Opinion ID: 2328073
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: BZA's Authority

Text: Petitioner stresses the size of the property and the number of requested variances in arguing that the BZA exceeded its authority when it granted HHALP's application. Petitioner emphasizes that HHALP requested variances for all but two dimensions of the proposed dwellings, which, in his view, meant that the BZA's approval impacted almost every applicable zoning requirement of the property. In so doing, petitioner contends that the BZA exceeded the scope of its authority defined in D.C.Code § 6-641.07(e), which provides that the BZA shall not have the power to amend any regulation or map. According to petitioner, the net effect of approving all of HHALP's requested variances in this manner was a de facto rezoning of the property, which can only be done by the Zoning Commission. See D.C.Code § 6-641.01 (2001). [8] As we have said elsewhere, The powers of the BZA are those defined by statute and regulation. Spring Valley [ Wesley ] Heights Citizens Ass'n v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 644 A.2d 434, 436 (D.C. 1994). Specifically, the Board is authorized to make special exceptions to the provisions of the zoning regulations in harmony with their general purpose and intent. D.C.Code § 6-641.07(d) (2001). The Board also has appellate authority to hear and decide, in accordance with the provisions of the regulations adopted by the Zoning Commission, requests for[, inter alia, ] special exceptions. D.C.Code § 6-641.07(g)(2) (2001). The Zoning Regulations vest the Board with original jurisdiction to grant variances. . . and special exceptions . . . and to exercise all other powers authorized by the Zoning Act of 1938, [as amended,]. . . D.C.Code §§ 6-641.01 to 6-641.15. 11 DCMR § 3100.1 (2003). President & Directors of Georgetown Coll. v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 837 A.2d 58, 68 (D.C.2003). Here, according to the BZA, HHALP's application requested a variance from the maximum number of building stories under 11 DCMR § 400, a variance from the lot area and width requirements under § 401, a variance from the rear yard requirements under § 404, a variance from the side yard requirements under § 405, a special exception to permit two or more principal buildings or structures on a single subdivided lot under § 2516, [9] and a variance from the requirement of § 2516.5 [10] that theoretical lots allowed pursuant to § 2516 provide open space in front of the building entrances to construct a new residential development consisting of 54 one-family detached dwellings on a five-parcel property in the R-1-B District. We, therefore, see no reason why, according to the explicit terms of D.C.Code § 6-641.07 and its associated regulations, the types of relief requested by HHALP were not properly before the BZA. We are unpersuaded by petitioner's argument that, on the basis of these facts, the size of the property or the number of variances requested shouldby themselves impact our analysis of whether the BZA had authority to preside over this application. [11] The nature of the relief requested by HHALP isas we discuss more fully in Part IVallowing a concentration of the one-family detached dwellings on the property with some dimensional modifications, but otherwise in keeping with the character of the R-1-B zone. [12] We therefore proceed to analyze whether the BZA acted in accordance with the applicable standards in granting the HHALP's area variance requests.