Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1979–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by District of Columbia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Gilmartin v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustmentgreen2 sentences2023To meet the “practical difficulties” requirement under the second prong of the variance test, applicants must demonstrate two things: first, “that compliance with the area restriction would be unnecessarily burdensome” and second, “that the 32 difficulties are unique to the particular property.” Neighbors for Responsive Gov’t, 195 A.3d at 56 (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Gilmartin, 579 A.2d at 1170 . “[T]he nature and extent of the burden which will warrant an area variance is best left to the facts and circumstances of each particular case.” Gilmartin, 579 A.2d at 1171 (internal 2023To meet the “practical difficulties” requirement under the second prong of the variance test, applicants must demonstrate two things: first, “that compliance with the area restriction would be unnecessarily burdensome” and second, “that the 32 difficulties are unique to the particular property.” Neighbors for Responsive Gov’t, 195 A.3d at 56 (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Gilmartin, 579 A.2d at 1170 . “[T]he nature and extent of the burden which will warrant an area variance is best left to the facts and circumstances of each particular case.” Gilmartin, 579 A.2d at 1171 (internal | 2 | 2 |
Draude v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustmentgreen2 sentences2023The organization must show “(1) that the specific design it wants to build constitutes an institutional necessity, not merely the most desired of various options, and (2) precisely how the needed design features require the specific variance sought.” Draude, 527 A.2d at 1256 . 10 Fourth, our decisions since Monaco have not limited application of public good flexibility to the first “exceptional conditions” prong of the standard variance test. 2017Draude v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 527 A.2d 1242, 1256 (D.C. 1987) (Draude I). | 1 | 2 |
Neighbors for Responsive Government v. DC Bd. of Zoning & DC Dept. of General Servicesgreen1 sentence2023To meet the “practical difficulties” requirement under the second prong of the variance test, applicants must demonstrate two things: first, “that compliance with the area restriction would be unnecessarily burdensome” and second, “that the 32 difficulties are unique to the particular property.” Neighbors for Responsive Gov’t, 195 A.3d at 56 (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Gilmartin, 579 A.2d at 1170 . “[T]he nature and extent of the burden which will warrant an area variance is best left to the facts and circumstances of each particular case.” Gilmartin, 579 A.2d at 1171 (internal | 1 | 1 |
Zacarias v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2007Zacarias v. United States, 884 A.2d 83, 87 (D.C.2005). | 1 | 1 |
Jayne Estates, Inc. v. Raynorgreen2 sentences1979Jayne Estates, Inc., supra, 22 N.Y.2d at 422 , 239 N.E.2d at 715 , 293 N.Y.S.2d at 79 (possible damage to zone plan if owner is allowed to proceed under vested rights based on a mistake of zoning authorities; whereas, in seeking a variance, owner must show both that he cannot recover his investment plus that his proposed use will not be inconsistent with the zoning scheme). 1979Jayne Estates, Inc., supra, 22 N.Y.2d at 422 , 239 N.E.2d at 715 , 293 N.Y.S.2d at 79 (possible damage to zone plan if owner is allowed to proceed under vested rights based on a mistake of zoning authorities; whereas, in seeking a variance, owner must show both that he cannot recover his investment plus that his proposed use will not be inconsistent with the zoning scheme). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kca v. Bza
green
2 sentences2020In order to show how many residences in the Sheridan-Kalorama Historic District could apply for special exceptions for non- residential use if FSMB’s application were granted – triggering a trend that could further affect the area adversely – petitioners proffered a list of residential properties exceeding 10,000 square feet, compiled by searching the so-called “PIVS system.” The BZA found 2118 Leroy Place, N.W. among those properties, reinforcing FSMB’s claim to a variance exception. 123 Finally, the BZA observed – without 123 Decision and Order at 16. 48 contradiction – that the Zoning Admin 2020In order to show how many residences in the Sheridan-Kalorama Historic District could apply for special exceptions for non- residential use if FSMB’s application were granted – triggering a trend that could further affect the area adversely – petitioners proffered a list of residential properties exceeding 10,000 square feet, compiled by searching the so-called “PIVS system.” The BZA found 2118 Leroy Place, N.W. among those properties, reinforcing FSMB’s claim to a variance exception. 123 Finally, the BZA observed – without 123 Decision and Order at 16. 48 contradiction – that the Zoning Admin | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Draude v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment
green
1 sentence2017Mary‟s to “convincingly show that [Hillel‟s new facility] will be detrimental to the public good,” Draude II, supra, 582 A.2d at 957 , that is that “variance relief will . . . create a substantial detriment to the public good.” Draude I, supra, 527 A.2d at 1254 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Palmer v. Board of Zoning Adjustment
green
1 sentence1979Petitioner relies upon this court’s decisions in Taylor v. Board of Zoning Adjustment, D.C.App., 308 A.2d 230 (1973) and Palmer v. Board of Zoning Adjustment, D.C.App., 287 A.2d 535 (1972), to support his contention that “uniqueness” is limited to physical characteristics of the land. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Taylor v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment
green
1 sentence1979Petitioner relies upon this court’s decisions in Taylor v. Board of Zoning Adjustment, D.C.App., 308 A.2d 230 (1973) and Palmer v. Board of Zoning Adjustment, D.C.App., 287 A.2d 535 (1972), to support his contention that “uniqueness” is limited to physical characteristics of the land. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.