There have been several developments since the D.C. Court of Appeals issued its decision vacating the zoning variance for the construction project at 18th and Church Streets. This important decision reaffirmed the need to adhere to applicable regulatory and other legal requirements when considering requests for zoning variances.
The developer and church have claimed that the Court of Appeals’ decision puts them in financial peril. However, the financial peril (if any) is due solely to their reckless decision to move forward with construction while the appeal was pending.
After the Court of Appeals issued its decision, the developer and the church filed a motion with the Court of Appeals to freeze the implementation of the decision while they seek to have the variance reissued on alternative grounds. DCCA has opposed that motion and is awaiting the Court of Appeals’ decision, for which no date has been set.
Also, in response to the Court of Appeals’ decision, the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs issued a stop work order on construction of the project. However, the developer and church were successful on Monday in getting the D.C. Superior Court to issue a temporary restraining order ("TRO") which effectively lifts the stop work order. The TRO remains in effect for 10 business days, until a further hearing later this month.
The proceedings in the Superior Court involve only the city, the developer, and the church. DCCA is not a party to the proceedings, which do not directly concern whether BZA can reissue the variance. As a result of the Superior Court’s decision, construction has apparently started again this week.
Almost a year ago, the developer and church terminated settlement discussions with DCCA. Our objective was and is to get a community benefit in the form of additional affordable housing from a portion of the extra square footage resulting from the variance. We also seek to place some reasonable limitations on the use of the residential building's roof deck to lessen the noise impact on neighbors. We continue to negotiate in good faith and last week submitted a revised proposal (substantially reduced from our prior one). We have not yet received a response.
We would like to achieve an amicable resolution, but any settlement must recognize the impact of this development on the neighborhood. We appreciate the strong support we have received from our members and others during this process.
