BZA hearing in District of Columbia

2014We have held that “ ‘[i]t is the Board, not the Zoning Administrator, which has final administrative responsibility to interpret the zoning regulations.’ ” Bannum, Inc. v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 894 A.2d 423, 431 (D.C.2006) (quoting Murray v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 572 A.2d 1055, 1058 (D.C.1990)); see also District of Columbia, Dep’t of Pub.

2014We have held that “ ‘[i]t is the Board, not the Zoning Administrator, which has final administrative responsibility to interpret the zoning regulations.’ ” Bannum, Inc. v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 894 A.2d 423, 431 (D.C.2006) (quoting Murray v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 572 A.2d 1055, 1058 (D.C.1990)); see also District of Columbia, Dep’t of Pub.

2011This court has distilled a three-part test that “[i]n order to obtain [area] variance relief, an applicant must show 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.... ” Washington Canoe Club v. District of Columbia Zoning Com’n, 889 A.2d 995, 1000 (D.C.2005); see also The Oakland Condominium v

2011A. Uniqueness In Gilmartin v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 579 A.2d 1164, 1168 (D.C.1990), we explained the uniqueness test at length: [T]he rationale behind the uniqueness test is that difficulties that are common to or affect an entire neighborhood, or a substantial portion thereof, are properly addressed by seeking amendment of the regulations themselves from the Zoning Commission ...

2011This court has distilled a three-part test that “[i]n order to obtain [area] variance relief, an applicant must show 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.... ” Washington Canoe Club v. District of Columbia Zoning Com’n, 889 A.2d 995, 1000 (D.C.2005); see also The Oakland Condominium v

2010As "new evidence,” the ANC cited "the information presented by the Applicant to the BZA at the hearing on March 11, 2008,” and the "withdrawal of its approval of the proposed construction,” which was based on that information. .As this court has noted recently, "[b]road, facial challenges to the constitutionality of a statute impose a heavy burden on the parties and rarely succeed.” Plummer v. United States, 983 A.2d 323, 338 (D.C.2009).

2008To the extent that petitioners' issue is whether the as-built addition conforms to the approved plans, their concern raises a potential enforcement issue (that should be directed to DCRA), rather than a zoning issue, as was recognized during the BZA hearing. 16 .However, where " 'uses may be commenced or changed without construction or alteration which requires a building permit, and such uses or changes may be in violation of the zoning regulations, most municipalities undertake to plug this gap through the use of occupancy permits.’ ” Rodgers Bros., 846 A.2d at 316-17 (citation omitted).

2008To the extent that petitioners' issue is whether the as-built addition conforms to the approved plans, their concern raises a potential enforcement issue (that should be directed to DCRA), rather than a zoning issue, as was recognized during the BZA hearing. 16 .However, where " 'uses may be commenced or changed without construction or alteration which requires a building permit, and such uses or changes may be in violation of the zoning regulations, most municipalities undertake to plug this gap through the use of occupancy permits.’ ” Rodgers Bros., 846 A.2d at 316-17 (citation omitted).

2003Citing, inter alia, Glenbrook Road Ass’n v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, 605 A.2d 22, 34 (D.C.1992), the Univer *67 sity argues that the BZA's inquiry should be limited to whether the new Campus Plan would significantly increase the objectionable conditions in the neighborhood.

1979Petitioner filed his opening brief before our decision in Georgetown Citizens, supra. In his reply brief and at oral argument, he stressed that, absent BZA analysis of the opposition testimony, the rational connection between its findings and decision is not evident.

1979See Georgetown Citizens, supra at 44 n.13, 47 n.19.