Ait-Ghezala v. Dist. of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment

9 Citing cases

  1. Dupont Circle Citizens Ass'n v. D.C. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment

    182 A.3d 138 (D.C. 2018)   Cited 2 times

    In September 2016, a new set of zoning regulations took effect in the District of Columbia. SeeAit–Ghezala v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment , 148 A.3d 1211, 1214 n.2 (D.C. 2016). The previous regulations continue to govern proceedings commenced prior to that date.

  2. McDonald v. D.C. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment

    291 A.3d 1109 (D.C. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    The first prong of the variance test—the exceptional condition prong—refers to something unique about the property itself, often a topographical characteristic or pre-existing structure on the land. Ait-Ghezala v. D.C. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment , 148 A.3d 1211, 1217 (D.C. 2016). The condition can arise from a "confluence of factors," but the "critical point is that the extraordinary or exceptional condition must affect a single property," rather than exist as part of "the general conditions in the neighborhood."

  3. St. Mary's Episcopal Church v. D.C. Zoning Comm'n

    174 A.3d 260 (D.C. 2017)   Cited 4 times
    Upholding institutional necessity where the size and leasing arrangement of the building were economically necessary

    07(g)(3) ; the District's zoning authorities are authorized to grant an area variance if they find that "(1) there is an extraordinary or exceptional condition affecting the property; (2) practical difficulties will occur if the zoning regulations are strictly enforced; and (3) the requested relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent, purpose, and integrity of the zone plan." Ait–Ghezala v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment , 148 A.3d 1211, 1216 (D.C. 2016) (citing Washington Canoe Club v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm'n , 889 A.2d 995, 1000 (D.C. 2005) ) (internal quotation marks omitted). With respect to the first prong we have said that "it is fundamental that the difficulties or hardships [be] due to unique circumstances peculiar to the applicant's property and not to the general conditions in the neighborhood.

  4. Friends of McMillan Park v. Dist. of Columbia Zoning Comm'n

    149 A.3d 1027 (D.C. 2016)   Cited 10 times
    Stating that the Commission must address the "risk that neighborhood residents would be displaced" in evaluating "whether a PUD would have adverse effects"

    Those regulations are not applicable to this proceeding. 11–A DCMR § 100.4 (b) ; Ait–Ghezala v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment , 148 A.3d 1211, 1214–15, 2016 WL 6659496, at *2 n.2 (D.C. 2016). All citations to the zoning regulations in this opinion refer to the prior regulations.

  5. Roth v. Dist. of Columbia Zoning Adjustment

    279 A.3d 840 (D.C. 2022)   Cited 2 times
    Concluding that the BZA "reasonably declined to give weight to" prior decisions declining to grant variances that would have permitted delicatessens to operate on the same block, where those decisions were decades old, applied a different legal standard, and rested on different factual records

    We therefore remand the case to the BZA, for the BZA to adequately address that question. See, e.g. , Ait-Ghezala v. D.C. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment , 148 A.3d 1211, 1218 (D.C. 2016) (remanding for BZA "to explain fully the reasons underlying its understanding of the factors shaping its ultimate conclusion") (internal quotation mark omitted). C. Substantial Detriment to Public Good or Impairment of Zoning Plan

  6. Comm. of Neighbors Directly Impacted by LAMB Application v. D.C. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment

    218 A.3d 739 (D.C. 2019)   Cited 1 times

    Our review of a BZA decision is limited. Ait-Ghezala v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment , 148 A.3d 1211, 1215 (D.C. 2016). We will affirm a BZA decision unless "its findings and conclusions are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; in excess of its jurisdiction or authority; or unsupported by substantial evidence in the record of the proceedings."

  7. Cole v. D.C. Zoning Comm'n

    210 A.3d 753 (D.C. 2019)   Cited 3 times
    Upholding Commission's approval of a PUD application that set aside 8% of the residential gross floor area for inclusionary units

    New zoning regulations "supersed[ing] in full the 1958 regulations and zoning maps that had been in effect, as amended," became effective on September 6, 2016. Ait-Ghezala v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment , 148 A.3d 1211, 1214 n.2 (D.C. 2016) ; 11-A DCMR § 100.3 (2016). However, in describing what the Commission was to consider, we cite the now-superseded regulations that governed the Commission's substantive review of the PUD application.

  8. Neighbors for Responsive Gov't, LLC v. D.C. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment

    195 A.3d 35 (D.C. 2018)   Cited 5 times
    Mentioning it as a stand-alone requirement

    In determining whether this requirement is met, it is proper for the BZA to consider a "wide range of factors," including (but not limited to) economic use of property and increased expense and inconvenience to the applicant. D.C. Code § 6-641.07 (g)(3) ; see, e.g. , Ait-Ghezala v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment , 148 A.3d 1211, 1216 (D.C. 2016) ; Gilmartin v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment , 579 A.2d 1164, 1167 (D.C. 1990). The same test must be met to obtain a use variance, except that the applicant for a use variance must show that strict enforcement of the zoning regulations will entail a greater degree of harm (the second of the three conditions), referred to in the statute as an "undue hardship."

  9. Johnson v. Dist. of Columbia Dep't of Health

    163 A.3d 746 (D.C. 2017)   Cited 2 times

    In this circumstance, the Board "was bound to deal with the problem afresh, performing the function delegated to it [,]" SEC v. Chenery Corp ., 332 U.S. 194, 200–01, 67 S.Ct. 1760, 91 L.Ed. 1995 (1947), and it was obligated not to merely "redraft[ ] ... [its] conclusions to ... reinforce [its original] decision." Ait–Ghezala v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment , 148 A.3d 1211, 1218 (D.C. 2016) ; see alsoZhang , 834 A.2d at 106 ("[W]e direct that the Board not simply justify the prior result, but rather begin the consideration of Zhang's application afresh in light of this decision."). We note that in the Original Decision, having adopted all of the Virginia Board's scores of findings (designated "a" through "kkkk"), the Board purported to impose a sanction "identical" to the sanction the Virginia Board had imposed (revocation).