Neighbors press BZA over third‑story addition at 1226 F St. NE; decision delayed for corrected plans and shadow study

Marty Sullivan, attorney for the applicant, presented a request to add a third floor to a four‑unit building at 1226 F Street NE, seeking special‑exception relief for increased lot occupancy and limited rear‑yard relief associated with new stairwells. Sullivan said the addition would not increase the number of units and that privacy screens and planters would limit view impacts from rooftop decks. “We don’t need relief to have a third story,” Sullivan told the board, but said the requested additional lot‑occupancy makes the rehabilitation economically viable.

Neighbors who abut the site urged the board to deny the request, citing impacts on light, air, privacy and neighborhood character. Michelle Griffa, who says her property’s rear yard runs along the subject lot, told the board the application “will adversely impact…light, air, privacy, and neighborhood character,” and flagged the location of new HVAC condensers. Blair Pitkarn said construction and raised roof elements could cast winter shadows up residents’ walls and expressed concern about possible tenant displacement, saying the change “does not simply mean finding another apartment. It means possibly disrupting established relationships, schools, churches, employment, and the broader stability of their lives.”

Board members pressed technical issues central to the zoning review: how height was measured (from grade or finished floor), whether parapet and screening walls were included in the applicant’s shadow studies, and whether side‑yard relief should have been requested. Enrio (Enrico) Villa Roman, the project designer, said the published elevation omits the parapet in one callout but that the project’s shadow studies did include the parapet; the lattice screening was not included in the study. Sullivan acknowledged a plan dimensioning error the board asked be corrected and said the team would add scenarios to the record, including the screening in the shadow study and a clear illustration of the matter‑of‑right alternative.

Office of Planning recommended approval, finding the additional massing met the special‑exception criteria for the RF‑1 zone. But given the number of unresolved technical items and the neighborhood opposition, the board left the record open and set a schedule for updated submissions: applicant materials due Oct. 7, ANC/response materials by Oct. 14, and a decision meeting on Oct. 21. The applicant agreed to provide updated elevations, clarified height measurements and revised shadow studies that explicitly model the proposed screening, and to indicate the square‑foot difference between the proposed and matter‑of‑right options.

What’s next: The board will not decide until it receives the corrected plans and additional documentation. The case remains open to public comment and supplemental filings.