Opinion ID: 2557885
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Exceptional Condition

Text: First, petitioner argues that the BZA erred in determining that there was an exceptional situation that warranted the Rosans' requested use variance. Relying on our decision in Monaco v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 407 A.2d 1091 (D.C.1979), the BZA reasoned that a zoning history which implicitly approved a use and thereby gave rise to good-faith, detrimental reliance by the property owner help[s] to establish the necessary exceptional situation. Here, according to the BZA, the Rosans purchased a house which had been openly and continuously used as a 15-unit rooming house for over 30 years, and its Certificate of Occupancy set forth no limitations on the number of rooms or square footage, and had no expiration date. The BZA continued to explain that the Rosans had no immediate reason to question the use of 15 units in the rooming house, and, in fact, when they applied for a Certificate of Occupancy in 2003, they may well have been entitled to [one] for a rooming house with no restriction on the number of rooms. [3] Therefore, the BZA concluded, [t]his unfortunate and unusual chain of events presents an exceptional situation unique to this property. In Monaco, we affirmed the BZA's granting of a variance to the Republican National Committee (RNC) and an intervenor, who were seeking to expand the RNC's offices located in an R-4 district bordering the Capitol Grounds. Id. at 1095. The United States government had previously condemned the RNC's existing property in order to construct the Madison Library. Id. Because of the intervenor's close relationship with Congress, it was able to find and acquire another suitable property for the RNC offices, and received the assurances of the Zoning Commission that the project could proceed by means of a series of area variances. Id. We agreed with the BZA that the expansion project warranted the requested area variance relief because of these unique historical circumstances, especially because of the parties' good faith, detrimental reliance on the zoning authorities' informal assurances, and therefore, it constituted an extraordinary situation. Id. at 1101. According to petitioner, this case is unlike Monaco because there the RNC and intervenor were diligent and were repeatedly assured by zoning authorities that their project would be able to proceed. However, petitioner claims that in contrast to the parties in Monaco, the Rosans had both actual and constructive notice that regulations limited their intended use of the property to eight rooms, starting when their Certificate of Occupancy was explicitly limited to eight rooms and their first variance application was denied in 2003. Moreover, citing Rafferty v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm'n, petitioner continues, the Rosans' reliance on a building permit cannot be invoked to avoid restrictions on the project where they clearly had knowledge of the restrictions before pursuing the renovations. 662 A.2d 191, 193 (D.C.1995) (holding that petitioners had constructive notice of zoning regulations and could not justifiably rely on issuance of building permits). The Board urges us to affirm its determination that there existed an exceptional condition, in accordance with Monaco as well as De Azcarate v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 388 A.2d 1233, 1237 (D.C.1978) (the extraordinary or exceptional condition which is the basis for a use variance need not be inherent in the land). According to the Board, it had substantial evidence to conclude that the Rosans had relied in good faith on the actions of city officials, including when they purchased the property and invested in its renovation. First, the Rosans reasonably relied on the issuance of the building permits by DCRA in believing that they were acting in accordance with the zoning regulations. See, e.g., Basken v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 946 A.2d 356, 364 (D.C.2008) ([T]he building permit is the document that reflects a zoning decision about whether a proposed structure, and its intended use as described in the permit application, conform to the zoning regulations.); Rodgers Bros. Custodial Servs. v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 846 A.2d 308 (D.C.2004). Second, and relatedly, the Rosans had no reason to understand that the building permits did not represent the zoning determination that they were seeking. It was only in 2008, according to the Board, that the reason for the limitation was explained to them. Upon review of the record and the BZA's findings of fact, we conclude that the BZA's finding that the Rosans demonstrated a good faith and detrimental reliance constituting an exceptional situation is supported by substantial evidence. As the BZA noted, the property had been openly and continuously used as a 15-unit rooming house for over 30 years, the [Certificate of Housing] for which was publicly visible hanging on the wall. The combined effect of the issuance of the unrestricted 1969 C of O, the issuance of the license to Mr. Bird for 15 units, and the issuance to the Applicants themselves, of two building permits, and all necessary final inspections, on a 12-unit building as well as the fact that DCRA took no enforcement action against them, gave rise to the Applicants' good faith, detrimental reliance, leading them to believe they were entitled to operate a 12-unit rooming house. We also defer to the BZA's determination that Ms. Rosan testified convincingly. . . that she and her husband did not understand why their 2003 Certificate of Occupancy was limited to eight units and that they could not get a satisfactory answer from DCRA personnel.