Board approves 3‑unit conversion at 932 Shepard but denies rear‑wall extension after neighbor opposition

The Board of Zoning Adjustment granted the applicant’s special‑exception request to convert a pre‑1958 single‑family rowhouse at 932 Shepard St NW into three units, but simultaneously denied the requested special‑exception relief to permit the rear wall to extend 15 feet past the neighboring east building (a 5‑foot increment beyond the 10‑foot rule).

Applicant counsel Alex Wilson said the project had been significantly reduced from earlier iterations — the addition depth was cut, balcony walls were replaced with transparent/retractable glazed railings, and a portion of third‑story bulk was relocated to a by‑right accessory building. Office of Planning supported the revised plans, submitting shadow and solar‑panel impact analyses that the applicant said kept solar loss under 5% annually. The applicant argued these changes would bring a derelict property back into productive use: “a high quality addition and new housing should be an improvement from the previous state of the house,” the applicant stated in the hearing.

Opposition was strong and unanimous at ANC 4C and from adjacent homeowners. Neighbors and ANC witnesses raised multiple concerns: emergency removal of mature trees on or near the property, ongoing foundation and water‑table problems for neighboring lots, and what they described as an effective increase in units because the accessory building includes full baths and kitchens. Opposition counsel called the proposal a de‑facto “five‑unit” conversion and argued the cumulative effect of rear additions, decks with partial enclosures and a new accessory structure would materially diminish light, air and privacy for neighbors.

After hearing OP’s recommendation and testimony from parties, the board split its decision: it approved the conversion under Subtitle U §320.2 (three units) but denied the requested relief under Subtitle E §207.5 to allow the rear wall extension beyond the 10‑foot rule. The board’s action reflects an attempt to balance the property owner’s ability to add housing with neighbors’ evidence about cumulative impacts on the adjacent properties’ light, air and structural conditions.