Tuesday, February 17, 2015

a Bloomingdale neighbor requests support for the pop-up moratorium, approval of ZC Case 14-11, DCRA

From: Katelijn van den Berg
Subject: Pop-up Moratorium, approval of ZC Case 14-11, DCRA
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 04:04:58 +0100

Hi Scott.
                               
StopthePOPdc is organizing an email blast to request the mayor, council members, DCRA, zoning commission etc to provide for a moratorium on POP-ups, approval of Zoning Commission Case 14-11 and improvement of the function of DCRA
       
Could you post the sample letter and email addressed below so that others in Bloomingdale who are suffering from POP-ups can also send this request?
Kind regards
Katelijn


   
To: eom@dc.gov; melinda.bolling@dc.gov; eric.shaw@dc.gov; sara.bardin@dc.gov; matt.legrant@dc.gov; sharon.schellin@dc.gov; dc.oag@dc.gov; vzvenyach@dccouncil.us; jennifer.steingasser@dc.gov; rabbiah.sabbakhan@dc.gov; rohan.reid@dc.gov; matt.orlins@dc.gov; pmendelson@dccouncil.us; vorange@dccouncil.us; abonds@dccouncil.us; dgrosso@dccouncil.us; esilverman@dccouncil.us; bnadeau@dccouncil.us; jevans@dccouncil.us; mcheh@dccouncil.us; kmcduffie@dccouncil.us; callen@dccouncil.us; yalexander@dccouncil.us
CC: austinlewispearl@yahoo.com; stopthepopdc@gmail.com;
Subject: Pop-up Moratorium, approval of ZC Case 14-11, DCRA
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 04:01:02 +0100
     
Dear Sir or Madame,

           

I am writing as a concerned resident of Ward 5 in Washington, DC.  I am truly alarmed by the increasing number of rowhouses which are being converted into multifamily apartment buildings by constructing additional stories and enormous rear additions (“pop-ups”).  These pop-up multifamily apartments are having an adverse impact on my community in terms of reduced property values and damage to neighboring houses.  The infrastructure in my neighborhood is not sufficient to handle the additional sewage, parking needs and electricity loads.  While I understand there may be a need for additional housing in the city, I believe we need to preserve the number of single-family homes and the character of our rowhouse neighborhoods.

      

I realize the pop-up discussion may not be new to you.  However, there is a critical need to take decisive action now to protect the District’s rowhouse neighborhoods.  I unite with residents all over the District who are pleading to city officials for immediate relief.  As such, I urge you to consider and support the recommendations below.

      

WHAT:  Support the approval of ZC Case 14-11 (“Proposal”) which is currently being considered by the Zoning Commission.  The Proposal would reduce pop-up conversions in R-4 zones.  Among other things, the Proposal would eliminate the provision in the zoning regulations that allows for the conversion of rowhouses to multifamily buildings.

               

WHY:  Developers are using the current matter-of-right zoning regulations and special exceptions to convert rowhouses to multifamily apartment buildings.  Because of the matter-of-right nature of these conversions, neither adjoining homeowners, the community nor the ANC have any input into the size and scale of these conversions or the effect on the neighborhood.  Adoption of ZC Case 14-11 will prevent the conversion of rowhouses to multifamily buildings and protect the character of our rowhouse neighborhoods and the remaining supply of rowhouses with three or more bedrooms. 

             

WHAT:  I request an immediate moratorium on the approval of building permits by DCRA for projects to convert a single-family rowhouse to a multifamily apartment building (pop-up).

           

WHY:  A moratorium on approval of permits for pop-up construction would allow the Zoning Commission time to obtain additional information from the Office of Planning and revise the zoning regulations to address District residents’ concerns about pop-up construction. This is particularly important in the R-4 zone where pop-up conversions are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which defines the R-4 zone as primarily single-family rowhouses (perhaps with basement apartments), not as multifamily buildings. Without an immediate, emergency moratorium on approval of pop-up building permits, our homes and communities will continue to endure permanent and irreparable harm from pop-up developments.

      

WHAT:  Improvement of DCRA policies and procedures related to permit application, review and issuance to ensure compliance with all applicable rules and regulations.   

       

WHY:  It is imperative that DCRA improves the manner in which it reviews and approves permit applications.  There are numerous examples from District residents and testimony submitted to the Zoning Commission where permits have been issued for pop-up construction despite violations of the zoning regulations and the District’s building code.  For example, there are multiple instances of DCRA issuing permits for pop-up construction without enforcing compliance with the notification requirements to protect adjoining properties.  In addition, during construction of pop-ups, there are many examples of developers working outside the scope of the permit and a lack of swift action from DCRA to issue stop work orders, resulting in extensive damage to neighboring properties.  Moreover, permits have been issued for pop-up conversions where construction of an additional story resulted in the pop-up being built too close to the chimney of the adjoining home in violation of the District’s building code.  Immediate improvement of DCRA’s permitting policies and procedures is needed to protect homeowners.   

     

My sincere thanks for your time. I hope you will consider and support my recommendations to protect our beautiful homes and communities.

  

Sincerely,

  

Katelijn van den Berg

V street, NW

Washington DC


12 comments:

Todd said...

I sent a personal note and Councilmember Elissa Silverman responded personally....copying her LA Ari Weisbard.... saying she was considering the moratorium. So personal message might be welcome and best to keep it real short and 2) mention a specific popup you wish to stop (or regret).

Jenifer said...

Sent my emails today too! Way too many "ugly" popups and too large pop-backs!

Anonymous said...

I sent a similar email with the exact opposite message. Stop this subsidy to homeowners who are seeking to inflate their property values even more. We need more housing, not less, etc etc.

Bloomingdale Resident said...

The phrases "subsidy to homeowners" and "inflate their property values" do not seem like ones that would come from a neighbor who doesn't have a financial interest in pop ups, whether for their own house, or as part of their business. Almost everyone who testified against the zoning amendment was a developer or a realtor.

Todd said...

Subsidy? Where was that when the bullets were flying in Bdale? Were you here LDD or did you just come to earn a buck? I don't know what you mean, but i know one thing...i paid for my house myself in dollars, sweat and fear when my neighbors were getting shot down in front of my house (twice in fact). So take your free market bullshit somewhere else.

Anonymous said...

Hi Bloomingdale resident,

I don't have any financial interest in this issue-- I'm a renter, so my property values really aren't going to be directly affected, and I'm certainly not a developer who is interested in making an ugly popup. I just want a city that is less expensive for people to live in.

The people who testify at zoning commission hearings usually have a financial interest, or lots of time on their hands. I'd guess that most of the people who testified in favor of the zoning change own R-4 zoned rowhouses (to which they have no desire to add pop-ups), so have a financial stake in keeping their neighborhoods uniform.

Anonymous said...

Hi Todd,

I'm not a developer, and don't have a direct financial stake in these regulations. I also really don't get your argument-- you were here when bullets were flying and neighbors were gunned down, and that happens less now, so therefore you should be able to stop your neighbors from building additions to their rowhouses? That makes no sense to me.

I don't oppose the zoning change based on some ridiculous free market ideology. The residential housing market is regulated to the point of not resembling a free market in any real sense, and that's as it should be. I oppose the zoning change because I don't think neighbors should be able to keep people out of their neighborhood because housing the number of people we need to house would be ugly. I don't WANT ugly pop-ups, but I'm willing to accept them if it will help deal with our crisis housing shortage, even in a small way.

Todd said...

Here is the argument ( a relatively simple one): I spent my life savings on my home in Bloomingdale and I bought it under a certain set of assumptions. Those were: 1) i wasn't going to have to listen to 3/4 apts through a shared wall; 2) i had a relatively private backyard to enjoy with my family; 3) that my backyard would be well lit and capable of growing a variety of plants; 4) that my family and i were not at risk of fire, flood damage or any other issue that comes with sharing a wall with 3/4 units rather than one.

I put my life savings into my home and i enjoy it as it is. I don't want that to change. If you change it by attaching a condo to my shared wall, it comes with a variety of disadvantages for me and my family. This is not even considering the question of impact on my property value should i desire to relocate after the condo moves in. So.... if you want to increase your buck at my expense i have a problem with that. Does that make sense to you?

Todd said...

Oh and build condos....density is fine. Just not attached to my rowhouse.

Todd said...

And finally....to address your other point.... my point is that this idea that somehow the idea that the folks in the neighborhood want to close the door behind them and keep other people and their "ugly" houses out.... if you don't believe in the concept of maintaining the city's "architectural heritage" than fine....but just look at the prices of these condos being put in....it's a fantasy that this is "affordable housing"....it's not. So the low income housing thing....it's not that at all. Beasley and other developers are speculators pure and simple. They buy, invest and resell as high as possible and they make their money at others expense (the neighboring properties). Housing for the people is not what this is....

Nobody is against density...There is a responsible way to create growth and development where all win. Build standalone condos and apts. But the solution isn't by putting a cheap neo shipping container up on top of a rowhouse and then selling it for 400K+ to some unsuspecting buyer.

Further, potential condo owners can look at any of the half empty buildings in NoMA or U street....there is not a shortage of condo options now.


Anonymous said...

Does it make sense to me? Sure. But should we base our public policy decisions based on the assumptions you made? No. Those assumptions weren't grounded in the zoning rules in place at the time you moved in; they were grounded in your view that the neighborhood would forever look the same as it did then. So the question is whether we should change the rules to protect your house in particular (and other R4 homeowners' houses), instead of allowing more housing in those neighborhoods where people want to live.

I agree with you that nobody seems to be against density in the abstract. But when it comes to actual changes that are happening in our own neighborhoods, that's when people start opposing density. People in Glover Park don't tend to care what happens with McMillan. But put a large condo development in their neighborhood, and you will get people opposing it.

If you had to spend your life savings to move into the house you're in now, chances are pretty high that somebody in your exact situation today would not be able to live in our neighborhood. Prices are too high. And you're right, we're not talking about low income housing here. Just less income housing. I don't want my neighborhood to consist only of people who can pay $700k for a full rowhouse, and I'd accept some ugly popups if it means people who could pay only $400k for a condo get to live here too. It's not ideal-- I'd rather that we also had good housing options for people who can't pay $400k, which is still astronomically high, but just because we can't make housing cheap doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it cheaper.

Jenifer said...

just a note that when property values go up so do house taxes since the assessments are based on "fair market value" and that impacts low to moderate income and fixed income households .... seniors move out (despite the subsidy). Llet's remember it's retirees/seniors who are in the neighborhood during the day time and can report crime and other nonsense when they see it, helping keep the neighborhood "safer". It was elderly porch sitters that helped keep some streets safe during the bullet-flying time in the 90s!