Opinion ID: 2317167
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: BZA Order 6750

Text: WPCA claims error in the BZA's ruling that prior BZA Order 6750 (dated December 5, 1962) did not require WSC to provide 898 parking spaces. We find no error in the BZA's ruling on this issue. In 1962, WSC applied to the BZA for a variance for the Sheraton-Park Hotel. [32] In granting the variance, the BZA issued Order 6750 which contained the following finding of fact: (4) A traffic report relating to the proposed addition ... was made part of the record before the Zoning Commission [in the above cited case]. This report disclosed that the existing off-street parking spaces totaling 564 will be increased to 898 and that the present hotel rooms, excluding permanent suites, will be increased from 910 to 1100 rooms. [Emphasis added.] [33] WPCA argued to the BZA that this prior order imposed a requirement on WSC to provide 898 parking spaces at the hotel. [34] This requirement, WPCA claimed, was still in effect. The BZA rejected WPCA's contention on two grounds, both of which are challenged on appeal by WPCA. First, the BZA found no legal requirement in the prior orders to provide a specified number of spaces. The BZA reasoned: The Zoning Commission Order rezoned the property, and cannot be read to apply any conditions other than to permit what is allowed and required under R-5-C zoning. The BZA orders are vague, very short and do not specifically require a set number of spaces. In one case, the Order referenced instructions given outside the context of the hearing and not found in writing anywhere. WPCA now claims that the BZA erred as a matter of law in finding that the prior order imposed no legal requirement as to parking. See Gordon v. District Unemployment Compensation Board, 402 A.2d 1251, 1254 (D.C.1979) (court does not defer to agency in reviewing conclusion on matter of law). We disagree. The section of BZA Order 6750 relied upon by WPCA is found in a finding of fact contained in that order. In testimony to the BZA, the Zoning Administrator stated that the consistent policy of his office is that only statements included as conditions to variances impose legal requirements and are therefore enforceable. The Zoning Administrator explained that because the statement at issue in Order 6750 was contained in a finding of fact, it imposed no legal requirement. This testimony, coupled with the BZA's finding that the language cited in the order was vague, makes clear that the BZA's ruling that Order 6750 imposed no legal requirement as to parking was not in error as a matter of law. The BZA further found Order 6750 unenforceable because the building to which it applied no longer exists. WPCA challenges this factual finding as not based on substantial evidence. Again, we disagree. Evidence before the BZA showed that the main portion of the previous hotel building was demolished after construction of the new portion of the hotel. This evidence amply supports the BZA's conclusion that [e]ven if any requirements had been imposed as a result of the previous orders, those requirements cease to be applicable when the building to which they were attached is demolished. Thus, the BZA's conclusion on this issue was supported by substantial evidence. See Citizens Association of Georgetown, Inc. v. District of Columbia Zoning Commission, supra, 402 A.2d at 41. Accordingly, as to the issues of height, setback, and accessory use, we reverse the BZA's denial of WSC's motion to dismiss. The BZA's decision on the merits of the parking issue is affirmed. So ordered.