Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/12/2018

Home

Zoning Bulletin June 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 11 residential building with approximately 56 units in seven stories. Because the zoning district in which the Parish was located limited buildings to no more than 80% of the lot, and the proposed project would occupy 86.7% of the lot, the Parish sought an area variance from D.C.'s Board of Zoning Adjustment (the "BZA"). The BZA granted the Parish's requested variance. In doing so, the BZA found that the fact that the Parish Hall was a contributing building to the local historic district amounted to an "exceptional condition that would create a practical difficulty in complying with the existing lot occupancy regulations." The BZA concluded that such practical difficulty warranted variance relief. Two neighborhood associations (the "Neighbors") challenged the BZA's order granting the area variance to the Parish. The Neighbors argued that the Parish had failed to meet the requirements for an area variance. The Neighbors disagreed that the fact that the Parish Hall contributed to the local historic district amounted to an "exceptional condition," warranting an area variance. DECISION: Judgment of Board of Zoning Adjustment vacated, and matter remanded. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals agreed with the Neighbors. It held that the presence of a contributing structure to a historic district is "not sufficient to constitute an exceptional condition" warranting a variance. The court explained that a board of zoning adjustment may grant an area variance if it finds: "(1) there is an extraordinary or exceptional condition af- fecting the property; (2) practical difficulties will occur if the zoning regula- tions 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." The court further explained that "the extraordinary or exceptional conditions affecting a property can arise from a confluence of factors; however, the critical requirement is that the extraordinary or exceptional condition must affect a single property." That requirement may be satisfied by, among other things, "features of the lot such as irregular shape or narrow width, a characteristic of the land, `[a] condition inherent in the structures built upon the land, or prior zoning actions regarding the property.' " Here, the court recognized that the presence of a historic landmark building which restricted development opportunities would amount to an "exceptional condition." However, in comparison, the court disagreed with the BZA that the presence of a contributing structure to a historic district —such as the Par- ish Hall here —was sufficient to constitute an exceptional condition. The court said that "[t]he presence of a contributing structure is thus less akin to the presence of a landmark building than to the property's inclusion in a historic district, which does not qualify as an exceptional circumstance." Defending the BZA's finding of exceptional condition on another ground, the Parish argued that as a "public service organization" a more flexible stan- dard should be applied to it with regard to finding exceptional conditions. This "public service doctrine," established by case law, provides that: "[w]here a public service organization applies for an area variance . . . it must show (1) that the specific design it wants to build constitutes an institutional necessity, © 2018 Thomson Reuters 5