Could this be related to our ANC reps being only focused on the front facade and they couldn't care less about what goes behind the house. They are also dealing under the table with some developers to help skirt the new regs as long as they don't do it next door to them. Some interesting dealing going on under the table between developers and our current ANC reps. Very interesting.
And this is anything new? the whole Mcmillan thing was outright corruption with ANC reps getting bribes (inkind) from the developers. Everyone knows this....there's no political will to address it though.
It isn't legal....unless they have special exception from the zoning commission (which they dont most likely) they can be no more than 10 feet past the adjoining building. I'd raise this with the BCA.....they'll have to cut it back....where is this?
This permit was approved before the new R-4 zoning regulations went into effect.
Here is the final comment from zoning review:
zoning approval for a use and load change from a sfd to a 3-unit apartment building in the r-4 zone. minor flex granted for a noncoforming open court by the z.a. maintain one 9 ft. x19 ft. automobile parking space on the lot. prior to issuance of the final building permit the wall check must be approved and 1 automobile parking space must be provided. the approved open court width of 12. 0625 ft. shall not be reduced. the closed court width of 15 ft- 4 in x 23 ft.- 4 in. min for an area min of 350 min must be provided.
I believe the rule is no more than 60% of the lot. I recall something like going over 5% can be approved directly by DCRA, but anything over that required zoning variances. This was even before the new regs, but it seems strange to me that nobody heard about this. Was it brought before ANC? Has someone called DCRA?
How can this be legal?!?
ReplyDeleteCould this be related to our ANC reps being only focused on the front facade and they couldn't care less about what goes behind the house. They are also dealing under the table with some developers to help skirt the new regs as long as they don't do it next door to them. Some interesting dealing going on under the table between developers and our current ANC reps. Very interesting.
ReplyDeleteAnd this is anything new? the whole Mcmillan thing was outright corruption with ANC reps getting bribes (inkind) from the developers. Everyone knows this....there's no political will to address it though.
DeleteWhere is this?
ReplyDeleteIt isn't legal....unless they have special exception from the zoning commission (which they dont most likely) they can be no more than 10 feet past the adjoining building. I'd raise this with the BCA.....they'll have to cut it back....where is this?
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThis is the alley between Channing & Bryant NW. (there's only one block)
It does seem unlikely that they could have done this without an exception.
This permit was approved before the new R-4 zoning regulations went into effect.
ReplyDeleteHere is the final comment from zoning review:
zoning approval for a use and load change from a sfd to a 3-unit apartment building in the r-4 zone. minor flex granted for a noncoforming open court by the z.a. maintain one 9 ft. x19 ft. automobile parking space on the lot. prior to issuance of the final building permit the wall check must be approved and 1 automobile parking space must be provided. the approved open court width of 12. 0625 ft. shall not be reduced. the closed court width of 15 ft- 4 in x 23 ft.- 4 in. min for an area min of 350 min must be provided.
I thought there was a rule about the percentage of the lot that could be built upon?
ReplyDeleteI believe the rule is no more than 60% of the lot. I recall something like going over 5% can be approved directly by DCRA, but anything over that required zoning variances. This was even before the new regs, but it seems strange to me that nobody heard about this. Was it brought before ANC? Has someone called DCRA?
Delete46 Channing Street, NW
ReplyDeleteYesterday they added another level onto what you see in the picture above. This is insane.
ReplyDeletelooks like significant light blocking to the neighbors yard, not to mention to general ugliness of it...
ReplyDelete