Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin October 10, 2011 Volume 51 No. 19 <br />Variance —BZA Approves 241 Variances for a <br />Proposed Development on a Single Property <br />Opponent argues BZA exceeded its authority by essentially <br />rezoning the property <br />Citation: Fleischman v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjust- <br />ment, 2011 WL 3715032 (D.C. 2011) <br />DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (08/25/11)—This case addresses <br />the issue of whether a board of zoning appeals exceeds its author- <br />ity when it grants such a number of variances for a single prop- <br />erty that it impacts nearly every applicable zoning requirement of <br />the property. <br />The Background /Facts: In June 2008, Hillcrest Homes Associa- <br />tion LP ( "HHALP ") filed an application with the District of Co- <br />lumbia Board of Zoning Adjustment (the "BZA ") to construct a <br />residential development containing 54 one- family detached dwell- <br />ings in a residential zoning district on a 12.59 -acre triangle- shaped <br />property. HHALP sought to cluster the development, leaving 4.69 <br />acres of the property undeveloped. HHALP's application sought <br />necessary variances to cluster the development. The principal vari- <br />ance requested was to reduce the minimum lot area. Variances re- <br />lated to the reduced lot size were also sought for the minimum re- <br />quired front, rear, and side yards. HHALP also sought variances to <br />build 23 of the houses to four stories, instead of the allowed three, <br />but without an increase in the allowed overall height. In all, given <br />the number of individual lots, a total of 241 variances were ap- <br />proved by the BZA. <br />Julius Fleischman, another local builder, filed a motion asking the <br />BZA to reconsider. That motion was denied. Fleischman then ap- <br />pealed to court. Fleischman contended that the BZA exceeded the <br />scope of its authority under the D.C. Code (% 6- 641.07(e) ). Section <br />6- 641.07(e) of the D.C. Code provides that the BZA "shall not have <br />the power to amend any regulation or map." Fleischman noted that <br />the BZA's approval impacted almost every applicable zoning require- <br />ment of the property. Fleischman maintained that the net effect of ap- <br />proving all of HHALP's requested variances was a de facto rezoning <br />of the property, and such a rezoning could only be done by the Zon- <br />ing Commission, not the BZA. <br />DECISION: Judgment of Board of Zoning Adjustment affirmed. <br />© 201 1 Thomson Reuters 5 <br />