HPA No. 1989-320 (In re. Morgenstern Residence)

HPA: 1989-320
Name: In Re: Maryland Ave NE
Location: Maryland Ave, Square 783, Lot 24
Date of Order: 4/14/1992
Type: Alteration & Construction (curb cut)
Disposition: Denied
Date of Case Summary: 10/3/2006

Summary:

Nathan R. Morgenstern (the " Applicant ") applied for an alteration permit to cut the curb at the rear of his rowhouse to create a parking space, and then to construct a wood fence to enclose parking a compact car. Applicant's property, at 336 Maryland Avenue, NE, is located in the Capitol Hill Historic District. While the Mayor's Agent commended the Applicant for the "architecturally-sensitive" proposal of a wood lattice fence and gate, he ultimately concluded that the curb cut would not contribute to the Historic District and thus was not consistent with the Act. The Mayor's Agent therefore denied issuance of the permit.

Necessary in the Public Interest:

The Mayor's Agent stated that pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Act, no alteration permit could be issued unless it found that the issuance was necessary in the public interest or that failure to issue the permit would result in unreasonable economic hardship.

Consistent with the Purposes of the Act:

The Mayor's Agent found that the proposed alteration taken as a whole was not consistent with the Act. Specifically, he determined that that the proposed alteration was not consistent with Section 2(b)(1)(A) because the proposed curb cut would not contribute to the character of the historic district, and in fact might cause a reduction of parking space in the Historic District and encourage others to apply for curb cuts which would also reduce parking in the Historic District. For these reasons, the Mayor's Agent also determined that the proposed alteration was not consistent with Sections 2(b)(1)(B), 2(b)(1)(C), or 2(a) of the Act. He noted that the proposed alteration, rather than being consistent with the Act, represented "an opportunity to change significantly the site and the historic district" and would actually "detract[ ] from the historic district." Furthermore, in that allowing the curb cut might lead to reduced parking in the area, it would not "protect and enhance the city's attraction to visitors" or "promote the use of landmark and historic districts for education, pleasure and welfare."

-----