HPA No. 96-214 and 96-342 (In re. Little Tavern)
- HPA Numbers: 96-214 and 96-342
- Case Name: In the Matter of Lot 831 - Square 1232
- Location of Property: 1301 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.
- Date of Decision: July 7, 1997
- Type of Case/Permit Sought: Construction/Alteration (to install signage and replace fixed-glass windows)
- Disposition: Granted (both permits)
- Date of Case Summary: July 26, 2006
Summary of Decision:
Capital Restaurant Concepts, Inc. (the "Applicant") sought a construction permit to replace existing fixed-glass windows with bi-folding doors, and subsequently applied for another construction permit to install a wall sign and roof sign at the subject property located in the Old Georgetown Historic District, then used as a restaurant. The first permit application, HP #96-214, concerned Applicant's proposal to replace the fixed-glass windows. The second permit application, HP #96-342, concerned Applicant's proposal to install signage on the roof and wall of the building. Upon request of counsel of Applicant, both cases were consolidated and set for hearing before the Mayor's Agent. The Mayor's Agent concluded that the both alterations were necessary in the public interest and therefore approved the permits.
Necessary in the Public Interest:
The Mayor's Agent concluded that issuance of the permits was "necessary in the public interest" because it was "consistent with the purposes of the Act."
Consistent with the Purposes of the Act:
In determining whether the permits were consistent with the purposes of the Act, the Mayor's Agent concluded that the test to be applied is whether the alterations are "consistent and compatible with the character of the historic district," since the property was not listed as a contributing building to the historic district or as an historic landmark. Without discussion of the specific features, the Mayor's Agent found that the proposed doors were compatible with the character of the historic district and would "contribute to the character of the historic district in architectural design." The Mayor's Agent also concluded that the proposed signage was compatible with the historic district following a determination that the signage would have "no impact on the exterior of this property" due to the fact that it would be of the same size and style as the original signage.
The Mayor's Agent noted that the property was neither a landmark nor listed as a "contributing building." While the Mayor's Agent acknowledged that "there has been no cataloguing or designation regarding contributing and noncontributing buildings in the Old Georgetown Historic District," based on testimony, the Mayor's Agent found that the property was not a contributing building to the historic district nor was it designated an historic landmark. As a result, the Mayor's Agent concluded that the only test to be applied to the case is whether the alterations would be "consistent and compatible with the character of the historic district."
Files in this item
- Decision summary.html
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit (1999-12-17)
United States District Court for the District of Columbia (1998-09-25)
District of Columbia. Court of Appeals (1995-11-17)