Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/01/2018

Home

January 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 2 Zoning Bulletin Addressing the first prong of the test —that there must be an exceptional condition affecting the property —the court explained that such an exceptional condition or "hardship" must be due to "unique circumstances peculiar to [Hiliel's] property and not to the general conditions in the neighborhood." The court concluded that the Zoning Commission's findings that there were exceptional conditions here was based on "substantial" and "sufficient" evidence, including: the feasi- bility of renovating the existing building; testimony from GW students "emphasizing the uninviting and fortress -like condition of the existing building"; "increasing numbers of students and others seeking to par- ticipate in Hillel's activities and services"; "the exceptional configura- tion of the lot"; and "Hillel's institutional mission and needs." Regarding the second prong of the test —that practical difficulties would occur if the zoning regulations were strictly enforced, the court explained that Hillel had to show: "(1) that the specific design it wants to build constitutes an institutional necessity, not merely the most desired of various options, and (2) precisely how the needed design features require the specific variance sought." Again, the court found that there was "sufficient" and "substantial" evidence that Hillel would face practical difficulties if zoning regulations (namely, the lot oc- cupancy and rear yard requirements) were strictly enforced. Given Hil- lel's "institutional need for a single contiguous worship space and din- ing space of a certain size," the court found that strict enforcement of the zoning regulations "would result in an inefficient and uneconomi- cal building" that "would not yield enough useable space for the wor- ship, dining, and program space required by Hi11e1." The court also found that the third prong of the variance test was met; the requested relief of the area variance could be granted "without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent, purpose, and integrity of the zone plan." The Op- ponents' argument had focused on allegations that the construction of the proposed new facility would damage St. Mary's church building. But the court explained that the proper standard in addressing the third prong should not be on "whether harm will result from the construction of the, facility, but whether harm will] result from the structure as built with the variance." Focusing on the latter, the court found no reason to disturb the Commission's findings that: "(1) the new facility's impact on light and air was less significant than what Hillel was entitled to as a matter of right[;] and (2) Hillel's revised facility design further reduced the impact on light and air [on St. Mary's]..."; and that "provision of an easement memorializing [St. Mary's] right of access across [another GW] property" adequately addressed St. Mary's concern of loss of ac- cess across Hillel's rear yard. See also: Ait-Ghezala v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, 148 A.3d 1211 (D.C. 2016). 10 © 2018 Thomson Reuters I'i