The immediate prior Bloomingdale Neighborhood blog post is content supplied by ANC5E09 Commissioner Dianne Barnes. One of the items that she supplied was the DC Historic Preservation Office Mayor's Agent response to the DC Court of Appeals McMillan remand.
It would be helpful to have a separate post here at the blog JUST for this PDF.
So a public hearing has been announced for Friday, 03-10-2017, to allow the Applicants an opportunity to respond to the four issues listed below.
Here is the text:
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
OFFICE OF PLANNING, HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
MAYOR'S AGENT FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
1100 4TH STREET SW, SUITE E650
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024
HPA Nos. 14-393 and 15-133
In the Matter of:
Applications of Vision McMillan Partners LLC and
the District of Columbia Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (“Applicants”)
2501 (2507) First Street NW
(McMillan Sand Filtration Site)
Square 3128, Lot 800
In response to the remand of this proceeding by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in its opinion Friends of McMillan Park v. District of Columbia Zoning Commission (Nos. 15-AA0493, 15-AA-0525, 15-AA-0536, 15-AA-0572 and 15-AA-1008) (“the Appeal”), issued on December 8, 2016, the Mayor’s Agent Hearing Officer hereby gives notice of an additional public hearing to be held on March 10, 2017 at 10:00 a.m., at 1100 4th Street SW, Room 650, the scope of which will be limited to following issues:
1) Do the proposed project’s historic preservation benefits taken as a whole outweigh its historic preservation harms? Slip op. at 28. In addressing this question, the applicants are requested to provide legal analysis as to how such an inquiry should be conducted consistent with the Historic Landmark and Historic District Protection Act, D.C. Code §§ 6-1102 (10), 1101 (b), 1104 (e), and 1106 (e).
2) What are the specific architecture, land planning, and\or community benefits that individually or collectively make this a project of special merit within the meaning of D.C. Code § 61102(11)?
3) Is the proposed demolition and subdivision necessary to obtain the special merit benefits identified? Could an economically viable mixed-use development meeting the goals of the comprehensive plan be constructed on the site with less demolition and no subdivision?
4) Are there reasonable alternatives that would achieve the same special merit benefits that would avoid or reduce the need demolition or subdivision?
The parties in this remand proceeding are the Applicants and the petitioners in the Appeal, namely Friends of McMillan Park, McMillan Coalition for Sustainable Agriculture, and DC for Reasonable Development. The Applicants have the burden of proof as to all issues. All parties may present testimony and evidence supplementary to the existing record and legal argument and in doing so are enjoined to coordinate presentations and remain within the scope of the additional hearing as stated above.
Date: January 11, 2017 Confirmed:
J. Peter Byrne Eric D. Shaw
Mayor’s Agent Hearing Officer Director, D.C. Office of Planning