After several hearings and public meetings, the DC Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) voted 4-0-1 (one seat vacant) to approve with conditions an application for a special exception for the conversion of an existing in-home daycare (child development home) located on the corner of Quackenbos Street and 3rd Street NE serving nine children to a child development center that would serve 20 children. A child development center is one that serves more than 12 children. A special exception is necessary to operate a child development center in a residential area. The owner also received relief from the minimum parking requirement. The BZA case number is 20186.

Background and issues

The case involving Renaissance Center for Culture and Education started out innocuosly enough a few years ago when the operator/homeowner asked neighbors to support her desire to serve 20 children, an increase from nine, at her existing in-home daycare. Many neighbors, the ANC commissioner for the area at the time, and the block association Citizens Aware, comprised of residents along the 3rd Street corridor, all agreed to support the expansion without fully understanding the implications of the request. When the owner appeared at neighborhood meetings though, she mentioned the possibility of serving up to 45 students, and neighbors realized the expansion would also involve an expansion to the home itself, with the owner proposing to add one floor to the existing two-story home as well as a three-story brick addition to the rear of the home. In addition, the owner would no longer reside in the home. The application filed with the BZA clarifies that it is for 20 children.

All of this together led some neighbors and current ANC commissioner Alison Brooks (4B08) to believe that the owner was not entirely forthright in her dealings with them. ANC 4B withdrew its original letter in support and submitted a new resolution in opposition, the Lamond-Riggs Citizens Association (LRCA) submitted a letter in opposition, and several neighbors with Citizens Aware who originally signed a petition in support submitted new letters in opposition. The opponents raised concerns about an increase in traffic and parking issues, as Quackenbos is a narrow street and pre-COVID, motorists would use 3rd Street as a cut-through during morning and evening rush hour. In addition, they objected to the home addition, stating it would be out of character with existing homes. The ANC and Citizens Aware objected to the fact that the owner would no longer reside in the home. On this point, the owner appeared to receive conflicting information from District agencies, with the DC Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) initially indicating she cannot continue to reside in the home if it becomes a child development center and the DC Office of State Superintendent Education (OSSE) (which certifies daycares in the city) apparently stating she can. The ANC and neighbors pointed out that other child care centers existed where the owner did in fact reside on the property. In any case, the ANC and some neighbors argued that the owner could simply lease commercial space if she wanted to serve more children in a child development center.

Board hearing/Post-hearing

During hours-long hearings that became contentious at points, the board heard from numerous witnesses residing nearby and afar, the owner accused some neighbors of prejudice, the former president of Citizens Aware, James Thomas, accused the owner of altering a document, and several neighbors, the ANC, and the owner spoke of the mistrust that had developed. DC’s Office of Planning supported the application because of the need for more child care spaces in the District.

Following the hearings, the board closed the record and encouraged the owner, ANC, and neighbors to try to reach a compromise. Commissioner Brooks held single member district meetings, and some progress was achieved. Inexplicably, after the record was closed, the current president of Citizens Aware, Anita Purvis, circulated a petition against the daycare. The president of LRCA, Rodney Foxworth, then posted that petition to the neighborhood email list requesting more neighbors to sign, even though the record was closed with the exception of a few specific documents requested by the board, and the record was already replete with letters in opposition from some of the same signatories to the petition.

Board vote

In the end, the home addition, one of the biggest points of contention, was not an issue considered by the board. Even if the owner was not seeking to operate a child development center and simply wanted to expand her home with the proposed home additions, she could do so as a matter of right.

The board decided to approve the conversion to a child development center with several conditions agreed to by the applicant. The center must have a staff member serve as a crossing guard during dropoff and pickoff and must inform parents of the dropoff plan. The owner must attend Citizens Aware and civic association meetings on a quarterly basis for a period of time. There are also conditions related to signage and a privacy fence.

Other conditions requested by the ANC and neighbors were not imposed. The board stated it has no authority to require the owner to live on the premises, but the fact that the owner stated she would continue to live in the home if permitted was noted positively. The ANC and neighbor requested a five-year sunset provision to permit the board to determine whether the conditions were being met. In a different child care expansion case in ANC 4B, the board imposed a seven-year time limit, but that case involved an existing child development center in a church that wanted to increase the number of children served from 25 to 62 (BZA case number 20111). In this case, the board chose not to impose a time limit, being sympathetic to the owner’s argument that having such a condition would make it difficult to obtain financing to add on to the home to accommodate the center and to recruit parents. The board was convinced that the application for a conversion to a child development center to accommodate serving an additional 11 children in this case satisfies the regulatory requirements for a special exception.