Opinion ID: 2208658
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Open Court Requirements

Text: If strictly applied, 11 DCMR § 406.1 (1987) would require the open court between the Addition and the Condominium to be slightly more than twenty-nine feet wide. Because its actual width is only twenty-one feet, the eight-foot difference made it necessary for GWU to seek a variance. Just as with the variance from FAR requirements, GWU was required to show (1) that strict application of the zoning regulations would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties for the owner, and (2) that the variance would not result in substantial detriment to the public good, nor would it impair the intent, purpose, and integrity of the established zoning plan. D.C.Code § 5-424(g)(3) (1988); 11 DCMR § 3107.2 (1987). In Draude I we concluded that when the BZA first granted a variance from open court width requirements, its order did not state precise or detailed reasons for concluding that conditions exist justifying a variance for the non-conforming open court. 527 A.2d at 1254. The BZA's final order, however, cures these deficiencies and supports the granting of a variance. First, we are satisfied that both the proximity to the Burns Building and the irregular dimensions of the site satisfy the extraordinary or exceptional condition requirement of D.C.Code § 5-424(g)(3). The width of the lot upon which the Addition is built, measured from west to east, ranges from 57 feet at the north end to 100 feet in the middle to 82 feet at the south end. See Draude I, supra, 527 A.2d at 1255. In order to build a useful structure, efficient use of space was an absolute necessity. The narrowness and the odd shape of the lot are exceptional conditions in that, as the BZA found, the function of the Addition would have been seriously impaired if a variance were not granted. The evidence supports the BZA's finding that strict application of the regulations regarding open courts would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties for GWU. In its order the BZA stated: The wall [of the Addition] was moved to the maximum extent possible without serious and significant loss of functional space required for the ambulatory care center. The further narrowing of the Addition would have resulted in a building not acceptable for ambulatory health care services. Further narrowing of the building would have resulted in the loss of a substantial number of exam and treatment rooms on each level of the Addition, which rooms could not have been relocated to the front portion of the building. BZA FF ¶ 50. This finding is supported by the testimony of three of GWU's witnesses, Dr. Bowles, Mr. Knowles, and Mr. Faulkner. For example, Mr. Faulkner, a specialist in the design of health care facilities, stated: An ambulatory care building must have a width-to-length ratio which will provide an efficient core and a minimum corridor to serve the patients, physicians and the staff. It is our professional opinion that if the south end of this addition had been made any narrower it would not have been an acceptable building for university medical purposes. The evidence presented on this issue is particularly important because of our statement in Draude I that [i]f the Board accepts [such testimony] and finds that a conforming open court would require significant reductions of floor area, then a variance may be justified. 527 A.2d at 1256 (emphasis added). [28] The testimony on remand focused on this precise issue. As a result, we decline to disturb the BZA's conclusion that the irregular shape of the lot, the narrowness of its southern portion, and the pre-existing Burns Building constitute an extraordinary or exceptional situation or condition of the subject site (BZA CL ¶ 17). Finally, we agree that the variance is not detrimental to the public good, nor does it impair the intent of the zoning regulations. The width of the court affects only the Condominium. It is significant that the Addition is twenty-one feet from the lower floors of the condominium, and these lower floors do not have rooms generally considered to be habitable. Upper floors that do have habitable rooms facing the Addition are stepped back fifteen feet from the Condominium's property line, so that the distance between the east wall of the Addition and the parts of the west wall of the Condominium that contain habitable rooms is thirty-six feet. Thus the distance between the walls of the two buildings exceedsfor the most partthe open court width requirements. Furthermore, as discussed in previous sections, the BZA found that the proximity of the Addition would not have an adverse impact on the Condominium. It concluded, rather, that the granting of these variances will benefit the public interest and good and will not substantially impair the intent, purpose, and integrity of the zone plan as embodied in the Zoning Regulations and Map (BZA CL ¶ 16). Petitioners have not persuaded us that this conclusion should be overturned.