Opinion ID: 2557885
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Impairment of Zoning Plan

Text: Lastly, with respect to the third and last prong of the three-part variance analysis, petitioner avers that the grant of the use variance impairs the integrity of the zone plan. Petitioner emphasizes that the Office of Planning (OP) recommended denial of the variance, in part on the ground that it would be inconsistent with the intent of Order 614. [7] In petitioner's view, the BZA took a far too narrow construction of the zoning plan in concluding that Order 614 and its corresponding regulations were intended to prevent only new transient uses. When properly understood, petitioner asserts, it becomes apparent that a dominant theme of the zone plan for residential neighborhoods such as that of which 2005 Columbia Road is a part is, quite specifically, protection from intrusion or expansion of hotels and other commercial facilities for transient guests. At the same time, according to petitioner, the BZA's assessment of the variance's harm to the public good is understated: approval of the variance permits the expansion of a transient facility in the neighborhood by 50% and therefore introduces even more fleeting commercial customers of a hotel-like business enterprise in the midst . . . of a residential neighborhood. We are mindful that we defer to the BZA's interpretation of the zoning regulations and must uphold that interpretation `unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulations.' Georgetown Residents Alliance v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 816 A.2d 41, 45 (D.C.2003). The BZA concluded that the intent of Z.C. Order No. 614, and now, § 330.6, was/is to control the proliferation of new daily-occupancy rooming houses in the City. The non-proliferation intent of Z.C. Order 614 is not undermined by the continued use of this rooming house because it is not a new use, but pre-dates Z.C. Order No. 614, and is entitled to operate as a nonconforming use with or without the variance for the four `extra' rooms. We owe deference to that interpretation, and `may not substitute [our] own judgment [for that of the BZA] so long as there is a rational basis for the BZA's decision.' Rodgers Bros. Custodial Servs., supra, 846 A.2d at 317. Moreover, the BZA reasonably and convincingly foundbased on witnesses' testimony that there will be little difference between the external traffic and noise produced by 12 rooms and those produced by eight. [8] We are equally satisfied with the BZA's careful and detailed treatment of the objections raised by the OP and ANC, at pp. 17-20 of its order.