Opinion ID: 2328073
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Uniqueness

Text: In Gilmartin v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 579 A.2d 1164, 1168 (D.C.1990), we explained the uniqueness test at length: [T]he rationale behind the uniqueness test is that difficulties that are common to or affect an entire neighborhood, or a substantial portion thereof, are properly addressed by seeking amendment of the regulations themselves from the Zoning Commission . . . If such problems were addressed through individual variances, the effect would be a de facto amendment of the zoning regulations by BZA because requests by other owners similarly situated would have to be granted as a matter of equal protection under the due process clause. It is the Zoning Commission, however, not BZA that is empowered to make such amendments to the overall zone plan. The test follows from its rationale. To support a variance it is fundamental that the difficulties or hardships [be] due to unique circumstances peculiar to the applicant's property and not to the general conditions in the neighborhood. Palmer v. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 287 A.2d 535, 539 (D.C.1972), quoted in Myrick [ v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment ], supra, 577 A.2d [757] at 760 [(1990)]. There is no requirement that the uniqueness inheres in the land at issue. . . . [ Capitol Hill Restoration Society v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment ] Capitol Hill II, supra, 534 A.2d [939] at 942 [(1987)]. See also Monaco v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 407 A.2d 1091 (D.C.1979); Clerics of St. Viator, Inc. v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 320 A.2d 291 (D.C.1974). The statute does not preclude the approval of a variance where the uniqueness arises from a confluence of factors. The critical point is that the extraordinary or exceptional condition must affect a single property. (Alterations in original). We conclude that in this instance the BZA properly applied the uniqueness test when it concluded that the difficulties or hardships cited by HHALP were unique circumstances peculiar to the applicant's property. Palmer, supra, 287 A.2d at 539. The BZA's Decision and Order demonstrates that it made sufficient factual findings concerning the property's uniqueness, considered as a whole. [14] The BZA concluded that the property is irregularly shaped and wooded, described in detail its extreme topography, and discussed the property's significant grade differential. We have elsewhere affirmed the BZA's determination of uniqueness based upon a site's irregular shape, steeply sloping grade, the large size and physical configuration. . . . French v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 658 A.2d 1023, 1035 (D.C.1995). In addition, the BZA found that the property had minimal street frontage in comparison to its perimeter of over 3,000 feet, no public street infrastructure, and is encumbered on its southern boundary by a private parking lot, which provides no benefits to the development but reduces the property's buildable area.