Opinion ID: 2068368
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The BZA's Decision and Order

Text: The BZA made specific findings (No. 27-32) pertaining to the impact of Dorchester's proposed development: 27. [T]he substantially smaller lot and larger dwelling sizes are out of character with the existing neighborhood. Also, the siting of the proposed dwellings, particularly the dwelling on Lot F which is only 11 feet from the neighboring residence, is out of character with the existing neighborhood and inconsistent with the purpose of the Overlay. 28. The Board ... agrees with the testimony presented by the representative from the National Park Service: the development would have a billboard effect, particularly the proposed dwelling on Lot 3 which would tower over Chain Bridge Road. 29. The Board credits the testimony and report presented by Mary Sears, Civil Engineer and storm water management expert; in particular, findings that: (a) the Applicant did not provide sufficient calculations to determine whether storm water retention and discharge facilities are sufficient to handle the storm water on the property, (b) the proposed storm water management methods are untested, (c) the proposed storm water management methods are not typically used in residential developments, (d) the capacity and constructability of the storm water management system is unknown, and (e) the extensive grading and excavation required for the installation of the system will threaten the survival of protected trees. 30. Because the effectiveness of the proposed storm water system has not been demonstrated, neighboring property owners would not be protected from runoff damage. 31. Because the effectiveness of the proposed storm water system has not been demonstrated, adjacent parkland and parkland stream would not be protected from additional storm water runoff or lower quality of water. 32. The Board credits the testimony and reports presented by the UFA, and the testimony presented by Earl Eutsler. In particular, the Board adopts his findings that: (a) the density and number of houses proposed, and the required infrastructure would fatally damage an overwhelming number of protected trees; (b) although the proposed storm water management is in close proximity to, and in many cases, conflicts with the trees' critical root zones, the tree preservation plan does not adequately detail the necessary construction safeguards; (c) the scope of pre-construction tree pruning is understated, especially the pruning of the sixteen American beech trees. These findings substantially mirror the expressed concerns of Advisory Neighborhood Commission 3D. In addition, they reflect points highlighted by OP and UFA/DOT regarding the impact of the Dorchester proposal on the neighborhood and on historic area trees. In deciding whether to grant Dorchester's requested special exception for the construction of a theoretical lot subdivision for thirteen one-family homes, the BZA first examined one of two general tests for a special exception, as outlined in 11 DCMR § 3104.1: whether the special exception will ... tend to affect adversely, the use of neighboring property. [9] The Board concluded that the construction would affect adversely the use of neighboring property because: [T]he density of the project would be out of character with the area and inconsistent with the purposes of the Overlay, the proposed home on Lot 3 would tower over Chain Bridge Road creating a billboard effect, the proposed home on Lot F would be much too close to the neighboring property owner, the proposed storm water management sewers are untested and dependent upon a high level of maintenance which is not guaranteed, the system creates a risk to downstream property owners and neighboring parkland, and the system poses a risk to the critical root zones of the protected trees. In light of its conclusion that Dorchester's application failed under the general test for a special exception, the BZA deemed it unnecessary to examine each of the factors under 11 DCMR § 2516. Hence, the BZA limited its section 2516 examination to whether the Dorchester proposal met the criteria in subsection 2516.9 which specifies that: The proposed development shall comply with the substantive provisions of [the Zoning regulations] and shall not likely have an adverse effect on the present character and future development of the neighborhood. The BZA decided that for the same reasons articulated in its subsection 3104.1 analysis, it could not find compliance with subsection 2516.9. [10]