A Subject Matter Summary for "Adaptation for Use"
| dc.creator | DC Mayor's Agent | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2015-08-22T17:13:52Z | en |
| dc.date.available | 2015-08-22T17:13:52Z | en |
| dc.date.created | 1977 | en |
| dc.date.issued | 1977 | en |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10822/761438 | en |
| dc.description | [MD] The Historic Preservation Features Element of the District of Columbia’s Comprehensive Plan recognizes that historic preservation is not "aimed at creating a lifeless and static historical environment" and that "historic properties are living assets that were built for use."{1} The Plan continues: "The goal is to encourage vitality by continuing to use and adapt historic properties for modern needs and attract the necessary financial investment to support these goals."{2} Every person seeking to demolish, rebuild, or otherwise alter an historic structure is attempting to adapt the structure for his or her current use. The key is that such adaptation must be consistent with the Historic Landmark and Historic District Protection Act of 1978 (DC Code § 6-1100 et. seq.). The District of Columbia’s Comprehensive Plan favors "Maintain[ing] historic properties in their original use to the greatest extent possible," but acknowledges that if this is no longer feasible, appropriate adaptive uses should be "consistent with the character of the property."{3} When landmarked or contributing buildings {4} are adapted for a new use, care must be taken to protect essential elements. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, which provides widely followed guidance in DC {5} and other states for adapting historic properties, states: "The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided."{6} If a property owner seeks to alter a contributing property in an historic district so as to adapt it for current use, the Mayor’s Agent can only approve a permit for alteration or demolition if "such issuance is necessary in the public interest."{7} The D.C. Code defines "necessary in the public interest" as "consistent with the purposes of this subchapter as set forth in § 6-1101(b)...."{8} With respect adapting properties in historic districts, the purposes are summarized with the following: "(A) To retain and enhance those properties which contribute to the character of the historic district and to encourage their adaptation for current use; (B) To assure that alterations of existing structures are compatible with the character of the historic district…"{9} The key case governing adaptation for use is _Gondelman v. D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs._{10} In this case, the applicant sought approval for a curb cut, excavation of front yard berm and installation of driveway, and a new garage located beneath the existing front porch of this contributing rowhouse in the Kalorama Historic District.{11} The Historic Preservation Review Board voted against the proposal and the Mayor’s Agent denied the necessary permit. On appeal to the D.C. Court of Appeals, the court concluded: "The petitioners’ burden under §§ 6-1105 (f) is a heavy one. They must demonstrate that the issuance of a preliminary permit for their proposed alterations is ‘necessary in the public interest.’ To demonstrate necessity in the public interest, they must meet two statutory requirements. First, under §§ 6-1101 (b)(1)(A), they must establish that their proposed alterations ‘retain and enhance ... [historic] properties [in a manner] which contributes to the character of the historic district and [which] encourages the adaptation [of historic properties] for current use.’ Id. (emphasis added). Under this subsection it is insufficient to emphasize only enhancement to adapt a property for current use. Rather, the applicant must also demonstrate that the proposed alterations will retain and enhance the historic property so that it contributes to the character of the historical district."{12} In _Gondelman,_ the proposed alterations to the rowhouse and the site (the landscaped berm) would not have contributed to the character of the historic district and, upon the the HPRB staff report, the recommendation of the HPRB to the Mayor’s Agent, the Mayor’s Agent’s analysis, expert testimony before the HPRB, and a letter from the Historic Committee of the Kalorama Citizens Association—all "entities regarded as having expertise in the area of historic preservation and historic districts"—would have in fact detracted from it.{13} If an adaptation would otherwise not be "consistent with the purposes of the Act," the Mayor’s Agent can still approve if the adaptation is a project of special merit.{14} In some very specific and very limited instances, the Act specifies that the public interest in adapting _public safety_ facilities such as firehouses to current operational needs trumps the interest in historic preservation.{15} In two separate firehouse cases, Engine Company No. 28, HPA No. 12-044 (April 3, 2012); Engine Company No. 29, HPA No. 12-044 (May 2, 2012), the Mayor’s Agent approved the D.C. Department of Fire and Emergency Services’ plans to enlarge the engine bay doors of the firehouses so as to allow the entrance and exit of newer firefighting equipment. Noting that "there is historic preservation value in adapting the historic firehouses to continue serving their intended use, at least up to some point at which alterations to the exterior would become too damaging to the historic features," the Mayor’s Agent concluded that the Fire Department had satisfied the balancing test and the renovations constituted projects of special merit.{16} ----- {1} 10 DCMR 1000.12. {2} _Id._ {3} 10 DCMR 1011.7. {4} As defined at 10 DCMR 9901. {5} 10 DCMR 2003. {6} Engine Company No. 29, HPA No. 12-044 (May 12, 2012) at 4. {7} D.C. Code §6-1105(f). {8} D.C. Code §6-1102(10). {9} D.C. Code §6-1101(b)(1). {10} _Gondelman v. D.C. Dep’t of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs,_ 789 A.2d 1238, 1239 (D.C. 2002). {11} _Id._ at 1240. {12} _Gondelman,_ 789 A.2d at 1246. {13} _Id._ at 1247. {14} D.C. Code §§ 6-1105(f) and 6-1102(a)(10). {15} § 6-1108.1(g) ("In considering a claim of special merit, substantial rehabilitation or new construction for operational needs of a public safety facility shall constitute a public interest having significantly higher priority than that of historic preservation."). {16} HPA No. 12-044 at 3, 4. ----- | en |
| dc.subject | Adaptation for Use | en |
| dc.title | A Subject Matter Summary for "Adaptation for Use" | en |
| dc.type | Article | en |
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.