Opinion ID: 2385626
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Authority of the BZA to Grant the Variance

Text: The NBCDI sought its variance under § 8207.11 of the District of Columbia Zoning Regulations. [5] Section 8207.11 authorizes the BZA to grant a use variance based on three criteria: (1) unique physical aspect or other extraordinary or exceptional situation or condition of a specific piece of property, (2) undue hardship, and (3) no harm to the public or the zone plan. Monaco v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, 407 A.2d 1091, 1096 (D.C.1979). The burden is on the applicant to meet all three criteria, id. at 1101, and the hardship element must not be the result of actions undertaken by the landowner in knowing violation of zoning regulations. Clerics of St. Viator, Inc. v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, 320 A.2d 291, 294 (D.C.1974) (drop in number of young men entering the priesthood, making maintenance of large seminary a hardship, not self-imposed); see also and compare Clouser v. David, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 12, 13, 309 F.2d 233, 234 (1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 929, 83 S.Ct. 874, 9 L.Ed.2d 733 (1963) (hardship was self-imposed where nonconforming use was created in direct, knowing violation of the zoning provisions; and the cost of creating it could not then serve as reason for the variance). Initially, this court read the first two criteria to require that the hardship justifying a use variance must arise from the nature of the land itself. Palmer v. Board of Zoning Adjustment, 287 A.2d 535, 539, 542 (D.C.1972). Subsequent decisions, however, modified Palmer, permitting the BZA to weigh more fully the equities in an individual case. DeAzcarate v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, 388 A.2d 1233, 1237 (D.C.1978); Clerics of St. Viator, Inc., supra, 320 A.2d at 294 (factors extraneous to land may be considered in determining existence of hardship). [6] Finally, in Monaco, we permitted the BZA to apply a more flexible standard for determining hardship when a public service, or nonprofit entity, is the applicant. Monaco, supra, 407 A.2d at 1099. In applying the Monaco three-part test to grant a variance to the NBCDI, the BZA did not exceed its authority. The Board found that there existed (1) other extraordinary or exceptional situation and (2) undue hardship. See Monaco, supra, 407 A.2d at 1096. The BZA found that the NBCDI's work benefited black children and families within the District, that the Institute had received temporary certificates of occupancy under regulations that had been altered by the 1978 amendments to preclude the NBCDI's qualifying for future certificates under them, and that the great expense of operating offices at another site would cause serious detriment to the Institute. [7] It held that the NBCDI's situation is unique, that its work does promote the public welfare, and that denial of the variance would cause undue hardship. However, to insure that its grant of the variance met the third part of the Monaco test, no harm to the public or zone plan, the BZA imposed the three restrictive conditions at issue here. In determining whether imposition of such conditions lies within the BZA's authority, we confront a new question of law within this jurisdiction.