## Facts

- Larry S. Gondelman and Pauline Sobel owned a rowhouse in the Kalorama Historic District, a designated historic district listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
- The owners applied for approval to create off-street parking by installing a curb cut, excavating the front-yard berm (partly in public space), paving much of the front yard, and constructing a garage beneath the front porch.
- Historic preservation staff recommended denial, describing the district’s defining streetscape features as uninterrupted green front yards and berms, with historically minimal paving and no front-yard parking.
- At an administrative hearing before the Mayor’s Agent for Historic Preservation, the owners argued that modern vehicle use required off-street parking and that the proposal would not lead to widespread similar changes.
- Preservation witnesses and evidence supported the view that the berm and continuous lawn plane were character-defining and that the curb cut, driveway, paving, and under-porch garage would materially alter the district’s historic setting.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the Mayor’s Agent’s determination that the proposed curb cut, berm excavation, paving, and under-porch garage were incompatible with the character of the historic district under the governing preservation statute.
2. Whether asserted modern needs for off-street parking required approval despite evidence that the project would compromise district-defining historic features.
3. Whether the Mayor’s Agent could consider potential cumulative and precedential impacts of approving similar alterations in the district.

## Decision

- The court denied the petition for review and affirmed the Mayor’s Agent’s denial of the application.
- The court held that the incompatibility finding was supported by substantial evidence, including expert and preservation staff assessments of district character and visual impact.
- The court rejected the claim that modern convenience needs, without a statutory basis such as proven hardship or other qualifying justification, required approval.
- The court upheld consideration of broader district effects, including the risk of incremental erosion of the streetscape through similar future applications.

## Legal Principles

- Alterations within a historic district must be compatible with the character of the district, including its setting and streetscape, not merely the building façade.
- On judicial review of historic-preservation decisions, courts apply a deferential standard, upholding the agency decision if supported by substantial evidence and consistent with the statute.
- A property owner’s preference for contemporary convenience (such as off-street parking) does not, by itself, justify alterations that materially conflict with district-defining historic features.
- The preservation decisionmaker may consider cumulative and precedential impacts when assessing compatibility with the district’s character.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the denial of a curb cut and related front-yard and garage alterations because substantial evidence showed the proposal would disrupt character-defining berms and uninterrupted lawns in the historic district, and modern parking convenience alone did not warrant approval under the preservation statute.


Gondelman v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Consumer & Regul. Affs., 789 A.2d 1238 (D.C. 2002)