BNCA: Letter to Harry Thomas Regarding Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Brookland Neighborhood Civic Association (BNCA) president Caroline Petti’s letter to Councilmemeber Thomas about the Brookland Community Development Corporation (CDC) & Kilmurry Properties proposed recommended amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
Councilmember Harry Thomas, Jr.
District of Columbia City Council
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Dear Councilmember Thomas,
Happy New Year to you and your staff.
I’m writing to you on behalf of the Brookland Neighborhood Civic Association regarding recent events related to the District of Columbia’s Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan provides overall guidance on planning and development in the District of Columbia and the DC Office of Planning (OP) is currently engaged in a process to consider amendments to the Plan.
Several weeks ago, it came to our attention that the Brookland Community Development Corporation (CDC) and several Brookland property owners had teamed together to develop and submit a set of proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. These proposed amendments were submitted to the Office of Planning. (Text of these proposed amendments attached.) These amendments would significantly change current zoning and development requirements along 12th Street and surrounding areas.
On January 4, 2010, BNCA members and other interested neighborhood parties received a briefing on these proposed amendments for the first time. The DC Office of Planning will be transmitting these and other proposed amendments to you and the DC City Council for approval in the near future. I am writing to apprise you of substantial concerns that were expressed by BNCA members and others at the January 4th briefing.
Concerns raised included the following:
- First and, perhaps, foremost, the failure of the CDC and the amendments’ authors to engage the community on a proposal that, if adopted, would have profound effects on residents and businesses, alike.
- The adverse effects of the proposed up-zoning (to moderate-density development) on areas currently zoned residential. Individuals from the block of Newton Street between 12th and 10th Streets, in particular, expressed profound concerns about the effects on their homes.
- The adverse effects of the proposed up-zoning (from low- to moderate-density development on 12th Street in the area north of Otis Street) on businesses in the current core Brookland business district between Monroe and Otis Streets. New up-zoned development on 12th Street north of Otis Street could exacerbate the problems currently facing the Brookland core area.
- The effects of the proposed up-zoning on the current Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning approval process. The proposed up-zoning would grant developers “matter-of-right” approval to build their projects with little or no input from nearby residents or ANC representatives. The proposed up-zoning would eliminate current PUD regulatory requirements for public and ANC participation in such things as building design, heights and density, and would eliminate requirements for provision of public benefits.
- A lack of faith in the effectiveness of the proposed “Transferable Development Rights” regime for preserving historic homes and businesses.
- Skepticism about the need to develop large areas for parking when existing possibilities go unused and untapped and when the city is trying to promote Transit-Oriented Development.
These proposals first surfaced in the context of the development of the Brookland/CUA Metro Station Small Area Plan issued a little over a year ago. Community interests in protecting the lower density scale of Brookland neighborhoods and in preserving opportunities for residents to have a say in development prevailed and the proposals were rejected decisively by the Office of Planning. Today, in the context of amending the District’s Comprehensive Plan, the Office of Planning is again recommending against the proposed amendments for the same reasons. ANC5A also considered the proposals and submitted comments rejecting them.
Brookland residents share an interest in bringing positive changes and new businesses and services to our neighborhood. We want to be involved in decisions related to new development. We stand ready to work together with neighborhood businesses and other interested parties to help bring about positive new development changes which also preserve the character and livability of our neighborhood. When the Comprehensive Plan comes before you, we hope you will oppose any amendments that, if adopted, would foreclose that opportunity.
Sincerely,
Caroline Petti, President
Related posts:
- ANC 5A Recommended Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan As part of the amendment process for the Comprehensive Plan...
- Brookland Neighborhood Civic Association Comprehensive Plan Amendment Meeting – 01/04/2010 Brookland Neighborhood Civic Association is hosting a meeting tomorrow 1/4/2010...
- Brookland CDC’s Recommended Updates to the Comprehensive Plan Last Monday January 4th, the Brookland Neighborhood Civic Association (BNCA)...
- ANC 5A: Planned Unit Development and Brookland Small Area Plan Implementation Discussion ANC 5A is sponsoring a community discussion this Saturday March...
- BNCA: Meeting to Present Plans to Develop Colonel Brook’s Tavern The Brookland Neighborhood Civic Association is hosting a meeting for...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Great reprint of BNCA’s 1/4 meeting recommendation letter to CM Thomas, BA.
But BNCA still lacks accessibility and transparency re. their meetings. When is BNCA going to provide *regular, official PDF summaries of their meetings and any applicable BNCA recommendations*, uploaded to both Brookland listservs for easy file downloads and reprints by all Brooklanders? Is a meetinf summary for the 1/13/04 meeting re. Col. Brooks available now?
it really sounds like all these groups in brookland (5A, BNCA, CDC) are fighting to get the attention of the people who really have power, and many are just looking to study stuff to death to ensure that nothing happens at all.
@IMGoph 5A, BNCA, and CDC are all very different organizations so not sure I agree, at least not in this instance. Brookland CDC and Kilmurry certainly tried to push their agenda even though these requests were rejected by the community and OP in the Brookland SAP process. They decided to try to get “another bite at the apple” in the Comprehensive Plan process as another shot to change zoning of 12th Street and surrounding streets. OP was certainly on the ball here by not recommending these changes to the Comp Plan.
Folks and the BNCA are right in being upset and not supporting these “recommendations”, especially when trying to change zoning of streets like Newton and Otis to commercial zoning when these are purely residential. I for one stand behind the BNCA leadership around this issue.
That being said there still is a question of what is going to happen to 12th Street, will it survive after the Adbo, Colonel Brooks, and Metro development are complete?
brookland, The Post Office, B’land Hardware, CVS, the bank, Yes!, the liquor stores and dry cleaners all have been on 12th for years, at least 6 of them for more than 3 decades. Likewise, the Franciscan Monastery will continue to create pedestrian demand along 12th as it has for many decades. SA Grill doesn’t seem like it’s hurting for a new establishment in relatively hard times. These represent significant pedestrian destinations/ anchors whose demand will only increase with a greater population base nearby. They’re likely to thrive. The smaller shops and eateries will likely ebb and flow as they always have– but with a greater chance of success, on balance, than before.
Exactly why would 12th’s bizzes suddenly shrivel up and die just a block or 2 away? The notion that new developments to the west would mysteriously sap demand from 12th had (and has) no basis in fact– other than to provide a grasping-at-straws, scare-’em argument for BCDC’s/ Kilmurry’s self-serving development interests.
brian
Can’t there be some meeting of the minds on this issue? For example, a variance of some kind that would help his business property, but would have minimal impact on the residential structures? I mean, come on! 12th street has been a seedy strip all my life here (since the 50’s). I would like to see it change for the better. [For example, I would rather have a Starbucks than the crappy coffee place near Otis Street. Even the simplest pleasures are missing on 12th]