METROPOLE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT.
141 A.3d 1079
| D.C. | 2016Background
- Applicant sought variance from parking requirements and a special exception for building height to construct an eight‑story, 37‑unit apartment building on three narrow Church Street lots in the ARTS/C‑3‑A Overlay within a historic district. 19 parking spaces were required by 11 DCMR § 2101.1.
- Metropole Condominium owners (petitioners) opposed, raising adverse impacts on light, air, enjoyment, and surrounding street parking; ANC and the Office of Planning supported the application.
- The BZA held hearings, experienced a recusal, reheard the case with a replacement NCPC commissioner, and ultimately granted the parking variance (3–2) and the special exception.
- Petitioners challenged the BZA decision on grounds that the Board adopted the applicant’s proposed order verbatim, failed to make adequate findings (especially about extraordinary conditions, practical difficulties, and building height), and that the replacement NCPC commissioner was improperly appointed.
- The Court reviewed whether the BZA’s findings permit meaningful appellate review under the “substantial evidence”/arbitrary‑and‑capricious standard and remanded for fuller findings and explanation.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioners' Argument | Applicant/BZA Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the property has extraordinary or exceptional conditions warranting a parking variance | BZA relied on applicant’s intended design and local conditions shared by other properties; no unique property condition shown | BZA found a confluence (historic structures, HPRB constraints, narrow/small lots, narrow street) making the property exceptional | Remanded: BZA must explain why those conditions uniquely affect this property and why they justify a variance |
| Whether practical difficulties exist to justify relief from parking requirements | Testimony insufficient (real‑estate agent opinion about marketability of an 8‑unit building) to show compliance is unduly burdensome | BZA concluded narrow site prevents underground parking and asserted financial impracticality | Remanded: BZA must analyze and explain whether compliance would cause practical difficulties and whether evidence is substantial |
| Whether granting the parking variance would harm public good or impair zone plan | Petitioners argued parking impacts and neighborhood harm | BZA relied on District policy favoring alternative transportation, rental restrictions against residential permits, and DDOT/transportation findings | Affirmed as to this prong: substantial evidence supports no substantial detriment to public good or zone plan |
| Whether the special exception was properly characterized and justified (height/bonus FAR) | BZA mischaracterized relief as roof‑structure height rather than overall building height and made conclusory findings on bonus height/FAR | BZA argued applicant entitled to certain height and bonus FAR; ANC/OP recommendations considered | Remanded: BZA must correctly identify the relief sought (overall height), explain impacts under §3104.1, and justify any bonus FAR/height findings with reasoning |
Key Cases Cited
- Durant v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm’n, 99 A.3d 253 (D.C. 2014) (agencies must not adopt prevailing party orders verbatim; courts apply closer scrutiny)
- Palmer v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 287 A.2d 535 (D.C. 1972) (proposed use alone cannot establish extraordinary property condition for variance)
- Washington Canoe Club v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm’n, 889 A.2d 995 (D.C. 2005) (three‑part area variance test articulated)
- Draude v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 582 A.2d 949 (D.C. 1990) (agency findings must be sufficiently detailed for meaningful review)
- Fleischman v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 27 A.3d 554 (D.C. 2011) (applicant must show compliance with area restriction would be unnecessarily burdensome)
- Washington Ethical Soc. v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 421 A.2d 14 (D.C. 1980) (remand may permit further hearings or a different result; Board must make proper findings)