An application for a modification to a previously approved proposal for a gas station in front of the DC SuperMart/Z Burger located at 4975 South Dakota Avenue NE is pending before the DC Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA case no. 17963A). This is the convenience store located across the street from the McDonald’s and directly next to an existing Sunoco gas station. It is located in ANC single member district 5A08.
A public hearing is scheduled for April 12, 2023. Instructions on how to participate through either oral or written testimony are in the hearing notice.
The applicant submitted the modification application in October 2022, but the issue only came up at ANC 5A’s meeting on January 25, 2023, after a resident asked about activity at the location. A representative for the applicant appeared at the ANC’s February 2023 meeting with a brief presentation. The representative agreed to present to the North Michigan Park Civic Association at some point and will also provide a traffic report as well, from what I understand.
2010 Approval
I was not around in the neighborhood when this project was first proposed but looking at the original case file, it looks like well over 10 years ago, the applicant previously proposed to raze the existing convenience store and build a new one with a gas station. The convenience store could be rebuilt as a matter of right, but a special exception was needed for the gas station. The BZA held a hearing and had public meetings in 2009 to consider the request for a special exception.
Specifically, the BZA had to consider three factors in determining whether special exception relief was warranted:
- The station shall not be located within twenty-five feet (25 ft.) of a residential zone or unless separated from the residential zone by a street or alley;
- The operation of the use shall not create dangerous or other objectionable traffic conditions; and
- Required parking spaces may be arranged so that all spaces are not accessible at all times. All parking spaces provided under this subsection shall be designed and operated so that sufficient access and maneuvering space is available to permit the parking and removal of any vehicles without moving any other vehicle onto public space.
Under another provision in the regulations, the Board also had to consider whether the gas station:
- Will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Regulations and Zoning Maps;
- Will not tend to affect adversely, the use of neighboring property in accordance with the Zoning Regulations and Zoning Maps; and
- Will meet such special conditions as may be specified in [the Zoning regulations].
The BZA approved the special exception for the gas station in 2010 (case no. 17963), but it was never built. The convenience store remained in place, going through a series of name changes over the ensuing years.
Modification
Now it looks like the applicant is ready to put in three double-sided gas dispensers (six total nozzles) in front of the existing convenience store, so the applicant is back before the Board seeking a modification.
In the application for modification of significance and statement in support, the applicant writes:
The applicant hereby proposes to amend the previously approved BZA #17963 by retaining the existing convenience store and site
modifications to the proposed gasoline canopy, fuel dispenser layout, and entrances. No changes to the existing drainage system
and boundaries are proposed. The intended use per approved BZA 17963 remains. However, this layout reduces the originally
approved impervious footprint thereby, fostering an environmentally better and less intense development.
The owner contends that the BZA already approved the gas station back in 2010, so it should approve the modification here because the “spirit” of the application remains the same.
Addressing the factors described above, the applicant writes:
The proposed gasoline service station with three pumps and a canopy over the pumps is previously approved per BZA#17963. The site is zoned MU-3A. The adjacent residential zone R-2 along the north side is separated by streets along Delafield Street NE, and Emerson Street NE. The residential zone R-2 along the east side is separated by a driveway or alley. The gasoline service station “SUNOCO” zoned MU-3A exists along the SE side of the property. The site abuts zone MU-3A across the street South Dakota Ave, NE.
The self-service gasoline station would be situated to permit a free flow of traffic onto the site for access to the existing convenience store in the same manner per the currently approved application, BZA #17963. A traffic study was conducted as a part of the previously approved BZA#17963. There is no aspect of the physical characteristics of the property which would inhibit the flow of traffic or cause any adverse impact on the traffic of South Dakota Ave.
The existing convenience building will remain. The parking spaces shown on the site plan are designed to be accessible at all times without moving any other vehicles to the public space.
The applicant also writes in the application:
Pursuant to Subtitle X-901.2 of the Zoning Regulations, the Board is authorized to grant special exception relief where, the special exception will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Regulations and Zoning Maps; will not tend to affect adversely, the use of a neighboring property.
The existing convenience store will remain thereby maintains the existing harmony with the adjacent zone. The proposed fuel station with three dispensers/pumps and a canopy over the pumps is previously approved per BZA#17963. The proposed scope will maintain the required setbacks. Hence, granting the special exception will retain all aspects such as use and harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Regulations and Zoning Maps, and will not tend to adversely affect the use of neighboring properties.
The North Michigan Park Civic Association is working to address the issue. If you are interested in working with the civic association, you can reach out to them.
Old case record
Might be worth looking at the order for BZA case 17963 to see how the Board addressed comments by ANC 5A (which opposed the gas station), DDOT, and DC’s Office of Planning back in 2010. It is a pretty short order. Also, transcripts for the public hearings and meeting are available in the case file.
It is pretty interesting to read the testimony of the previous gas station team from the 2009 hearing. They talked about how amazing they thought this whole thing would be. A pair of brothers partnered with the owner of the store to propose the project to raze the store and build a new one with a gas station. One of the pair made a point to note that he was a native Washingtonian and how much he and his brother wanted to contribute to the community. Acknowledging that this proposed gas station would be right next to an existing gas station, he said there was no comparison between the two because the new convenience store (that never happened) would have a green roof and sell fresh food, not just candy and soda. He said this would provide a business need for which people would not have to leave their neighborhood to get. He promised not to apply for a liquor license. And he mentioned a few times how attractive the gas station canopy would be and that it would have recessed lighting so as not to interfere with neighboring homes.
It is also pretty interesting to read DDOT’s testimony. DDOT did not submit a report before the hearing. DDOT’s representative at the hearing stated that he was “vaguely familiar” with the case. Apparently, he had worked with the team at that time on plans for a different site and pretty much extrapolated DDOT’s work on that site to the site on South Dakota Avenue. After prompting from the Board, the applicant did submit what he said was a traffic report for the South Dakota Avenue location and DDOT apparently submitted a memo stating it had no objections to the applicant’s report. It appears OP primarily relied on DDOT to state whether there were any objectionable traffic concerns with the proposal in deciding to support the original application. OP and DDOT proposed conditions in the order.
As noted in OP’s 2009 report, the Board could “impose requirements pertaining to design, appearance, screening, or lighting, or other requirements it deems necessary to protect adjacent or nearby property.” Conditions requested by OP in 2009:
- hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 A.M. to 10 P.M.;
- flood lights shall be angled downward and shuttered in order to avoid light spillage
onto nearby residential properties; - canopy lighting shall be recessed; and
- there shall be no exterior amplified sound system.
According to the order, DDOT requested conditions related to “the hours for fuel delivery, the size of the delivery trucks, and a specific plan for ingress and egress to and from the site, including a condition which restricted the South Dakota Avenue curb cut to a right turn into the site.”
The Board’s approval in 2010 contained the following conditions:
- The hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
- Flood lights at the property shall be angled downward and shuttered in order to avoid light spillage onto nearby residential properties.
- Canopy lighting at the property shall be recessed.
- There shall be no exterior amplified sound system at the property.
- Hours for fuel delivery shall be limited to 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
- Fuel deliveries shall be made with trucks that are no larger than 30 feet in length.
- The South Dakota Avenue curb cut will be 20 feet wide and will be restricted to a right tum onto the property. All vehicles exiting the property will use the curb cut along Emerson Street. The Emerson Street curb cut will serve as a two directional vehicle access point.
It will be interesting to see what DDOT and OP write in their reports regarding this request for modification. (Aside: I am particularly interested to see what OP says given their track record in planning in this part of the neighborhood).
My understanding is that the BZA will consider anew whether to approve a special exception. I think it is safe to say there is near universal opposition to having another gas station right next to the Sunoco. All the promises of a modern convenience store were for naught.
Hopefully the ANC will produce a report that clearly outlines why special exception relief is not warranted.
Next Stop...Riggs Park 
Thank you for doing this research.
This is ridicules. With the addition of the drive-thru window across the street at McDonalds the additional traffic at that intersection will be excessive. In addition I don’t understand how there is enough room to add the three proposed gas pumps in that small lot. If anything is added to that space, it should be EV charging stations of which the neighborhood is sorely lacking. The EV stations at the Giant are actually located in MD and are usually occupied.
Do you think they’d ever submit to get the ability to sell beer and wine? I’d love a solid store nearby with a better selection of daily convenience items and the ability to grab a quick six-pack of local beer. So close to perfection with the Z-burger!
Hi Katy, if I remember correctly, they tried to apply before in the not too distant past & got pushback so they decided not to pursue the application. Can’t remember if it was just beer/wine or alcohol as well. Many neighbors around there do not want them to sell any of it. I don’t live in NMP, just my sense when the topic has come up at ANC meetings.