1230, 1232, 1234, 1236 Pleasant Street., SE

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIAM
DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS
Office of Adjudication
614 H STREET, N.W., #619
P.O. Box 37140
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20013

On February 6, 1998, the Union Temple Baptist Church, the Applicant (Applicant), filed an application for permits to raze four vacant residential buildings located at 1230, 1232, 1234, and 1236 Pleasant Street, S.E. On the raze permit applications at Item #6, Proposed Use for the site, the Applicant or its agent inserted that the intended use of the sites, if the raze were to be allowed, would be to create four vacant lots. The matter was referred to the Mayor's Agent for Historic Preservation, as required by the Historic Landmark and Historic District Protection Act, D.C. Law 2-144, codified at D.C. Code, Sec. 5-1004(c), et seq. (the Act).

In anticipation of going before the Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) at its scheduled meeting convened on February 26, 1998, the Applicant submitted a report titled, "Structural Investigation of 1203 (sic), 1232, 1234, and 1236 Pleasant Street, S.E., Washington, D.C.", prepared by Delon Hampton and Associates, Chartered, a consulting engineering and program managing firm.

At its public meeting HPRB received the Applicant's report, and heard from the Applicant's two witnesses concerning why they believed the four residential buildings should be razed. A Staff Reports was prepared by the Historic Preservation Division, the D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, which has jurisdiction over the matter. The Staff Report concluded that, based upon the age, architectural design, and integrity of the buildings in question, each of them was a contributing building in the Anacostia Historic District. The Staff recommended to the Mayor’s Agent that the four applications to raze the buildings be denied, as the proposed demolition of contributing buildings in the historic district was not consistent with the purpose of the preservation law. The HPRB reaffirmed this position, and placed the burden upon the Applicant to request an administrative hearing.

Upon the Applicant’s request for an administrative hearing, the matter was referred to the Mayor's Agent, pursuant to the requirements of D.C. Law 2-144, the Historic Landmark and Historic District Protection Act of 1978, (the Act), codified at D.C. Code, Sec. 5-1001, et seq. The administrative hearing was convened on May 19, 1998, before Rohulamin Quander, an Administrative Law Judge for the District of Columbia, and the Mayor's Agent for Historic Preservation, and conducted consistent with the requirements of District of Columbia Municipal Regulations (DCMR) Title 10, Chapter 25, and in accordance with the D.C. Administrative Procedures Act, D.C. Code Sec. 1-1501 et seq.

The Applicant was represented by Vernon E. Hawkins, sole witness, and chairman of the trustee board of the church. His case consisted of testimony as to why the raze permits should be issued, despite the fact that the contributing buildings were located in the Historic District. Other than the report prepared by Delon Hampton and Associates, Chartered, referenced above and already a part of the record, and the sworn testimony of Mr. Hawkins, the Applicant presented no additional documents to supplement the record created at the hearing held before the HPRB on February 26, 1998.

The Applicant was advised of its right to be represented by independent legal counsel, but elected to waive that right on the record, and instead to proceed pro se.

For the reasons that follow, the applications for permits to demolish the four adjacent residential buildings located at 1230, 1232, 1234, and 1236 Pleasant Street King, S.E. are DENIED.

The sole issue to be decided is whether the Applicant has met the burden of proof to establish that raze permits should be issued for 1230-1236 Pleasant Street, S.E., on the basis that ///////////////////////////, as defined by D.C. Law 2-144, codified at D.C. Code, Sec. 5-1001, et seq.

Based upon the total record herein, and the sworn testimony and evidence received during the administrative hearing, the Mayor's Agent for Historic Preservation, now makes the following Findings of Fact:

1. Union Temple Baptist Church is located at 1225 W Street, S.E., and is the owner of four adjacent vacant residential buildings known as 1230, 1232, 1234, and 1236 Pleasant Street, S.E., which four buildings are located immediately behind the Applicant's church facilities, on the adjacent street. Behind each abandoned building, which is also an extended area behind the Applicant's church, is located an extended parking lot facility which the Applicant uses for its religious community. The present church building was erected on the site in about 1990.

2. All of the buildings in question, including the Union Temple church building, are located within the Anacostia Historic District.

3. Vernon Hawkins, Chairmen of the Trustee Board of the church, testified at the HPRB meeting held on February 26, 1998. Essentially, his testmony was that the Applicant purchased the four buildings in around 1988, and that they had allegedly been abandoned for between 10 and 15 years prior to the church acquiring them buildings.

4. At the hearing before the Mayor's Agent, Mr. Hawkins amplified his testimony, as follows:

a) The Applicant purchased the buildings considerably earlier than 1988, as previously stated, and has owned the four properties since approximately 1980. Abandoned in the 1970s, the sites were purchased with the initial intention of renovating and revitalizing all four of the historic properties as housing for elderly persons, but the resources to undertake such an ambitions project were not to be found

b) In light of the non availability of resources, the Applicant elected to pursue another option, i.e. to demolish the buildings, and applied twice previously for that result, the matter having been previously presented before the D.C. Board of Condemnation on June 14, 1989, and again on November 22, 1991, at which time the Board voted to raze the properties., and allegedly issued an order to that effect.

c) Both the Applicant and the Board of Condemnation share the opinion that the buildings, as they presently are, pose a health and safety hazard, providing potential harborage for vermin and disease, posing an unsightly nuisance, and, due to weakened structural integrity, are all in danger of caving in, especially from the rear.

d) That several years ago, the District of Columbia fenced in the property, the cost of which fencing was reimbursed tot he D.C. Government by the Applicant. [1]

e) The Applicant secured the opinion of engineering professionals, the report from whom was presented to HPRB at its hearing of February 26, 1998. Said report concluded that the preserving of the structures was infeasible because of prohibitive costs and nnnnnnnnnnnnnnn///////////////////

f) The Applicant's long range plan is to develop a facility to serve the elderly population in that community, both parish and non parish members. The replacement structures would have a "replica historic design, ..., to preserve the neighborhood's character."

g) Despite such a reference at the HPRB hearing, the Applicant has not engaged in demolition by neglect, but instead has maintained the sites on at least a monthly basis, the services incidental to keeping the grounds in good order being provided by the Applicant's own staff.

5. As a part of the record of the HPRB proceedings, the Applicant filed the report prepared by Delon Hampton and Associates, Chartered, which report stated in its introduction, that the purpose of its engineering investigation was to assess the existing structural condition of the four buildings, and then to determine the technical, safety, and cost considerations that could be encountered in a preservation effort.

6. After stating various architectural and structural character unique to each of the four buildings, the report contained several conclusions and recommendations, including:

a) An assessment of the four obvious options available at this time, including: the feasibility of attempting to retain the four facades as is; the removal and reuse of the existing historical elements; the demolition of the current buildings, including the facades, but with an attempt to replicate the facades which would be destroyed; and a total demolition of the existing structures, but with no attempt at future replication.

b) The report stated as a conclusion that while all four of the sites presented at least some historical interest as to their respective facades, it was not feasible to repair or reuse the majority of the structures on the site, as the floors and roofs present life safety hazards and that the facilities should all be demolished;

7. During the HPRB hearing, Fred Grimes, on behalf of the Applicant, and apparently another member of the Applicant's church, highlighted the report, testified that the D.C. Board of Condemnation previously condemned the buildings in 1989 and 1991, and asked that the buildings be razed, allegedly due to the safety hazard that they present. Mr. Hawkins presented a Board of Condemnation Summary, which indicated that on June 14, 1989, and again on November 22, 1991, the Board voted to raze the buildings in question.

8. There was no testimony offered by the Applicant at the HPRB meeting, concerning any of the technical aspects of the report.

9. To the question asked at the HPRB hearing of what action has the Applicant taken to maintain the property since it became the owner, Mr. Grimes replied that the Applicant maintains a fence around the properties to keep people away from them, the costs of which course of action was represented to be "a costly proposition."

10. To the HPRB's query of to what use did the Applicant intend for the site, should the raze permits be authorized, Mr. Grimes replied that the Applicant was looking. "... at potentially some type of structure that would enable us to provide services to the senior in that community," However, he provided no plans, no concept design, or any other information.

11. The Historic Preservation Division prepared a staff report, which was made a part of the record of the HPRB proceedings. The staff report, after enumerating the architectural aspects of the four semi-attached residential structures, concluded that the buildings were contributing structures and noted that demolitions of such structures can only be approved by the Mayor's Agent following a public hearing for such purpose and consideration. The staff then advised HPRB, and recommended that the later suggest to the Mayor's Agent that the four applications for the demolition of contributing buildings be denied, as not consistent with the purposes of the preservation law.

12. Eve Barsoum of the Historic Preservation Division staff also stated during the proceedings that the facades of these four buildings still maintain their integrity, and the most of the integrity of the sites were in the front portion of the buildings.

13. The HPRB adopted the staff report which stated, that, "////////determined that the buildings were contributing to the Historic District, and that they could not be razed without an order allowing such, issued by the Mayor's Agent.

14. By letter dated March 12, 1998, the Applicant, requested a public hearing. In its letter, the Applicant also stated that it was its intention to discuss the proposed demolition of the above-noted four buildings, on the basis that they constitute a health and safety hazard to the community, as well as an unreasonable economic hardship to the church.

15. The Applicant tendered no pre-hearing submissions, and relied solely upon the testimony of Mr. Hawkins, plus another copy of the consulting engineers report, previously submitted by Delon Hampton and Associates, Chartered.

16. During the hearing before the Mayor's Agent, the Applicant did re-raise the issue of safety......

18. By a letter dated May 19, 1998, The D.C. Preservation League opposed the granting of this application to raze. The League underscored its standing position that due to its fragile nature and increasing development pressure, the Anacostia Historic District was placed on the Most Endangered List for the District of Columbia in 1996, and that the approval of the demolition requests at this time would only further erode the historic character and fabric of the Historic District. Recognizing the importance of residential and commercial revitalization, and the economic well-being of the city's neighborhoods, the League represented that it believed that the four contributing buildings could be rehabilitated, and be saved as a valuable historic resource.

19. The record was officially closed on May 19, 1998, upon the conclusion of the public hearing proceeding. The requested remedy would permit the Applicant to obtain permits to raze the four adjacent residential building sites. No specific redevelopment of the site was made a part of the record, other than some non-descript generic references to wanting to do something for the community, or perhaps to some day provide a facility for senior citizens.

The Mayor's Agent, after carefully reviewing the entire record filed herein, and taking into consideration the existing law governing this issue, now reaches the following Conclusions of Law:

1. The Mayor's Agent concludes that the Applicant has not met its burden of proof. Under the Act. The burden of proof is on the Applicant who is requesting a permit to raze a structure in an historic district to establish the necessity, feasibility,a nd prudent of razing the buildings in question. The issue in this case is whether the proposal is consistent with D.C. Law 2-144 (the Historic Landmark and Historic District Protection Act of 1978), codified at D.C. Code, Sec. 5-1004, Demolitions, which provides that:

(e) No permit shall be issued unless the Mayor finds that issuance of the permit is necessary in the public interest, ...

2. The Mayor's Agent concludes that these buildings, small wood frame houses located in the oldest part of the Anacostia historic District, are an integral component of maintaining the integrity of the Anacostia Historic District itself, and in the absence of ////////////, cannot be razed at this time.

3. Recognizing that all four or the buildings have indeed suffered from a sustained period of neglect, significantly and proximately due to the Applicant-owner's election to do nothing to minimally maintain the four structures that it has owned for almost two decades, the Mayor's Agent concludes that despite the deteriorated condition of the structures, at least the four facades all retain their integrity, and are worthy of not being demolished at this time.

4. All four of the buildings have sustained exterior and interior deterioration, proximately caused by the Applicant-owner's election to do nothing to at least minimally maintain the four structures during the period of the Applicant's ownership. Despite the testimony of Mr. Hawkins to the effect that the Applicant maintains at least the grounds to keep the weeds and vegetation under control, the Mayor's Agent, having visited the site to personally inspect it, concludes otherwise.

5. The Mayor's Agent further concludes that the Applicant has presented no evidence, beyond what the Applicant previously placed in the record during the February 26, 1998, HPRB hearing, from which the Mayor's Agent can reach a different conclusion from that already determined by HPRB, i.e., that despite the deteriorated condition of the structures, at least the four facades all retain they still retain some integrity, and cannot be demolished at this time.

6. The Mayor's Agent further concludes that the issuance of a demolition permit is not in the public interest, as defined by the Act. An integral component of determining what is within the "public interest" requires the incorporation of D.C. Code, Sec. 5-1002, Definitions, where "Special Merit" as a component of public interest is defined as:

A plan or building having significant benefits to the District of Columbia or to the community by virtue of exemplary architecture, specific features of land planning, or social or other benefits having a high priority for community services.

7. The Mayor's Agent further concludes that these four buildings are necessary in order to maintain the integrity of the Historic District itself, and that they contribute to and convey a sense of the historical and architectural significance of the Historic District

8. The Mayor's Agent further concludes that despite a generis reference to economic hardship, the Applicant has presented no evidence on the record to corroborate a singular reference to such hardship. On the contrary, Mr. Hawkins stated to the Mayor's Agent that ///////////////

9. The Mayor's Agent further concludes that granting the Applicant the requested raze permits is not appropriate and consistent with the purposes and intentions of the Historic Landmark and Historic District Protection Act of 1978, and should be denied at this time.

ORDERED, that for the reasons set forth in the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Application for a permit to raze buildings located in the Anacostia Historic District should be, and the same hereby is hereby, DENIED, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to D.C. Code An. Section 5-102(a), the Decision and Order shall not become final until fifteen (15) days after issuance.

[1] The Mayor's Agent checked the official records of the D.C. Board of Condemnation, and concludes that the fending was accomplished in about February/March, based upon hand written notes entered into the Board's records by Johnny Freeman, a former Board investigator.