Show simple item record

dc.creatoren
dc.date.accessioned2015-08-24T17:52:35Zen
dc.date.available2015-08-24T17:52:35Zen
dc.date.created1977en
dc.date.issueden
dc.identifier.urien
dc.description[MD] Moving a contributing building within a historic district is considered an "alteration" within the meaning of the District of Columbia Historic Landmark and Historic District Protection Act of 1978 ("the Act").{1} If the Mayor’s Agent finds that moving a contributing building or subdividing parcels in a historic district is "necessary in the public interest," the Mayor’s Agent may approve the permit.{2} For a proposed action to be considered "necessary in the public interest," it must be "consistent with the purposes of this act as set forth in section 2(b) or necessary to allow the construction of a project of special merit."{3} Moving contributing buildings in a historic district eliminates their integrity of location.{4} Consequently, the Historic Preservation Office and the Historic Preservation Review Board ("HPRB") generally disfavor the practice. However, the HPRB and Mayor’s Agent have on rare occasion approved relocation as consistent with the purposes of the Act or as part of a project of special merit. In the Matter of: 2228 MLK LLC (the Big K), HPA Nos. 14-221 and 14-222, the Mayor’s Agent approved the relocation of two neglected but contributing buildings to the Anacostia Historic District as part of a larger project of special merit.{5} In his discussion, the Mayor’s Agent quoted from testimony from the State Historic Preservation Officer concerning when relocation of a property was allowed: "Most of these cases involved buildings that were isolated by demolition on sites large enough for redevelopment, typically on major streets, or at the edge of a historic district. In most cases, the buildings had been shifted to a corner of the development site, but some had moved offsite when there has been a suitable location….The success of these examples has depended in large part on ensuring that the historic buildings remain in a setting of appropriate scale and character, similar to their original context."{6} With this context in mind, the Mayor’s Agent concluded that the proposed relocation of the two Anacostia homes was similar to those examples and achieved a preservation goal because the homes—then in dilapidated condition on a major boulevard on the border of the historic district--were currently unsuitable for residential use.{7} The proposed new location within the historic district for the homes would better reflect their residential nature, and would serve as an improvement as against being "isolated among commercial uses and vacant lots on the main avenue in their neighborhood" or awkwardly incorporated into a larger commercial development.{8} Moreover, moving the houses was deemed "necessary" to construct the project of special merit. Thus, as the State Historic Preservation Officer summarized in the 2228 MLK LLC case, "relocation of historic buildings may not be common or a recommended preservation treatment, but it... has sometimes been used as a practical and acceptable compromise when other options have not proved workable."{9} ----- {1} D.C. Code §6-1102 (1)(A). {2} _Id._ §§ 6-1105(f), 6-1106(e) {3} _Id._ § 6-1102{10}. {4} _See_ In the Matter of: 2228 MLK LLC (the Big K), HPA Nos. 14-221 and 14-222 (Oct. 28, 2014) at 7. {5} _Id._ at 10. {6} _Id._ at 8. {7} _Id._ {8} _Id._ {9} _Id._ -----en
dc.subjectAlteration (Moving a Property)en
dc.titleA Subject Matter Summary for "Alteration (Moving a Property)"en


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record