Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/01/2018

Home

Zoning Bulletin January 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 2 high density residential zone." In order to pursue its proposed facility, Hillel needed, among other things, an area variance and special excep- tion relief from the Zoning Commission of the District of Columbia (the "Zoning Commission"). The Zoning Commission ultimately ap- proved Hillel's application for zoning relief. Thereafter, St. Mary's Episcopal Church ("St. Mary's") and the West End Civic Association ("WECA") (collectively, the "Opponents") chal- lenged that zoning approval in a petition to the court for review. The Opponents contended that Hillel failed to meet the District of Colum- bia Court of Appeal's "three -prong test for an area variance." Under that test, District of Columbia zoning authorities (such as the Zoning Commission here) are authorized to grant an area variance (such as that sought by Hillel here) if they find that: "(1) there is an extraordinary or exceptional condition affecting the property; (2) practical difficulties will occur if the zoning regulations are strictly enforced; and (3) the requested relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent, purpose, and integrity of the zone plan." Here, with respect to the first prong of the test, the Zoning Commis- sion had concluded that Hillel was "affected by an exceptional condi- tion arising from a confluence of factors," including: "(1) the size, shape, and configuration of its lot; and (2) its demonstrated need to improve and expand its facility and maintain its location near the [GW] campus where it [could] best serve its primary constituency —students." The Zoning Commission had further found that Hillel was "an organi- zation with unique institutional and religious needs that are not related to general conditions in the neighborhood" but "uniquely tied to" GW and its 4,500 Jewish students; and the existing facility could not "ac- commodate existing demand for certain events" and anticipated future growth. With respect to the second prong of the test, the Zoning Com- mission had concluded that Hillel would face "practical difficulties" if the zoning regulations were strictly enforced. And, with regard the third prong of the test, the Zoning Commission concluded that the Op- ponents had failed to "convincingly show that [Hillel's new facility] [would] be detrimental to the public good." The Opponents strongly disagreed with the Zoning Commission's findings and conclusions. They argued that Hillel merely preferred a new facility as "more cost-effective and beneficial." They maintained that the Zoning Commission incorrectly concluded that Hillel met the court's three -prong test for an area variance. DECISION: Zoning Commission decision affirmed. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Zoning Commission, concluding that Hillel did meet the three -prong test for an area variance. © 2018 Thomson Reuters 9