Opinion ID: 2326822
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Basement Issue

Text: The regulatory definition of basement is at the center of KCA's and the ANC's challenge to the BZA's ruling on the basement issue. As already noted, a basement  the area of which must be included in gross floor area  is that portion of a story partly below grade, the ceiling of which is four feet (4 ft.) or more above the adjacent finished grade. 11 DCMR § 199.1. The gist of the challengers' argument is that, to implement the foregoing regulatory definition as part of determining a building's gross floor area, in all . . . cases it is necessary . . . to measure how much, if any, of the floor area on the ground floor has ceiling more than four feet above the adjacent grade, and to include that amount in `gross floor area' and thus FAR; and that if the adjacent grade and the ceiling height above it are impossible to observe and measure, there must be another way of arriving at the required measurements. KCA and the ANC accept that the perimeter wall method can be used to apportion lower-level space between basement and cellar for a freestanding building, because the grade adjacent to all of the building's perimeter walls can be observed. They contend, however, that the perimeter wall method cannot be used in cases such as this, where the grade adjacent to the subject building's side walls cannot be observed, because it is impossible to complete the method's step that entails measuring that portion of the perimeter . . ., the ceiling of which is four feet or more above the adjacent finished grade. See note 17, supra. Because the Zoning Administrator did not and could not make that measurement, KCA and the ANC argue that the method that he used to calculate the square footage of lower-level space includable in the subject building's gross floor area was not actually the perimeter wall method, but instead was an unprecedented and unauthorized front-wall-only method. The front-wall-only method, they argue, not only fails to take into account the adjacent grade at the building's other walls (as they assert the regulatory definition of basement requires), but also contravenes what they assert is the intent of the zoning regulations. That intent, they say, is to make the amount of a ground floor area that a builder must count against density limits dependent on two variables: the amount of floor area and grade of the lot  the steeper the grade, the greater the proportion of `cellar' space is likely to be; and the greater the total floor area of the ground floor, the more floor area will be apportioned to each type. KCA and the ANC contend that the BZA should have required the Zoning Administrator to use the grade-plane method, which entails estimating the level of the grade adjacent to the subject building's side walls. As KCA asserts, the whole point of the grade plane method . . . is . . . to approximate what the grade would look like if you were able to see the grade because you had no obstructing buildings on either side, enabling the Zoning Administrator to arrive at a reasonable approximation of the actual grade of the ground on which the building sits. Under the grade plane method as the challengers apply it, the entire lower level of the subject building must be treated as a basement and thus must be included in gross floor area.
In essence, KCA and the ANC urge us to read the regulatory definition of basement to require the Zoning Administrator, for FAR-calculation purposes, to estimate the level of the (presumed) grade adjacent a building's lower level if no grade can be observed. The BZA, however, read the regulation as affording the Zoning Administrator discretion as to how to apply the definition of basement in cases where the grade adjacent to a building's lower level cannot be observed. See BZA Order at 14 (addressing the issue of how to resolve the difficulty [that] arises in applying the regulatory definition of basement when a building is bounded on either side by row dwellings and the finished grade is not apparent). The BZA reasoned that in such cases, it is reasonable to calculate the lower level's contribution to gross floor area either by using the perimeter wall method (and, as the Zoning Administrator did, taking into account only the portion of the lower-level perimeter wall where, visibly, the ceiling is four or more feet above the adjacent grade); [15] or by using the grade-plane method, which entails estimating the level of the presumed adjacent grade. We will not disturb the BZA's interpretation that the regulatory definition afforded the Zoning Administrator discretion to use the apportionment method that he used. That is because, as we go on to explain, we conclude that the interpretation is neither clearly erroneous [n]or inconsistent with the zoning regulations as a whole. Wallick v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 486 A.2d 1183, 1184 (D.C.1985). The challengers argue that the BZA's ruling that the Zoning Administrator had discretion to use the perimeter wall method is clearly erroneous because using the method required an assumption that at the precise point where the . . . [subject building's] front wall intersects with the . . . side walls, the adjacent grade rose suddenly . . . so as to place literally every inch of . . . [the lower] level to the rear of that point less than four feet above grade. We do not agree that the BZA's ruling entailed such an assumption. Rather, the BZA's ruling is supported by the evidence, presented at the public hearing, that the rear wall of the subject building's lower level is entirely below grade and that there is no adjacent grade at the building's side walls. In their testimony before the BZA, both Montrose's expert witness (project architect Smith) and KCA's expert (architect Hawkins) characterized the adjacent grade as nonexistent. Mr. Smith testified that along the east, west and north lines, [the subject building] is fully and completely below grade . . . on the two sides, it's bunkered by adjoining buildings, so there is no adjacent grade to speak of  (emphasis added). Mr. Hawkins referred to the subject building as presenting a situation where there [i]sn't an actual grade adjacent to the building, requiring him to establish . . . a fictional grade, the grade that probably was there before. And, in his statement submitted to the BZA, Acting Zoning Administrator Noble cautioned against speculat[ing about] what the natural grade may be. In light of this testimony, we cannot find clearly erroneous the BZA's reading of the zoning regulations to permit the Zoning Administrator to use a method for determining basement space that relies on only the visible grade at the front of the subject building, and not on a fictional grade adjacent to the other perimeter walls. Nor can we discern any way in which the approach that the BZA approved  identifying the amount of basement floor space by relying on the adjacent grade only to the extent that grade is visible  is inconsistent with the zoning regulations as a whole. We note that in a different section of the definitional regulation under discussion here (11 DCMR § 199.1), the zoning regulations define natural grade as the undisturbed level formed without human intervention or, where the undisturbed ground level cannot be determined because of an existing building or structure, the undisturbed existing grade (emphasis added). Thus, in the definition of natural grade, the zoning regulations permit use of an alternative, measurable benchmark, rather than speculation, when the ground level referenced in the regulation cannot be observed. Here, the Zoning Administrator took an analogous alternative approach when presented with plans for a building's lower level whose adjacent finished grade (and the ceiling height above it) could be observed on only one side: he relied on only that one side of the building  the front wall, where at all points the ceiling visibly is at least four feet above grade  to determine the ratio used in the perimeter wall method and thus the apportionment of lower-level space between basement and cellar. KCA argues that the method that the BZA approved is arbitrary and capricious because it bears no rational relation to the actual length and resulting floor area of the ground floor, increasing only modestly if the ground floor's length and thus floor space are greatly increased; do[es] not vary at all with variations in steepness of the grade; and for this reason alone must be found inconsistent with the zoning regulations. However, we discern from the zoning regulations neither an intent to vary the amount of floor space that must be included in FAR in lockstep with any increases in the square footage of a building's bunkered lower-level space, [16] nor an intent to vary the amount of floor space includable in FAR on the basis of (what might have been) the steepness of the grade that at some previous time was adjacent to the building site. [17] KCA emphasizes that the grade plane method is an available alternative method for ascertaining the amount of basement space and is a method which the BZA agreed was a rational method for making . . . apportionment between `basement' and `cellar' in the case of . . . attached buildings. That is not a sufficient reason to disturb the BZA's order upholding the Zoning Administrator's use of the perimeter method. Cf. Dupont Circle Citizens Ass'n v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 749 A.2d 1258, 1262 n. 11 (D.C.2000) (the possibility of an alternative reading of the zoning regulations does not render the interpretation adopted by the BZA an unreasonable one); see also Bender v. District of Columbia, 804 A.2d 267, 269 (D.C.2002) (a taxpayer challenging a real property tax assessment bears the burden of proving that the assessment is incorrect or illegal or that the assessment approach was irrational or unfounded, not merely that alternative methods give a different result or that another method is the best method) (citations omitted). Finally, the fact that use of the grade plane method would have resulted in inclusion of a greater portion of the subject building's lower-level space in gross floor area does not render use of the perimeter wall method unreasonable or otherwise unlawful. The zoning regulations neither prescribe a methodology for calculating the floor area of partial basements, nor require the Zoning Administrator to use the calculation methodology that results in including as large an area as possible in gross floor area. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the BZA's ruling with respect to use of the perimeter wall method to determine the square footage of basement space in the subject building.