Opinion ID: 2357345
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The BZA's Decision

Text: In reviewing BZA decisions, our inquiry is (1) whether the [BZA] made a finding of fact on each material contested issue of fact; (2) whether substantial evidence in the record supports each finding; and (3) whether the [BZA's] conclusions of law follow rationally from the findings. George Washington Univ. v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 831 A.2d 921, 931 (D.C.2003) (citations omitted). We will defer to the Board's findings and will not second-guess the Board's decision unless it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. Citizens Ass'n of Georgetown v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 925 A.2d 585, 589 (D.C.2007) (quotation marks and citation omitted); D.C.Code § 2-510 (2001). We defer to the BZA's interpretation of the zoning regulations unless its interpretation is plainly wrong or inconsistent with the governing statute. Kuri Bros. v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 891 A.2d 241, 244 (D.C.2006); see also Downtown Cluster of Congregations v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 675 A.2d 484, 491 (D.C.1996) (the BZA's interpretation of the zoning regulations is controlling unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation) (citation omitted).
Miller contends that the BZA's legal conclusions did not flow rationally from its findings of fact and that the BZA's decision to approve the special exception application was contrary to law. Specifically, she asserts, the BZA's legal conclusion that the construction of a hotel will improve the balance of residential, office and hotel uses in the area cannot be squared with its finding that residential uses are under-represented in the area. She argues that the BZA could not lawfully approve Allstate's application for a special exception to build the proposed hotel because  there currently being no permanent residential uses in the SP-2 District  there can be no balance of residential, office, and hotel or inn uses in the SP District in the vicinity of the hotel or inn, as 11 DCMR 512.5 requires. [5] We disagree. The BZA found that both residential and hotel uses were under-represented vis-a-vis office and academic uses. The BZA's conclusion that a hotel will improve the balance follows reasonably from a recognition that adding the proposed hotel will diminish what the BZA found was the under-representation of hotel uses, one of the three types of uses that are to be balanced in an SP District. [6] Miller's arguments to the contrary reflect an interpretation of section 512.5 that is inconsistent with the regulatory language and that appears to us to be unduly restrictive and logically inconsistent. Miller focuses on the imbalance between residential uses and non-residential uses near the subject site, and suggests that the mandate of section 512.5 is that until residential uses exceed or are in equipoise with non-residential uses, no hotel should be allowed. But nothing in the regulatory language mandates this approach toward balancing; rather, the regulations look toward a balancing of residential, hotel, and office uses. Further, although appropriately turning to a dictionary definition of balance in the absence of a definition in the zoning regulations, [7] Miller urges a mechanical definition of balance that requires even distribution and equipoise; she asserts that section 512.5 requires the BZA to disapprove a hotel where the hotel will not `result in a balance' between all three uses, weighted equally  (italics added). She gives less emphasis to the definition that states that to balance means to achieve . . . harmony, and she ignores alternative definitions that suggest imprecision and a role for judgment, such as the alternative that defines balance as an integration of elements achieved by giving each element its due prominence or significance. [8] Miller also asserts that [a]pproval of a hotel would `result in a balance' only where hotels are under-represented and residential and office uses are in equipoise. This assertion, it seems to us, is inconsistent with Miller's assumption that balance requires even distribution, because approval of a hotel in that circumstance would likely mean that the new hotel use would not be even with the residential and office uses that have preceded it. But even if Miller's interpretation of section 512.5 is reasonable, and even if, as she urges, a residential use of the subject site would be best in terms of the existing residential neighborhood that abuts the SP-2 zone, this would not afford us sufficient cause to reject the BZA's interpretation. See French v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 658 A.2d 1023, 1033 (D.C. 1995) (Since the actual language of the regulation could reasonably be read either as the Board reads it or as petitioners read it, we must accept the Board's interpretation). Contrary to Miller's suggestion, we find nothing in the BZA's decision that implies an interpretation that the BZA can only disapprove a hotel if it would result in the number of hotels surpassing the number of offices and residential uses. Rather, we think, the BZA's decision reflects its exercise of discretion and judgment about whether, under the circumstances presented, a hotel use would be consistent with the mix of uses to be fostered in the SP-2 zone. See BZA Order at 9 (observing that section 512 was designed to foster a `mix' of residential, office and hotel uses); see also 11 DCMR § 3104.1 (authorizing the BZA to grant a special exception where in its judgment, the special exception will be in harmony with the intent of the zoning regulations) and Zoning Commission Order No. 314 (May 8, 1980) at 13, 15 (explaining that the Zoning Commission adopted special controls on hotel uses in SP Districts to help foster a mix of uses in the SP District and adopted a hotel-application evaluation standard that would require the BZA to consider the mixed use nature of the SP District). The BZA's approach was consistent with the type of balancing that the Zoning Commission appeared to have in mind when it promulgated section 512.5. Although the Commission did not define the word balance for purposes of section 512.5, the regulatory preamble demonstrates the non-mechanical way in which the Commission used the term. The Commission explained that: The desires, needs and requirements of the city's hotel industry are important to the best interest of the city as a whole. Likewise, the strong expressions of the necessity for protecting the city's residential neighborhoods and existing housing stock cannot be ignored or dismissed lightly. In this case, as in most other major contested zoning cases, the Commission believes that it must strike a balance between the often competing interests at issue. In establishing that balance, which must be the most beneficial for the District of Columbia as a whole, the Commission will satisfy some of the concerns of the participants in this case, and not satisfy others. The Commission strongly believes that hearing the views of all affected interests, and then attempting to accommodate the concerns of all in the best interest of the city, achieving a balanced or compromised result, is an integral part of the zoning process. Zoning Commission Order No. 314 at 10 (italics added). The Commission's use of the term balance to refer to a compromise result that is beneficial for the District as a whole persuades us that the BZA employed a reasonable interpretation when it evaluated Allstate's application by reference to whether the proposed hotel would improve the balance of uses in the SP-2 zone. We agree with Allstate that whether construction of a hotel in an SP District would result in residential, office and hotel uses being balanced called for a judgment that the Zoning Commission left to the realm of the BZA's administrative discretion. See Zoning Commission Order No. 314 at 13, 15 (noting that many SP zoned areas may be appropriate for hotel development while there are some situations in the SP District where hotels should not be permitted, and contemplating the BZA's appropriate review of each case). Miller insists that the BZA's reasoning in this case conflicts with the interpretation that the BZA applied in its prior decision in Application No. 13151 of Sherry Towers Limited Partnership (May 4, 1981) ( Sherry Towers ). [9] The applicant in Sherry Towers sought to convert an apartment building located in an SP-2 District to a hotel. There was one other apartment building in the SP-2 District, but no hotel. The BZA denied the special exception application, rejecting the applicant's argument that the regulation requires a hotel use in the subject SP area where presently there is none. Miller asserts that here, the BZA's reasoning was just the opposite, i.e., that the BZA was required to approve the proposed hotel simply because there currently are no hotels in the SP-2 zone. [10] But we see nothing in the BZA's order to suggest that the BZA thought it was required to approve the proposed hotel (for the reason that there currently are no hotels in the SP-2 zone, or for any other reason). [11] Rather, it seems to us, the fact that there are no other hotels in the SP-2 zone was one of a number of factors that the BZA recognized permitted it to approve the special exception application. Another was that  unlike in Sherry Towers  Allstate's proposal was to construct a hotel that would replace a commercial use, rather than a residential use. Finally, Miller argues  for the first time on appeal  that approval of the special exception contravenes the provisions of the District's Comprehensive Plan that prescribe limit[ing] hotel development in areas in which it would have an adverse impact on residential development, 10 DCMR § 1333.1(a)(4), and that specifically recognize that the development of new hotels in Foggy Bottom must be carefully coordinated and reviewed to avoid adverse neighborhood impacts. 10 DCMR § 1331.4. [12] Although we only arguably have discretion to entertain this argument, see Orius Telecomms., Inc. v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Servs., 857 A.2d 1061, 1068 (D.C.2004) (noting that an appellate court has discretion, in the interests of justice, to consider an argument that is raised for the first time on appeal if the issue is purely one of law, but citing authority holding that a contention not raised in an administrative appeal may not form the basis for overturning the administrative agency's decision on review), we address it because we can do so summarily. The record makes clear that the BZA carefully considered whether the proposed hotel would adversely affect the neighborhood around it, and concluded that it would not. Specifically, in findings that petitioner does not challenge in this appeal, the BZA found that the hotel's height will be consistent with the height of most of the buildings in the area, that it will have inconspicuous lighting and the same design elements as nearby buildings, that the hotel's roof structure will not affect the light and air of neighboring properties, that the hotel will have no dangerous or objectionable traffic impacts, and that planned parking spaces will adequately accommodate projected parking demands without spilling over into the adjacent neighborhood. The BZA also specifically noted what structure would be demolished to permit construction of the hotel (noting that [t]he parking garage  not a residential structure  will be demolished). Thus, even though the BZA did not specifically refer to the Comprehensive Plan in its written order, its approval of the hotel appears to be consistent with the policy guidance that the Plan sets out. Cf. National Cathedral Neighborhood Ass'n v. District of Columbia Bd. Of Zoning Adjustment, 753 A.2d 984, 986 (D.C.2000) (although the BZA is required to `look to the District elements [of the Comprehensive Plan] for general policy guidance' in passing upon applications, . . . nothing in those elements is inconsistent with the Board's reasoned approval of the proposed facility). For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the BZA to grant the special exception. So ordered.