AHMED AIT-GHEZALA v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT, and SB-URBAN, LLC, Intervenor.
148 A.3d 1211
| D.C. | 2016Background
- SB-Urban sought approval to build a two-parcel, car-free apartment project (123 studio units) in the Blagden Alley/Naylor Court Historic District, consisting of an addition to a historic garage on the M Street parcel and a new building on the 9th Street parcel.
- Zoning required one parking space per two dwelling units (62 spaces total); SB-Urban applied for (1) a variance to provide no parking for the 9th Street property and (2) a special exception under §2120.6 to waive parking for the M Street historic property.
- Notice and an initial hearing occurred in late 2014; the BZA continued the matter and held a January 27, 2015 continuation hearing. Two nearby owners (Ait‑Ghezala and Schauer) requested party status in January but the BZA chair denied those requests as untimely; the BZA nonetheless allowed them to testify and submit documents.
- On February 24, 2015 the BZA voted to grant the variance and special exception; its written Decision and Order issued September 8, 2015. Petitioners sought judicial review.
- The court reviews whether BZA made adequate factual findings supported by substantial evidence and whether legal conclusions flow rationally from those findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of party status | Petitioners: requests filed in advance of the continued hearing and therefore timely | BZA: timeliness measured from originally set hearing date(s); requests untimely | Affirmed — BZA reasonably applied its rule measuring timeliness from scheduled hearing date(s) and acted within authority |
| Area variance for 9th Street property — exceptional condition prong | Petitioners: BZA relied improperly on project use and failed to show unique, extraordinary conditions | SB‑Urban/BZA: a confluence of factors (lot size relative to square, irregular shape, narrow width, adjacency to alley, part of a two‑lot project) makes the lot exceptional | Reversed and remanded — BZA’s findings inadequate and partly based on improper factors (use/project); must explain why conditions are exceptional to this lot alone |
| Special exception for M Street historic property under §2120.6 | Petitioners: BZA failed to ensure relief granted was no more than needed to alleviate historic preservation difficulty | SB‑Urban/BZA: providing parking would harm historic resource; full relief necessary | Reversed and remanded — BZA did not state that it granted only the amount of relief needed or explain the limitation; must clarify and justify scope of relief |
| Overall sufficiency of BZA findings | Petitioners: findings not detailed enough for meaningful judicial review | BZA: decision justified by the record and OP recommendations | Mixed — some procedural rulings upheld; substantive grants reversed for inadequate findings and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Tiber Island Coop. Homes, Inc. v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm’n, 975 A.2d 186 (D.C. 2009) (deference to agency interpretation of its own regulations)
- Mendelson v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 645 A.2d 1090 (D.C. 1994) (three-part standard for reviewing BZA findings and conclusions)
- Metropole Condo. Ass’n v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 141 A.3d 1079 (D.C. 2016) (use of property cannot alone establish extraordinary condition for variance)
- Washington Canoe Club v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm’n, 889 A.2d 995 (D.C. 2005) (variance standard and recognition that narrowness can be an exceptional condition)
- Draude v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 582 A.2d 949 (D.C. 1990) (agency findings must be sufficiently detailed to permit meaningful judicial review)