Monday, June 29, 2015

ABC7 story on 67 V St NW: "Pop-up home development raises safety concerns for some neighbors in NW DC"

Click on the link to read the entire ABC7 TV news story:




Pop-up home development raises safety concerns for some neighbors in NW D.C.

WASHINGTON (WJLA) - The development of a pop-up property is raising safety concerns for some residents after a partial collapse of a home under renovation.
Anti-pop-up neighbors got his project shut down Sunday, June 28 calling in police, fire crews and consumer and regulatory affairs officials and said they feared the way his crews were using a backhoe might affect adjacent properties.
After a brief meeting with Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) officials Monday morning, Moraes was back in business, though he did not have to put the correct names on his various permits, which had been in the name of the previous property owner.
....



xxx

13 comments:

  1. So forgive me.....i fail to understand how this guy got a permit to build a popup clearly against all the rules when it doesn't seem to correspond to any of the newly laid our regluations. I thought that the text made it imperative to be permitted prior to Feb for 2-3 unit buildings and prior to July 2014 for anything else. This guy did not even buy this building until a few weeks ago. How is this "under the line"..... or was DCRA just joking when they said that they were going to make the regulations rectroactive to July 2014?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The vesting dates apply to completed permit applications - not the permit approval dates. Unfortunately, they got their permit just under the wire.

      Does anyone know what happened with the ANC voting to request that the permit be revoked?

      Delete
  2. So there was a permit application prior to February (or July) for these properties? Which is why all the permitting was done in the former owners name i imagine?

    ReplyDelete
  3. This all seems so fishy..... seems like the guy has someone on the inside watching out for this interests....

    ReplyDelete
  4. They need to have the inspector general come in and do an independent investigation/audit of DCRA's permitting process. You can tell almost instantly which developers have long standing relationships with the permit reviewers as they laugh and backslap and the reviewer mindlessly stamps the pages of the plans without looking twice.

    Meanwhile homeowners trying to get a permit on their own will be sent back repeatedly for revisions on their plans (unless they pay an expediter $300 who has the relationships), pulling their hair out. I saw my reviewer (as he was failing my plans drawn up by an architect) tell his neighboring reviewer that he shouldn't have approved a developer's application for an apartment building because there were something wrong with the plans.

    The neighboring reviewer just shrugged and it was clearly evident that he knew the applicant.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Information about the permit:

    I owned the house until mid December. My family lived in it for 10 years, and we put a lot of work and love into it. It was full of unpainted wood and original features. It breaks my heart to see what is happening to it, and I feel horrible for the wonderful neighbors living on either side.

    We didn't have much information about the buyer before we accepted the contract; and when asked, our real-estate agent had said that he was unlikely to be a developer. By the time we found out the truth, it was too late. The name on the posted permit WAS my name, and I called DCRA as soon as I heard. DCRA claims that the name on the permit was a clerical error, and that the permit was applied for in March by WS Homes.

    ReplyDelete
  6. IT IS TIME FOR A MAJOR INVESTIGATION OF DCRA!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Today is the last day to comment on the confirmation of a new DCRA Director. Info found here:

    http://dccouncil.us/files/user_uploads/event_testimony/PR21-169_HN.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anax Moraes & A/X Carpenters - why do you tear down our single family Bloomingdale homes! We don't want this type of development, it's no longer legal!

    ReplyDelete
  9. So Alex if it was indeed applied for in March (because it was a clerical error), then how on earth is this legal????? The laws now specify prior to February (for 2-3 units) and prior to last July for all others...barring special exception of which neither 42W or 67V have that i know. So again. I would say that the community has a great case against either DCRA or Anax Moraes or both ..... and i would also agree that perhaps it is time for a full investigation of the inner workings of DCRA as this stuff does not make sense.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Please review DCRA FAQs:
    http://dcra.dc.gov/page/faqs-how-zoning-commissions-vote-case-14-11-affects-permits-and-permit-applications

    The permit for 67 V was issued a few days before the new regulations went into effect.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Permit issued right before the zoning rules were published And right when Anax Moraes & A/X Carpenters became involved - I understand that it was previously with Richard Wang (i.e., WS HOMES 67 V ST LLC), although the property doesn't appear to have been sold. . . Jenifer – wouldn’t you want to know the ties between A/X Carpenters and DCRA?

    ReplyDelete
  12. The permit application was accepted as complete by DCRA before July 17, 2014; or
    • DCRA issued the building permit allowing the project before June 26, 2015.

    Perhaps i'm thick...or is this tautological? It's like saying we will accept projects only if the application was completed before July last year. And we will also accept projects if we decided they are ok as of June of this year.

    There was a huge ruckus among developers when DCRA's "retroactive" regulations were announced. So my deep suspicion is that second clause was introduced after said ruckus. In any case it does not make sense. You have to have completed your application before last July OR we have to have recently said yes to a new application. It seems to have made the first clause completely unnecessary. Why not just say if we approved it before June 26 it's good?

    ReplyDelete