Opinion ID: 2158807
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Tudor Place

Text: In the present case, the BZA concluded that the Foundation's application, seeking a special exception to continue the operation of a house museum in an R-1 residential district, was governed by 11 DCMR §§ 3108.1 and 217 [3] (1995), of the zoning regulations. Pursuant to section 3108.1, the BZA is authorized to grant special exceptions where, in the judgment of the board, those special exceptions will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning regulations and will not tend to affect adversely the use of neighboring property. Id. The BZA granted the special exception, concluding that the Foundation met the requirements under both sections of the zoning regulations. [4] Our review of a decision of the BZA is limited to a determination of whether the decision is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise [not] in accordance with the law. Davidson v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 617 A.2d 977, 981 (D.C.1992) (internal citations omitted). On questions relating to the interpretation of the zoning regulations, this court's review is deferential, upholding such interpretations unless they are plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the zoning regulation[s]. Id. Accordingly, this court must uphold the decision of the BZA if [it] rationally flow[s] from findings of fact supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. National Cathedral Neighborhood Ass'n, supra note 4, 753 A.2d at 986 n. 2. GRA disputes whether the application satisfied the requirements under section 217. GRA first argues that the BZA exceeded its authority by ignoring the fundamental requirement of section 217.2, that any use by a nonprofit organization shall not adversely affect the use of the neighboring properties. 11 DCMR § 217.2. GRA asserts that the special events hosted at Tudor Place create intolerable noise for many nearby residents adversely affecting the use of neighboring properties. Petitioner contends that the BZA granted the special exception in disregard of the express requirements of section 217.2 and, therefore, the decision should be reversed. The BZA's function is to determine whether a reasonable accommodation has been made between the applicant and the neighbors, which does not interfere with the legitimate interests of the latter. Glenbrook Rd. Ass'n v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 605 A.2d 22, 32 (D.C.1992). The regulation requires only that the applicant demonstrate that it is not likely that the proposed site will become objectionable to neighboring properties. Id. With respect to section 217.2, the BZA found that the special events hosted at Tudor Place would not adversely affect the use of neighboring properties. The BZA's decision was based in large part on the steps the Foundation had taken to address the concerns of the neighboring properties. The BZA found that the Foundation's agreement to prohibit the use of amplified music during functions; to not engage in any heavy cleanup during evening hours; and to adhere to a curfew of 10:30 p.m. for hosted events, were reasonable accommodations that would appropriately address community concerns regarding noise from events hosted at Tudor Place. Because the BZA's decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law, we find no reason to disturb that determination. See Davidson, supra, 617 A.2d at 981. The GRA next contends that the Foundation cannot satisfy its requirements under 11 DCMR § 217.3, that the amount and arrangement of parking spaces . . . [be] adequate and located to minimize traffic impact on the adjacent neighborhood. GRA argues that the BZA's finding that there would be no adverse impacts on traffic and parking is not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, the GRA asserts that the evidence presented at the application hearing clearly demonstrated that the amount and arrangement of parking spaces [is] wholly inadequate and that traffic and parking impacts on the neighborhood cannot be minimized. As a result, GRA contends that the foundation clearly failed to carry its burden of proving that the amount and arrangement of parking spaces would be adequate and, therefore, the decision of the BZA should be reversed. From the record, it appears that parking and traffic complaints from neighboring residents during large special events was the most hotly contested issue associated with the continuation of the special exception for the Tudor Place. The BZA found that the Foundation had made a terrific effort to control traffic and parking by implementing a plan to strengthen its control over traffic problems. These plans required the Foundation to, among other things, to hire a minimum of one person to direct traffic; park visitors' cars at off-site parking lots through the use of valet parking; police the area to ensure that vehicles are not double-parked and do not block any entrances or driveways; instruct the drivers of all buses and vans not to idle the engines of their vehicles longer than is necessary to allow passengers to embark or disembark; and maximize the use of the rear entrance to the site on 32nd Street, especially for service functions. Based upon these measures, the BZA concluded that the special events would not have significant adverse impacts on traffic and parking in the neighboring community. We find substantial evidence in the record to support the BZA's conclusion. See National Cathedral Neighborhood Ass'n, supra, note 4 at 986. In speculating that these measures cannot eliminate all potential parking concerns, GRA fails to view Tudor Place's effect on parking in its proper overall context. As the BZA found, Tudor Place generates little demand for parking on the surrounding streets the majority of the time. In fact, due to its low-density use and extensive street frontage, Tudor Place, far from adversely impacting residential parking needs, more often generates parking space for the community along its three perimeter streets. No showing has been made that, on those limited occasions where the Foundation holds special events, the parking concerns are not addressed by the measures stated in the Foundation's plan. Consequently, the BZA reasonably concluded based on substantial evidence that the Foundation's special events would not adversely impact traffic or parking in the neighboring community. Moreover, as further reason for its decision to grant the exception, the BZA explained that the Foundation contributes to the surrounding community in many ways by providing tours of the house and gardens; hosting events for charitable groups at no charge; and providing free tours and educational programs for school groups. The BZA commented that the extensive and historically protected open space of the property is an important amenity to the community. On its five-and-one-half acres there are many handsome trees edging the gardens, creating a park like setting for nearby residents. The BZA reasoned that the benefits gained from the continued operation of Tudor Place coupled with the reasonable accommodations made by the Foundation to alleviate adverse effects on neighboring properties provided sufficient evidence to conclude that the special events hosted at Tudor Place would not adversely effect neighboring properties. We are satisfied that the BZA carefully considered petitioner's concerns when it approved Tudor Place's application. Petitioner also claims that the restrictions enunciated in 11 DCMR § 217.4, explicitly restrict the Foundation from hosting special events because the events are commercial in nature. GRA contends that the restrictions in section 217.4 cannot be interpreted to permit nonprofits to rent the[ir] buildings and grounds on a commercial basis to others for profit. [5] The BZA determined that the Foundation did not create, exchange, or sell any good, chattel, wares, or merchandise on the premises, which would violate the provisions of section 217.4. The BZA explained that the only activity that could be complained of as commercial occurred in the small museum shop at Tudor Place, which is engaged in the sale of items related to the house museum. The BZA concluded that these sales are expressly permitted under section 217.4 as items related to the purpose of the non-profit organization. Id. at § 217.4. The BZA also addressed the applicability of section 217.4 to the special events hosted at Tudor Place. The BZA, in interpreting its rule, concluded that the limited number of special events hosted at Tudor Place are not commercial in nature and do not result in commercial use of the site. The BZA opined that the special events are accessory to the primary museum use and, based on the evidence, are essential to the continued financial viability of this historic site. The BZA further explained that the use of house museums as venues for special events is a common practice in the District of Columbia and, accordingly, is customarily incidental to the principal museum use. We will uphold the BZA's interpretation of its regulation so long as it is not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the zoning regulations. Davidson, supra, 617 A.2d at 981. The plain language of the statute, as interpreted by the BZA, only applies to the commercial creation or sale of goods, chattel, wares, or merchandise. The BZA found that the limited number of special events at Tudor Place do not amount to commercial activity within the meaning of section 217.4. Because the BZA's interpretation fits squarely within the language of section 217.4 and is not inconsistent with the zoning regulations, we see no reason to second-guess the BZA's interpretation of its own regulation. See id. (explaining that we should defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of its own regulations). For these reasons, the BZA's grant of a special exception for the Foundation's nonprofit use of Tudor Place as a house museum was based on substantial evidence and was in accordance with the zoning regulations. [6]