639 A Street, SE
All that is left of 639 A Street, SE – the front facade – exterior and interior view.
“Embarrassed” Historic Preservation Board OK’s Rebuild of Illegal Demolition
By Larry Janezich
Posted June 2, 2023
Last March, Capitol Hill Corner reported the illegal demolition of the Historic District townhouse at 639 A Street, SE. On Thursday, the Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) considered the historic compatibility of the developer’s proposed reconstruction of the townhouse. At the end of the hearing, HPRB Chair Monique Heath called for the vote: “All right then – holding our nose – all those in favor? All those opposed? The motion passes 4 – 0.”
The project is being developed by an LLC owned by real estate agent Jessica Bachay and her husband. Last year, they hired architect Jennifer Fowler and contractor Manuel Acosta to carry out the city-approved plans to partially demolish the 19th century townhome and add a cellar and a two story addition. In the process, the scope of the work was exceeded, the house was demolished (except the front façade), tarps were erected, a stop work order was issued, and apologies were made. Thursday, the Preservation Board sanctioned the new plans, moving forward the rebuild. But, as comments and actions during the hearing show, it was embarrassing.
HPRB, the ANC Commissioner in whose single member district the project resides, a representative of the Capitol Hill Restoration Society and nearby neighbors are all skeptical of the contractor’s claim that he undertook the additional demolition on his own without consulting the architect, Jennifer Fowler or Jessica Barchay, the owner.
The contractor, Manuel Acosta of MAAC Construction, explained how the additional demolition occurred: He testified that when doing the approved demolition they tried to keep the portion of house supposed to be preserved but “found the wood not useable – rotted.” And for the safety of the crew he made the call “to remove those.” He said it was easier to “build and do it new instead of preserving and then rebuild.” He added, “I didn’t make the call to the architect or the engineer and we proceeded to the demolition and complete the work.” Later in his testimony, Acosta said, “It was my call here…the issue is…protocols. If you find something not right, you have to go to the owner and architect. I didn’t think about that – that was the issue. We try to preserve as much as we can.”
Board member Gretchen Pfaehler, Architectural Historian, said that when she looks at the photos and how the pictured joist “is all jagged, that does not look like a rotted joist to me – that looks like something that got hacked or cut or overcut, but it does not look like it’s rotten, and so it’s a shame because once it’s gone it’s gone forever. This should not fall on the shoulders of the inspectors; it falls on your shoulders as a contractor and the architect working with you.”
Acosta said, “I know pictures show (the wood) was basically not completely rotten but it was in bad shape. I always take pictures and … when I showed up on site and saw the demolition – from my perspective this was creating a big impact on this house – it looked bad – the cost of material may be more but I always want the best for my client. “
Pfaehler interrupted Acosta, telling him he was not really helping himself by continuing to talk, “You’re just making matters worse.” She added that, in the end, the owner is responsible, “regardless of their ability to understand…it’s just a shame that were here at this juncture and talking about this now.”
ANC6B Commissioner Jerry Sroufe, in whose single member district the project lies, was highly critical of both the developer and the process. Stressing that his comments were his own and not an official statement of ANC6B, Sroufe said: “I am discouraged by the loss of yet another historic building on A Street,* and angry because of the apparent willingness of those given the responsibility for historic preservation to consider the loss of historic homes as acceptable. To state, as a top official unfortunately has said, that the tear-down was “unfortunate” is to equate a planned action by individuals with a natural disaster, perhaps a fire caused by lightning. The loss of this building was the result of intentional actions made by individuals working within the framework of historic preservation; it is not unfortunate – it is wrong and disturbing….I am dissatisfied that there is apparently no investigation of instances of this type beyond assurance by the contractor that the action needed to be done.”
Sroufe went on to say, “Also, many find it difficult to believe the explanation that a building contractor working in the Capitol Hill Historic District – in existence since 1973 – and working with an established architect, simply was unaware of preservation procedures and went ahead with a demolition on his own.”
Sroufe offered three suggestions:
- Increase substantially the penalty for demolition without a permit. Four thousand dollars is a totally inadequate disincentive for demolition.**
- Investigate the circumstances leading to demolitions without a permit. This should precede consideration of any application necessary to carry forward a project. It is not sufficient to assess a penalty and move forward.
- Inspectors from HPRB should pay more attention to projects involving contributing structures in the Historic District while they are underway. Perhaps more inspectors are needed to move away from the present passive system of inspection that relies on neighbors calling problems to their attention.
Beth Purcell, Chair of the Capitol Hill Restoration Society told the Board, “We deeply regret the demolition and loss of fabric on this 19th century building which…cannot be replaced.” She said that the revised proposal is consistent with the Historic District, then added: “Mr. Acosta’s testimony left me wondering whether there was a plan or possibility of removing the façade or front exterior which is the only fabric remaining from the 19th century house.”
Several neighbors who live near 639 A Street spoke up in opposition to the scale of the project and the process which they felt had failed them. Among them was Enise Han, who neighbors credited with alerting them and city officials to the developer’s transgressions.
Bachay, one of the property’s owners, told the board she was embarrassed and upset and had “worked with Jennifer and Manuel” with the best intention of following the plans. Despite the fact that it is her and her husband’s LLC that is developing the property, she said it was their intention to live there with their three kids.
HPRB Chair Monique Heath said, “I understand why people are frustrated – I am frustrated by this and other cases like that … but that’s not what’s before us today….Taking it upon yourself to demolish existing fabric and not salvaging is not a process that is acceptable. We’re in this unfortunate situation of having to approve the rebuild and – given the circumstances – I think that is the acceptable recourse.”
Pfaehler reiterated her opinion: “This action is inexcusable. It puts us in this embarrassing position where we have to approve this solution which is compatible, but it’s embarrassing to the process, to the staff at OP (Office of Planning) and the inspectors who put in so many long hours and so much professional integrity…. So it’s a shame. It’s a real shame.”
Board member Carisa Beatty said, “I wish I could vote against this but I realize that doesn’t get us anything.”
Chair Heath concluded, saying she agreed with Commissioner Sroufe that penalties should be greater: “I don’t know what they are…but they should be significant enough so they should be a real deterrent.”
Asked to comment, Councilmember Charles Allen told Capitol Hill Corner: “If the penalty is intended to act as a disincentive and it’s not working, it clearly needs to be higher.”
*In February, 2021, at 326 A Street, SE, there was a similar tear-down of an entire historic building that went well beyond what was authorized in the permit.
**Violations of the preservation law and building code are subject to a $4,068 civil infraction fine for failure to obtain or stay within the scope and conditions of a building permit and that fine may be yet be levied as part of the ongoing enforcement action which is separate from HPRB consideration.
CAPITOL HILL CORNER 
Ed. Note. Posted at the request of Valerie Jablow: “There’s another step beyond fines that might disincentivize this practice: suspend the DC licenses of the contractors and architects involved for a year for every infraction. “
In 2020 at 308 11th St, NE, same developers (Jessica Bachay, Haider Haimus), same architect (Jennifer Fowler), similar situation (illegal construction complete gut of property and excavation under false permit plans), 2+ year stop work order, parties submitted false plans to zoning and would have exceeded 70% lot occupancy but for neighbor opposition identifying the overage, 40 neighbors opposed the project, same contractor caused $30k in damage to adjacent property. DC should revoke the licenses of code violators, particularly repeat offenders.
Why not require the portion of the building that was supposed to remain to be rebuilt using building technics and materials (such as hand sawn timbers) used in the year it was built? That would a significant financial penalty and an interesting community learning experience at the same time.
Architect Fowler is again seemingly involved in apparently breaking historic preservation rules. It is a disturbing pattern. She seems to be the go-to architect on the Hill when that is what is wanted. Fines are not working (they are less than a slap on the wrist), licenses should be suspended or revoked, otherwise why have licensing at all?
Interesting that Bachay says she intends to live there with her three kids because this is the exact same thing she said about the house at 308 11th St Ne where she “needed” the pop up because it was her forever home. Huh. Interesting.
Bachay & Haimus are a married couple that appear to be both developers (dba Luna Property Development LLC) and realtors. When 308 11th St., NE went up for sale, the terms of sale prohibited the property to be sold to developers. This restriction may be in part why these developers claim to intend to live in the home. Prior to 2020, this couple had flipped or were in the process of flipping about 5 homes on Capitol Hill. It would be interesting to see if this couple submitted false permit applications (if any) for any of their other flips. CHRS and HPRB appear to have become obsolete in the past several years—their decisions tend to cater to OP’s goals of increasing urban density and taxable square footage rather than effective historical preservation.
Developers like this consider this paltry fine as part of business and have already factored it in to the cost if a project. The fine needs to be signifigantly higher regardless of the historic nature of the house because this is just basic flouting of the law because it is not convenient for them. There also needs to be other measures that are levied on all parties.
After some forty years of the preservation absolutists micromanaging the neighborhood it’s nice to see somebody punch back.
More generally, perhaps the HPRB could shift from paranoia about this kind of develoment to the things that actually impact the proverbial historic character, like blocking the horrific Hine redevelopment design.
The utterly random brick corbeling on PA Ave and the weirdly forced streetscape on 8th St are exactly what preservationists should be blocking.
Time to rein in and refocus the HPRB, the Restoration Society, and their allies.