This post was authored by Matthew Loescher, Esq.
The consolidated appeals of this case involved the ongoing construction of an apartment building behind the Scottish Rite Temple – a historic landmark located at 1733 16th Street NW. The Temple occupied roughly half of a single record lot that encompassed an entire block and spanned the 14th and 16th Street Historic Districts. The developer, Perseus TDC, sought approval for a subdivision from the Mayor’s Agent for Historic Preservation, who approved its application over the opposition of several neighbors and neighborhood organizations, including the Dupont East Civic Action Association (“DECAA”). Case No. 20-AA-0693, the subdivision appeal, was DECAA’s challenge to the Mayor’s Agent’s approval of this subdivision. In addition to opposing Perseus’s subdivision application, DECAA filed its own application with the Historic Preservation Review Board (“HPRB”), to extend the boundary of the Temple landmark to encompass the entire block, including the land where the apartment building was being constructed. DECAA filed suit challenging this decision, and the Superior Court ultimately granted its motion for summary judgment after concluding that the HPRB acted arbitrarily and capriciously in defining the Temple landmark’s boundaries.
At the outset, the court noted that because the HPRB’s finding that the Temple landmark site had never been formally delineated was supported by substantial evidence, and because its subsequent actions in setting its landmark boundaries were procedurally and substantively proper, the Superior Court erred in granting DECAA’s motion for summary judgment.
The court next determined that the Mayor’s Agent could authorize the subdivision of a historic landmark, or of property within a historic district, upon a finding that such an action is “necessary in the public interest.” Here, the Agent determined that subdividing Lot 108 would result in no historic-preservation losses, as the eastern half of the lot did not contribute to the Temple’s historic significance. The Agent further determined that the subdivision would produce meaningful historic-preservation gains by generating revenue that could be used to fund renovations to the Temple itself. Lastly, the Agent noted that the smaller lots resulting from this subdivision would be more similar in size to other lots in the surrounding historic districts and that the district’s character would be improved by allowing for construction in an incongruous gap in the neighborhood’s cityscape. In light of these findings, the court found there was enough evidence to justify its decision to approve Perseus’s application.
DECAA lastly contended that the subdivision would undermine the purposes of the Preservation Act by severing the Carriage House from the Temple, “with which it has been closely historically associated for almost one hundred years.” The court rejected this claim, however, noting that the carriage house was not a part of the Temple landmark, as the Masons only acquired it in the late 1960s, decades after the Temple’s period of historic significance. Thus, the Mayor’s Agent reasonably found that there would be no historic-preservation loss if the two structures were located on two different record lots. Accordingly, in case number 22-CV-0884, the court reversed the Superior Court’s order granting summary judgment to DECAA and remanded for entry of judgment in the District’s favor. In case number 20-AA-693, the court affirmed the Mayor’s Agent’s order approving the Lot 108 subdivision.
Bowser v Dupont East Civic Action Association, 2023 WL 5440890 (DC App. 8/24/2023)
