic

homes, it is my opinion that subdivision into four parts, including only one new

dwelling,..is reasonable and suitable when such a change would inject renewed

life into the, property.

I do nbt 'view the Applicants' plan as "development." When a land area that

could support seven dwellings is available, the restoration of three existing buildings -and the construction of one new dwelling can hardly be characterized as

"development." Rather, it is a good example of how private enterprise, if sufficiently breative and flexible, can foster the preservation of older historic structures without sacrificing economic viability. Because public and philanthropic

funds are limited, historic preservation by the private sector should be encouraged, where possible. In addition, even assuming that public or philanthropic

funds couldbe obtained for restoration, it is far more beneficial to the community

to have the houses privately occupied and maintained rather than used by some

The functions of the Connell are as follows: (1) [to] advise the President and the

Congress on matters relating to historic preservation; recommend measures to coordinate

activities tor Federal, State, and local agencies and private institutions and individuals

relating to historic preservation; and advise on the diSsemination of information pertaining

to such activities; (2) [to] encourage, in cooperation with the National Trust for Historic

Preservation and appropriate private agencies, public interest and participation in historic preservation; (3) [to] recommend the conduct of studies in such areas as the

adequacy of legislative and administrative statutes and regulations pertaining to historic

preservation activities of State and local governments and the effects of tax policies at

all levels of, government on historic preservation; (4) [to] advise as to guidelines for the

assistance -of State and local governments in drafting legislation relating to historic

preservation-;, and .(5) [to] encourage, in cooperation with appropriate public and private

agencies and institutions, training and education in the field of historic preservation.

2 The functions of the Board are : . . . to advise on any matters relating to national

parks and to the administration of sections 461 to 467 of this title submitted to it for

consideration by the Secretary. It may also recommend policies to the Secretary from time

to time pertaining to national parks and to the restoration, reconstruction, conservation,

and general administration of historic and archaeologic sites, buildings, and properties.
41

federal organization as an office complex. The area is not even zoned for offices.

When Mr. Dunn purchased the Scott-Grant Estate, it was vacant and deteriorating. His plan has already brought about extensive restoration of the main

house. If carried to completion, it will result in the complete restoration and

preservation of the main house, guest house and carriage house. I believe he

should be commended for rescuing this estate and for his restraint in building

only a house for his own family here, where others are possible and profitable.

He has observed the two basic tenets of historic preservation—keeping the

property in use, and preserving its structures. For this to be done in the private

sector is most unusual.

Accordingly, I oppose this Bill. There are a host of historic properties in

America which desperately need the attention of the Federal government before

•they are destroyed. This is not one of them. This Bill, while possibly in the

private interests of a few citizens, is not in the public interest. The money could

well be used elsewhere and, rather than take the homes of these four citizens

who have, in good faith, restored this property, we should commend them.

Mr. HENDERSON. In 1965, I served on the chairmanship of the

Special Committee on Historic Preservation and I later helped author

the drafting of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which

established a national registration of historic landmarks, and I have

served on the committee that reviews those landmarks since that time.

There are now criteria for selecting a property for the landmarks

and it has to have national historic or achitectural merit. We have

12,000 properties on the landmark national register.

Mr. RONCALIO. In the Nation?

Mr. HENDERSON. In the Nation.

All that means is they get a bronze plaque. You can tear it down the

next day. This is not considered a national historic landmark or

architectural or historic landmark and it is not on the national register.

I think that should be made very clear; and that summarizes my

testimony.

I speak here as a private individual.

Mr. RONCALIO. I appreciate your testimony.

You would list this beneath the 800 you were talking about? You

would list this 'beneath the value of 

Mr. HENDERSON. Of the top 12,000. It is a very attractive building.

I am not denying that; but it does not have national merit, nationally

or historically.

Mr. RONCALIO. Thank you. We have been fighting that bill and we

have one last witness, Mrs. Rawlings. Would you please come forward?

TESTIMONY OF IRENE N. K. RAWLINGS, BOULDER, COLO.

Mrs. RAWLINGS. I think I can be brief.

Mr. RONCALIO. Thank you so much. We appreciate that.

Mrs. RAWLINGS. I submitted a rather strong statement concerning

the preservation of the Scott-Grant House itself. This was my main

concern—the house and the grounds, because of the design of the house

and the age of the house. I am concerned with the architectural history

of this house rather than the actual history of the house and the

Presidents who lived in it and so on. I am very much relieved by the

covenant which evidently is going to prevent other houses from being

built close to the mansion. This is the convenant the developer, Mi..

Dunn, spoke of in his testimony.

The difficulty arises often that when properties like this .are developed, sufficient geological surveys are not made to determine
42

precisely what the excavation near the foundation of the old house

will do to the foundation of that old house and whether it might not

necessitate the eventual condemning of the house. This happened

recently when the Brazilian Embassy on the corner of Massachusetts

and Whitehaven was built. The excavator went down deep and hit

an underground stream. The two houses on either side were undermined and condemned. Possibly this was not obvious to the builder

but it is of very much concern to me that the proper geological surveys were not made in this case either and I fear this might necessitate

the eventual tearing down of the Scott-Grant House. This is why I

made, on the first page of my testimony, the very strong architectural

statement saying why I thought this house ought to be preserved. I

think we really- ought to wake up to the fact that in our headlong rush

toward something called progress we destroy things that it will not be

in our power to replace—ever. I hope that the covenant that will be

placed on this land by Mr. Dunn, Mrs. Russell, Mr. Frey, and Mr.

Vidor will prevent what I foresaw when I wrote my statement from

happening.

Mr. RONCALIO. All right.

We will include your prepared statement in the record; and I want

to thank you very much for coming and giving us the benefit of your

feelings on this.

[Statement referred to follows

STATEMENT OF IRENE M. K. RAWLINGS

Mr. Chairman: I welcome this opportunity to express my views on H.R. 10306,

a landmark bill which would authorize governmental acquisition of the historic

Scott-Grant House and its grounds.

I am Irene M. K. Rawlings; my home is Boulder, Colorado where I am affiliated

in executive positions with Historic Boulder, Inc. and Historic Denver, Inc. Finding myself in Washington, D.C. for a period of one year, I asked the Foundation

for the Preservation of Historic Georgetown to give me leave to catalogue, by

street and number, the historic buildings in Georgetown appearing on lists compiled by The Historic American Buildings Survey, the Joint Committee on Landmarks, and the National Register of Historic Places. As my work progressed, I

was horrified at the number of buildings which have been destroyed (e.g. the

Corcoran House at 3119 M St. NW. and the Francis Scott Key House at 3518

M St. NW.) and most of these since the early 1950's. Again and again I am

appalled at the number of historically and architecturally significant houses that

are delivered up to the wrecker's ball here while we in Colorado are standing

on our heads to preserve and restore buildings not half as historic nor a quarter

as beautiful.

It is important to preserve the Scott-Grant House and its setting not only for

its historic value—we all know that it was the summer home of President U. S.

Grant while he was in the White House—but for its individual architectural

merit. Its design is Southern colonial with unusually large chimneys and long

windows. One of the finest features is the well-proportioned main doorway with

a window above it. The delicate shell design—harking back to the previous

century—above the central second story window as well as the engaged columns

and pilasters are unusual in a house of this size. I feel that it is impossible to

preserve the architectural integrity of this house if one is to continue to allow

the surrounding land to be developed. This house was not designed to be a row

house and we do it an injustice to make it look clumsy and misshapen—as it

will if the land around it is removed—instead of graceful and stately.

I think it is time to wake up to the fact that we, in our determined rush

toward this elusive thing called progress, are destroying things of such quality

that it will never be within our power to replace them. It is impossible to justify

this wanton action to posterity. Please remember that if we save this house we

have not taken irrevocable action, but if we destroy it we have. Thank you.
43

Mr. RoNcALio. That concludes the hearing on this matter.

Before adjourning, I ask that the letter received from Mayor

Walter Washington, commenting on this legislation, be placed in the

record.

[The letter referred to follows:]

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Washington, D.C., January 22, 1976.

Hon. ROBERT E. JONES,

Chairman, Committee on Public Works and Transportation, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR Mn. CHAIRMAN: The Government of the District of Columbia has for

report H.R. 10306, a bill "To authorize the Administrator of General Services to

acquire certain property in the District of Columbia for use for Federal purposes."

The bill would authorize the Administrator of the General Services Administration to acquire title to the real property located at 3238 R Street, Northwest, in the District of Columbia known as the Scott-Grant House. Following such

acquisition, the bill authorizes the Administrator to undertake such reconstruction and repair of the property as will place it in a restored condition, and thereafter make such property available to the Federal agency or department which

the President determines will best be able to utilize it.

The property to which H.R. 10306 refers is currently privately-owned. The

owners of the Scott-Grant House, following established procedures for creating

a subdivision, applied to the appropriate offices of the District Government for

authorization to make certain alterations to the existing buildings and for the

construction of a new structure on the property. The request of the owners was

subjected to the requirements of D.C. Regulation No. 73-25, relating to the

demolition or alteration of historic structures, and on June 25, 1975, the State

Historic Preservation Officer, D.C., determined that the proposed alterations

would not be contrary to the public interest and should not be delayed. This

decision was made following favorable advice of both the Joint Committee on

Landmarks and the Commission of Fine Arts.

On September 22, 1975, the District Government approved the subdivision of

the Scott-Grant property into four lots, and the new structure, now under construction, is to be located in the northeast corner of the property. The new structure has been carefully designed to appear as an outbuilding subordinate to the

principal house and the owners of the property consulted extensively with the

Commission of Fine Arts to minimize the impact of this construction on the street

facade and on the individual landmark.

The enactment of H.R. 10306 will result in a potential loss in District revenues

of at least $8,216 which represents the approximate amount of local real property

taxes paid by the owners of the Scott-Grant property in fiscal year 1975. Subdivision of the estate would in all probability cause a higher assessment and thus

an additional loss in tax revenues.

While we believe that the ultimate utilization of this property is essentially a

local matter and should be governed by the application of local procedures and

policies, the District Government would offer no objection should the Congress

determine that it is in the national interest that H.R. 10306 be enacted. Our

views in this respect are conditioned upon the understanding that Federal funds

will be used in the acquisition of this property and that the District of Columbia

will be put to no expense in connection with such acquisition. It is our further

desire that the passage of H.R. 10306 will not serve as a precedent for the

acquisitiott for Federal uses or purposes of other large estates in historic districts which may be subject to subdivision.

Sincerely yours,

WALTER E. WASHINGTON, Mayor.

Mr. RONCALIO. The subcommittee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:23 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]