Decision Summary HPA No. 96-307
- HPA Number
- Building Name
- 2325 Porter St. NW
- Date of Order
In 1991, the D.C. Historic Preservation Review Board (“HPRB”) granted conceptual approval of Greystone Associates Limited Partnership’s proposal to subdivide lot 3 in Square 2224 into four lots of record for the purpose of constructing three single-family homes and a turnaround. The lot was part of a multi-lot “historic enclave,” which was designated as a landmark by the HPRB in 1989. In 1994, Greystone Partnership II (“GPII”), a new partnership formed by Steve McClain and the original Greystone Associates, sought further conceptual design approval from the HPRB. Believing that the applicant was the original Georgetown Associates, the HPRB adopted its Staff Report, which recommended conceptual approval of the subdivision. After conducting extensive hearings in 1995, the HPRB rescinded conceptual approval of the subdivision. In 1996, GS Partnership (“Applicant”), a partnership formed by Steve McClain and Thomas Gibion, requested that the HPRB rescind its 1995 order and reinstate its 1991 approval of the subdivision. Believing that the Applicant was the original Georgetown Associates, the HPRB rescinded its 1995 order to avoid inflicting “economic chaos” on Georgetown Associates. In September 1996, the HPRB formally recommended approval of the Applicant’s application for subdivision of the Greystone property. The Mayor’s Agent denied the application, holding that the subdivision was inconsistent with the purposes of D.C. Law 2-144.
Mayor’s Agent- General:
The Mayor’s Agent must give the recommendation of the ANC “great weight.” See Wolf v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, 397 A.2d 936 (D.C. 1979).
- The Mayor’s Agent observed that the Applicant “has failed to show that the widening and resurfacing of historic gravel roadways, diminution in the size and shape of open space, the erasure of boundary demarcations, the flattening of land contours, the loss of trees and vegetation, the construction of new structures that are not accessory in nature, and the loss of views and rural setting enhances or restores the historic enclave.”
- The Mayor’s Agent questioned the credibility of the Applicant and its witnesses. Consequently, testimony that the proposed subdivision was consistent with the purposes of the Act was “given little or no weight.”