Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2012

Home

October 10, 2011 J Volume 51 No. 19 Zoning Bulletin The District of Columbia Court of Appeals disagreed with Fleis- chman's argument and upheld the BZA's granting of the variances. In so concluding, the court analyzed whether the BZA exceeded its powers in granting the variances. The court found that the BZA was authorized, under the D.C. Code, to "make special exceptions to the provisions of the zoning regulations in harmony with their gen- eral purpose and intent." According to those terms, the court found no reason why the variances requested by HHALP were not properly before the BZA. The court found that "the size of the properry [and] the number of the variances requested" did not by themselves m -- pact the analysis of whether the BZA had authority to preside over HHALP's application. In other words, as long as the BZA properly applied the "three - part test" for determining whether a variance should issue, each variance was properly granted no matter the total number of them granted for the single property. The court explained that three -part test. In order for HHALP to obtain area variance relief, it had to show: (1) there was an "extraordinary or exceptional condition af- fecting the property "; (2) "practical difficulties" would occur if the zoning regulations were strictly enforced; and (3) the requested relief could be granted "without substantial detriment to the public good and without .substantially impairing the intent, purpose, and integ- rity of the zone plan." For a variance to issue, "the difficulties or hardships [must be] due to unique circumstances peculiar to the ap- plicant's property and not to the general conditions in the neighbor- hood," further explained the court. The court concluded that, here, the three -part test was met. First, the court found that the BZA "properly applied the uniqueness test when it concluded that the difficulties or hardships' cited by HHALP were `unique circumstances peculiar to the applicant's property. "' The property: was irregularly shaped and wooded; had extreme to- pography; had significant grade differential; had minimal street front- age in comparison to its perimeter; had no public street infrastruc- ture; and was encumbered on its southern boundary by a private parking lot which reduced the property's buildable area. The court also found that the record contained "sufficient factual findings supporting the BZA's conclusion that HHALP was presented with practical difficulties warranting the area variance[s]." HHALP had demonstrated the two necessary elements to show "practical dif- ficulty": (1) compliance with the area restrictions would be unnec- essarily burdensome; and (2) the practical difficulties were unique 6 © 2011 Thomson Reuters