Opinion ID: 2068368
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Character of the Neighborhood and Adverse Effect on Neighboring Property

Text: On January 3, 2006, OP submitted a Supplemental Report on the Dorchester proposed project to the BZA. OP informed the BZA that the project generally meets the requirements of the Zoning Regulations and will not have an adverse impact on the character of the neighborhood. Despite its general support for Dorchester's application for a special exception, OP expressed concerns about the project and recommend[ed] approval with the following conditions: 1. Reduce the number of lots to 12 to better accommodate all remaining interior lots and to reduce the proposed narrow separation between new structures and adjoining properties to the west and north. 2. Provide information on the remediation for trees removed. 3. Provide a Soil and Sediment Control Plan to DOH for review. 4. Prohibit a gated community. 5. Plans approved for each house will be the unit built with some flexibility to allow minor changes when more detailed plans are finalized. 6. Monitor the protection of trees during construction. 7. Retaining walls will be constructed of concrete. 8. [Provide] a revised Site Plan showing the approved changes be submitted prior to Board approval. Ms. Brown-Roberts' oral testimony at the July 18, 2006 hearing reiterated the concerns and conditions set forth in OP's January 3, 2006 submission. Notably, the Chairperson of the BZA pointedly inquired what OP's position would be if the stated conditions weren't all adhered to[;] what would the OP's position be? Would it actually not be of approval? Ms. Brown-Roberts replied: Right. And I think it would not be of approval. In particular, Ms. Brown-Roberts emphasized the importance of Dorchester reducing the number of lots from 13 to 12, and expressed special concern for the proposed development of Lots 3 and F because even with the additional changes proposed by Dorchester, the houses will still be towering over the roadway and the house on Lot F is in close proximity to the house on the adjacent lot. Consequently, Ms. Brown-Roberts stated, OP believes that by removing Lot F more space can be created between the houses proposed for Lot[s] C and D and also for more sensitive treatment of the topography on Lots G and H and I by changing their lot lines and slight rear line in the proposed house locations. OP had remaining concerns about tree preservation, but deferred to UFA/DOT on tree issues. One other concern of OP centered on whether Dorchester's project proposal meets the purposes and goals of the CB/UT Overlay regulations. Ms. Brown-Roberts elaborated on the reason why the CB/UT Overlay District was established and, generally, how the purposes of the District are achieved: Regarding the Chain Bridge Road/University Terrace Overlay District, this was established to preserve and enhance the park-like setting of the [CB/UT] area by regulating alteration or disturbance of terrain, the destruction of trees and ground coverage of permitted buildings and other impervious surfaces by providing for widely spaced residences. To reach its goal, the overall specific lot occupancy and ground coverage restrictions that work in conjunction with the requirements of the R-1-A Zone and limitation on theoretical lots, the purposes of the overlay [are] outlined in [11 DCMR § ] 1565.2.... Thus, the ultimate question for OP was not whether Dorchester's proposed project generally meets the requirements of the Zoning Regulationit doesbut whether the minimum is sufficient to allow approval of a special exception for a project in the CB/UT Overlay District. [5] As Ms. Brown-Roberts testified on July 18, 2006: Well, as I said, ... the 13 lots that are here, if you look at the requirements that are outlined in [11 DCMR § ] 2516,... the setbacks and all that, they do meet that. However, there are some other areas where we think that meeting the minimum is not enough, because this is a special area. We may need to go a little bit beyond the minimum. And so that is where our concern is. So we're generally supportive of the application, but we think that if it's reduced to 12 lots, then we have a better development and that's what we're looking for. In response to a question, Ms. Brown-Roberts acknowledged that Dorchester has shown no willingness to reduce the number of units. Another witness at the July 18, 2006 hearing was David Murphy, representing the National Park Service. He expressed concern about Dorchester's design for the proposed development, describing it as basically a billboard presentation. He also articulated greater concern about Lot 4 than Lot 3, as well as Dorchester's proposed storm water management system. On September 12, 2006, counsel for the CB/UT Committee submitted to the BZA a comparative chart of lot sizes and density of existing properties and Dorchester's proposed project. [6] For existing properties, the chart revealed an average property size of 22,778 square feet, an average dwelling size of 3,883 square feet, and a density of 23.39%. For Dorchester's proposal, the chart showed an average lot size of 9,938 square feet, an average dwelling size of 7,731 square feet, and an average density per lot of 77.97%. At the September 19, 2006 hearing, Stan Andrulis, Dorchester's architect, gave testimony and introduced exhibits refuting the chart submitted by the CB/UT Committee. [7] Dorchester's exhibits were based on 45 of the 48 existing properties for which it was able to locate data about lot size and total building area. Dorchester computed an average lot size of 19,000 square feet for the 45 existing properties compared with 9,900 square feet for its lot sizes. However, Mr. Andrulis maintained that the average total building area for the 45 existing properties is almost 6,500 square feet, rather than the 3,900 square feet shown by the CB/UT Committee's chart, and stated that Dorchester's average total building area is 7,300 square feet. [8] He concentrated on comparative statistics for homes built after 1999 when the CB/UT Overlay was in effect. He also addressed tree protection issues, including ground disturbance, and the critical root zone for beech trees. The BZA's January 9, 2007 hearing on the Dorchester application focused on oral comments by BZA members and their reactions to evidence presented. They emphasized the intent of the CB/UT Tree and Slope Overlay regulationsthe preservation of the natural topography of the area and the trees to the maximum extent feasible. They noted the billboard effect of the development, its size, and the impact on the park. They were troubled about storm water management issues, specifically the impervious nature of the terrain and the maintenance of the system.