Commercialization of Residential Properties –Dept of Buildings Chief Talks to ANC6B Committee

ANC6B’s Planning and Zoning Committee met with DOB Director Brian Hanlon and three members of his team last Thursday night.

Commercialization of Residential Properties –Dept of Buildings Chief Talks to ANC6B Committee

By Larry Janezich

Posted September 9, 2023

DOB Director Brian Hanlon joined the ANC6B Planning and Zoning Committee on Thursday night to discuss the commercialization of residential buildings, particularly those near the US Capitol.  (See CHC post here:  https://bit.ly/44kb2oR )

Resident P&Z committee member Betsy Rutkowski, representing ANC Single Member District 6B01, told Hanlon that a lot of neighbors along New Jersey Avenue south of the Capitol were concerned about the commercialization of residential properties.  She said that corporations blatantly listed their companies as owners of these residential properties on the tax rolls.  Neighbors say these corporation-owned homes are vacant most of the time and are used for parties and fundraisers which leave trash bins on the curb outside the days of scheduled pickups.  She said that the properties change the fabric of the community, affecting affordability as corporations pay high prices in cash, outbidding families and residential homeowners.  Conversely, their presence lowers the value of homes used for residential purposes because corporations neglect their properties and demonstrate other behaviors inconsistent with being a good neighbor.

She told Hanlon, “We’ve identified these properties and sent you a list.  What can we do to help your department work through these issues and concerns?”

Hanlon said that the list of addresses the concerned neighbors supplied was being uploaded to the DOB system and staff will be looking at all of them in preparation for an internal analysis of each property.  The department has created a spreadsheet allowing consideration of the properties according to a whole variety of data points.  “So,” he said, “I would say you are already doing it – you are our eyes and ears and you are alerting us to your concerns.  We want to make sure the properties are in compliance and the first step is letting us know.  It’s a bit of an ongoing process for us so I don’t have a neat and tidy answer regarding exactly what we’re going to do.  It’s certainly on my radar – a conversation we’re having internally, and work that we’re doing. That’s the response for now.”

There was another issue related to DOB’s operation regarding oversight and enforcement of construction which was called to Hanlon’s attention.  This concerns the “slap on the wrist” for serious violations of building permits.  Sometimes, it appears that developers take advantage of the minimal fines involved by deliberately exceeding what has been authorized for demolition connected with renovation of a house in the Historic District, and then claiming that they had no choice but to demolish most or all of the entire structure for safety reasons.  The maneuver allows a developer to build an entirely or mostly new structure and market it for much more, rather than trying to preserve elements of the building they agreed upon when they got approval for the renovation from the Historic Preservation Office.

ANC6B Commissioner Jerry Sroufe, who had brokered Hanlon’s appearance before the committee, said that he was concerned about the fines levied or not levied for violation of construction permits where renovation/demolition exceeds what is authorized and results in the entire removal of the building which was supposed to be improved. 

(CHC has reported on two instances in Sroufe’s SMD of what might have been willful exceeding of permits for renovation which subsequently resulted in the claim that this then necessitated removing most or all of a historic structure.)  https://bit.ly/43cnQwV and https://bit.ly/3lLBHtH

Sroufe said, “The fine for that is $5,000 – if collected – generally it is not…it is generally negotiated down, in one case, to $500.”  He asked Hanlon if the fine is commensurate with the loss of a historic building, i.e., “does the fee structure reflect the loss of historic housing?”    

Hanlon said he would get back to Sroufe and asked that Sroufe detail the complete question in writing, and “we will dig in.”