Dupont citizens’ group loses bid to block housing throughout DC

Row house owners across DC interested in adding apartments, rec rooms, or guest bedrooms on the floor partly below ground can rest easy — a bid by the Dupont Circle Citizens' Association to change long-standing zoning rules was shot down.

Had DCCA been successful, some “English basement” apartments in DC row houses (or larger buildings) would have been suddenly made non-conforming. Some people with row house lower levels would no longer have been able to legally create apartments or, possibly, even not legally allowed to finish those spaces for a rec room. And some projects to convert row houses into multiple condos would have become impossible, which was DCCA's primary issue. The effect would have been to significantly restrict opportunities to create lower-priced housing, which DC needs.

A technical definition has a big effect

One provision of DC's zoning code distinguishes a cellar from a basement. The difference is simple: If the ceiling of the cellar/basement floor is at least four feet above the ground outside, it's a basement. If less than four feet — in other words, mostly underground — it's a cellar. Most apartments we colloquially call basement apartments or “English basements” are technically cellars, not basements.

This matters because basements count as square footage of the house for the purposes of zoning limits like Floor Area Ratio, while cellars do not. DC has numerous row houses of 3 stories above ground plus one below, and if their below-ground levels counted as basements, some would exceed these zoning limits.

Excluding them (if they met the four-foot test) has been the common interpretation of DC's zoning rules for decades. But DCCA came up with a novel interpretation based on another definition in the rules, that of “habitable rooms.” A “habitable room” is defined to exclude a cellar. So, DCCA claimed, that means anything that's habitable must not be a cellar and thus must be a basement.

DCCA appealed a permit to add on to a row house and divide it into some condo units. The owner doing the work had just converted another house next door; in fact, the person who bought the top unit at the first house then led this appeal to challenge a similar project beside him.

I argued that DCCA's interpretation was logically nonsensical, and so did the Board of Zoning Adjustment. They actually ruled not on the merits of the appeal, but a procedural motion; the aforementioned neighbor had known about the building for months, and missed the window to appeal. The clock for appeals starts when an organization would reasonably have known about the issue, and so DCCA claimed it didn't find out until later. But since the neighbor was a member of DCCA, the board judged that his knowledge either did or should have extended to the group. If they found otherwise, they noted, someone could get around the time limit simply by enlisting another organization at any time.

However, BZA chairman Fred Hill added that he would have reached the same conclusion on the merits of the issue. He noted that building codes, fire codes, and other rules already ensure that cellar apartments have enough light and ventilation, and existing rules require two entrances (or, more importantly, exits). He agreed with the DC government and many other people that the rule is very straightforward: more than 4 feet, or less.

This is about row house conversions, but also affects family housing far beyond Dupont

DCCA isn't pleased with the way some people have turned row houses into buildings with 4 or more apartments or condos (like the project they are appealing). In much of Dupont, for instance, the zoning allows this, and also allows many row houses to be larger in the back than they are today. While nearby homeowners often object to such changes, they also represent a real opportunity to provide lower-cost housing units in a neighborhood with good access to transit, retail, and jobs.

But had this appeal been successful, it would not have stopped people from adding onto the backs of row houses or splitting them into units; it would just have made a basement unit illegal. Someone could still have made a 3-unit building, or even a 6-unit building with units that are half a floor. Some would be deterred from the lower economic gain, but many would not — and we would lose the opportunity to add housing partly underground where the housing is usually more affordable and it doesn't affect the look of the neighborhood.

This change would also have affected people living in a whole rowhouse on their own, and citywide — not just Dupont. We have friends in Shaw who are planning to add onto their 2-story rowhouse to accommodate a growing family (as many of DC's 2-story rowhouses, especially ones without finished basements, are not comfortably large enough for families of more than one child). They will be adding in back and digging under to enlarge the cellar, which could hold a playroom for the kids and a guest room. I don't know the specific FAR of their project, but it's very possible that DCCA's interpretation of the law would have made both impermissible.

DC already restricted the ability to add on top of rowhouse in many zones. DCCA's appeal would have then restricted the ability to go down as well. Ironically, it might have encouraged even more “pop-backs” and “pop-ups” if adding in the rear became the only option.

And the ultimate effect would have been to make many DC neighborhoods even more inaccessible to people who want to be a part of this city. The Dupont Circle Citizens' Association would be more like the Dupont Circle No More Citizens Association.

DCCA still has another bid out to limit housing in the neighborhood: it's appealing a minor variance for the St. Thomas church development at 18th and Church streets NW (nearly across from my house). That case will likely be scheduled for oral argument in May or June.