Oakland Condominium v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, 2011 D.C. App. LEXIS 291

The Rosans bought 2005 Columbia Road NW in March 2003 for a 15‑unit rooming house, in a zone where rooming houses were restricted to 90‑day occupancy after 1989 amendments.
The building had a long history of 15 units; the existing certificate of occupancy reportedly carried no unit limit and no expiration date.
The Rosans sought to change occupancy via COO and Zoning Administrator guidance; they were told to seek a use variance for a 15‑room operation, but a COO for eight rooms was granted.
Renovations proceeded with permits for a 12‑room operation; the Rosans operated as a 12‑room boarding house for about five years without enforcement actions.
In 2008–2009, the Zoning Administrator shifted positions, suggesting eight rooms and urging a use variance for expansion; the Board granted the Rosans’ variance on September 14, 2003 (revisited after subsequent hearings).
The Oakland Condominium, with ANC 1C, challenged the BZA’s variance grant, which the DC Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed as reasonable given the circumstances and the surrounding community context.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Rosans' variance was warranted by an exceptional condition.	Oakland contends no exceptional situation existed.	BZA relied on Monaco and found good faith reliance on city actions created exceptional circumstances.	Yes; substantial evidence supports an exceptional condition.
Whether undue hardship was shown for a use variance.	Oakland argues hardship was self‑created and not enough to support a use variance.	BZA properly applied the use‑variance standard, considering economic impact and reasonable adaptation.	Yes; undue hardship shown through economic impact and lack of reasonable alternatives.
Whether grant of the variance impaired the zoning plan.	Expansion of a transient facility undermines residential zoning and Order 614’s non‑proliferation goals.	Variance is not a new use; pre‑existing nonconforming use can continue with four extra rooms without undermining the plan.	No; BZA rationally interpreted the zoning plan and Order 614, with deference to its conclusions.
Whether the BZA properly considered the Zoning Administrator’s eight‑room grandfathering letter.	BZA acted beyond scope by addressing issues raised in the letter without proper procedure.	Issues were related to the basis of belief in continuing Bird’s use and were properly within BZA’s scope.	Yes; consideration of the letter was proper in the context of the variance proceeding.

Mendelson v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 645 A.2d 1090 (D.C. 1994) (requires specific factual findings supported by substantial evidence)
Economides v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 954 A.2d 427 (D.C. 2008) (review standard for BZA decisions; reasonableness of agency interpretation)
Washington Canoe Club v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm'n, 889 A.2d 995 (D.C. 2005) (three‑prong test for variances: exceptional condition, practical difficulties, and public‑good impact)
Monaco v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 407 A.2d 1091 (D.C. 1979) (exceptional situation based on good faith, detrimental reliance on zoning assurances)
De Azcarate v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 388 A.2d 1233 (D.C. 1978) (recognizes exceptional conditions need not be inherent in the land)
Palmer v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 287 A.2d 535 (D.C. 1972) (undue hardship standard for use variances (strict application precludes reasonable use))
Bernstein v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 376 A.2d 816 (D.C. 1977) (strict application must preclude reasonable use)
Gilmartin v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 579 A.2d 1164 (D.C. 1990) (economic use can factor into undue hardship)
Rodgers Bros. Custodial Servs. v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 846 A.2d 308 (D.C. 2004) (deference to BZA findings when supported by substantial evidence)