Opinion ID: 2326822
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The BZA's Ruling

Text: At the outset of the BZA's oral deliberations, the BZA Chairman acknowledged that the subject building is clearly out of context with the rest of the block [ i.e., the 1800 block of Belmont Street, N.W.] and the adjacent structure. Nevertheless, the BZA upheld the building permits, agreeing with the Zoning Administrator that the building does not exceed the FAR limit. Regarding the basement issue, the BZA noted that the zoning regulations provide no guidance on how to calculate the FAR of partial basements and partial cellars, but that the Zoning Administrator's Office has employed at least two methods for calculating lower-level FAR: the grade-plane method [12] and the perimeter wall method. [13] The BZA explained that: Under the perimeter wall method, the FAR is determined by establishing a ratio between the linear footage of the portion [of the] perimeter wall with more than four feet out of grade and the total square footage of the lower level. Under the grade plane method, a plane is established between the grade at the front of the building and the grade at the rear of the building. The point at which this plane intersects at a four foot level, any portion that exceeds that plane counts toward FAR and any portion that does not is considered a cellar. November 8, 2005 Order at 14. The BZA noted that: [t]he difficulty arises when the lower level is partially above and partially below that four-foot plane [ i.e., the plane at the level that is four feet above grade], and when the adjacent grade cannot be determined. Such is the case here where the Project is bounded on either side by row dwellings and the finished grade is not apparent. Id. Although acknowledging KCA's position that the basement floor area was incorrectly calculated using the `perimeter wall method' instead of the `grade plane method,' the BZA concluded that [b]oth methods appear reasonable[,] and the choice of which is most appropriate is within the Zoning Administrator's discretion. November 8, 2005 Order at 14. Accordingly, the BZA concluded, the floor space in the basement was correctly calculated [by the Zoning Administrator] using the perimeter wall method in the plans submitted by Montrose. Id. at 15. The BZA found that [a]t most, only 147.3 square feet of space on the lower level [about one-fifth of the lower-level space] is a basement, which counts toward FAR, enabling the project to compl[y] with the density limitation of 3.5 FAR for the R-5-D District. [14] Id. at 15. Regarding the attic issue, the BZA acknowledged KCA's assertion that the area counted as attic space should have been included in the gross floor of the project. Id. at 13. The BZA then went on to state: [KCA] contended that the plans showed that the attic's ceiling was not structural and therefore should not have been used to limit the height of the attic space. If the ceiling is not counted as structural headroom then the height would exceed six feet six inches and the space would be included in the Gross Floor Area, and the building would exceed 3.5 FAR. The term structural is not defined in the Zoning regulations, accordingly the definition for zoning purposes is provided by Webster's Unabridged Dictionary pursuant to 11 DCMR 199. The dictionary defines structural as of or relating to the load bearing members or scheme of a building, as opposed to the screening or ornamental elements. The Board credits the testimony of the architect of record for the Project that because the building is framed from front to back, rather than relying on the adjacent walls of the abutting townhouses for support, the collar ties forming the attic ceiling were not ornamental, but served as structural members necessary to help brace the building against racking in a north-south direction. The Board therefore concludes that the collar ties created structural headroom of less than six feet, six inches, and thus the space was properly excluded from FAR calculations. Id. at 14. Finally, the BZA acknowledged that it was required under D.C.Code § 1-309.10(d) to give `great weight' to the issues and concerns raised in the affected ANC's written recommendation. Id. at 15. The BZA stated that [i]n this case, the ANC joined with KCA in the . . . arguments that the Board has fully considered and addressed. . . . Id.