By Lukas Pender Kohler and Jim Arkedis, Published: September 13
In
July, the D.C. Office of Planning submitted a draft of its new zoning
regulations, following a six-year review. Much of the media attention in
response focused on parking issues but, notably, the review made few
significant changes to the city’s residential zoning code. This suggests that
the Office of Planning values the character of the District’s neighborhoods and
its mix of low- and high-density residential units.
Unfortunately
our experience, and subsequent research, shows that, in practice, the Board of
Zoning Adjustment (BZA) — the body that grants variances to the code — serve as
a large developers’ loophole, undermining the District’s longstanding
preference for maintaining the look and feel of its communities.
We
attended the July Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) meeting in Columbia
Heights to oppose a developer’s effort to secure the ANC’s endorsement of his
request for a zoning variance. The developer was seeking to alter a
single-family structure to create four condos on a lot that is zoned for a
maximum of three.
To
be clear, we support development and the reinvigoration that has taken place
throughout much of the District over the past 10 years. Higher-density residential
buildings are welcome, but they can and should be accommodated within current
zoning rules. In the case above, the code already permitted the conversion of
the single-family unit into three condos. It is unclear why a fourth was
necessary — beyond the developer’s stated goal of increasing his profits.
The
trouble with zoning variances is that they circumvent the rules by which the
city manages development. Because fixed rules cannot apply to all situations,
zoning variances should be allowed in exceptional circumstances. Unchecked,
however, they can create a significant burden on our communities, for three
reasons:
Density:
The zoning code sets aside areas for low-density development to accommodate
families in the urban center. Certain variances create higher densities than
envisioned, reducing available street parking, overloading infrastructure such
as sewer lines (a cause of flooded basements) and eroding the appeal of
single-family neighborhoods.
Affordable
housing: Excessive zoning variances can distort the real estate market and
artificially drive housing prices higher. A sophisticated investor, reasonably
sure of receiving a variance to convert a single-family home into a multi-unit
apartment, will outbid other potential home buyers.
Aesthetics:
Often developers will tear through the roof of a rowhouse to accommodate a
third or fourth unit, destroying the architectural cohesion of townhouse rows
and their historical facades, a defining characteristic of many D.C.
neighborhoods.
The
BZA’s mandate is to review variance requests using a three-pronged test to
ensure that a variance is truly necessary and neither harms the public good nor
undermines the overall zoning code. For residentially zoned areas, variance
requests are typically for permission to add units beyond the limits set in the
code.
That’s
why in isolation, one developer’s request for ANC support for one extra unit
may not seem troubling. However, this anecdote is indicative of a disturbing
trend in Washington’s hot real estate market.
Our
suspicions about the bigger picture prompted us to request data from the Office
of Planning on all the variances allowed by the zoning panel. The figures show
that applications for residential variances have increased steadily over the
past several years, doubling between 2006 and 2013. And, astonishingly, the BZA
has approved 95 percent of those requests, sometimes over the objection of the
Office of Planning and the local ANC. These data demonstrate that the BZA is
making the approval of variance requests the rule, not the exception, to the
detriment of our communities.
We
fear that the approval rate is so high because of the coziness between the
zoning board and real estate community, at least in part. The former board
chair, for example, is now a lawyer who represents investors seeking variances,
work she is allowed to do because the “cooling off” period after leaving the
board is a mere six months.
If
the District has confidence in its residential zoning code — which, after all,
city planners have just reaffirmed after a painstaking review — then zoning
variances should be rare. The high rate of approval indicates that the process
needs reform. For starters, we suggest a longer cooling-off period before
former members can do business with the board, an enhanced review process to
ensure strict and consistent application of the zoning board’s mandate, a
broader definition of “detriment to the public good” that includes
characteristics such as architectural beauty and livability, and public reporting
of aggregate data on variances so patterns like the one we discovered are
immediately visible to all.
The
writers are homeowners in the District’s Columbia Heights neighborhood.
No comments:
Post a Comment