Capitol Hill Restoration Society, Inc. v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment
Docket: No. 86-426
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals; December 21, 1987; District Of Columbia; State Supreme Court
Petitioners, including the Capitol Hill Restoration Society and local associations, challenge the D.C. Board of Zoning Adjustment's (BZA) decision to grant an area variance to Historic D.C. Property Group for property at 642 East Capitol Street, N.E. They argue that the intervenor did not provide adequate evidence of exceptional conditions necessary to justify the variance. The court agrees, stating the BZA's findings on uniqueness are insufficient to meet the required criteria for variance approval.
The property in question is a 2,688-square-foot lot featuring a three-story townhouse and a carriage house, with plans to renovate the townhouse into four two-bedroom units and convert the carriage house into a one-bedroom dwelling with a garage. The proposed subdivision would require significant variances for both the carriage house and the principal building. Although some neighborhood residents supported the application, the majority opposed it, and the D.C. Office of Planning also expressed concerns due to the magnitude of the variances requested.
The BZA is authorized to grant variances under D.C. Code 5-424(g)(3), contingent upon proving three criteria: the property must be unique due to physical or exceptional conditions; strict enforcement of zoning regulations must result in undue hardship; and the variance must not adversely affect public welfare or the integrity of the zoning plan. The court ultimately reverses the BZA’s decision, emphasizing a failure to demonstrate the necessary uniqueness of the property.
The court's review centers on whether the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) legally justified its decision based on the evidence presented. A key requirement is that the property must demonstrate unique circumstances leading to a hardship that affects only it, not the entire neighborhood. If such hardships are widespread, they should be addressed through regulatory amendments rather than variances. The BZA incorrectly determined that the intervenor's property was unique due to its location in the Capitol Hill Historic District and its size. The court clarified that uniqueness must arise from conditions inherent to the property itself, not merely from external factors or the characteristics of the neighborhood. The BZA's reliance on expert testimony regarding the size of the property was also flawed, as similar large lots exist nearby. Consequently, the court found that the BZA's conclusions did not meet the legal standard for proving uniqueness necessary for granting a variance.
Testimony indicated that wide lots, like lot 800, are common on East Capitol Street in Capitol Hill. Ms. Overbeck explained that buildings on oversized lots are typically over three stories tall and feature English basements above grade. Her observations suggest that the characteristics of lot 800 are not unique and are shared by other properties in the area. Robert Hummer, from Historic D.C. Property Group, corroborated this by noting that lot 800’s size and shape were similar to adjacent lots, with only minor differences in width. He pointed out that there were four other carriage houses in Square 868 comparable to the one at 642 East Capitol Street. The Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) acknowledged the similarity of the subject property to others nearby, emphasizing that the carriage house was adjacent to an alley with fourteen similar structures. The findings led to the conclusion that the property did not present extraordinary or exceptional circumstances justifying a variance. Consequently, the BZA's order granting the variance was reversed, as the applicant failed to demonstrate the uniqueness required for such relief. The court did not address additional arguments regarding mischaracterization of the variance type, practical difficulty, or inconsistency with prior decisions, given the lack of unique circumstances. The zoning regulations define an R-4 district as areas primarily developed with row dwellings, including many converted for multiple families.
The zoning regulations have been renumbered since the BZA's order, and references will be made to the current codification. The principal building requires several variances: a 2,206.39 square foot lot area variance (55.16%), a nineteen-foot lot width variance (47.5%), and a 351.49 square foot lot occupancy variance (48.99%). Notifications about the proposed variance were sent to property owners within a 200-foot radius. A key consideration for the BZA was the rental housing shortage in the District of Columbia, with members believing that the conversion would help address this issue. However, legal precedent indicates that public benefits from a variance cannot replace the necessity for an extraordinary situation related specifically to the property. The BZA must base its decision on factors pertinent to the property itself, not on broader concerns about the housing supply. Furthermore, no evidence regarding the housing shortage was presented to the BZA, and the intervenor's proposal to reduce the number of apartments from six to five contradicts the BZA's belief regarding housing needs.
