Durant v. District of Columbia Zoning Commission
2013 D.C. App. LEXIS 263
| D.C. | 2013Background
- DC Zoning Commission approved a PUD and rezoning for 901 Monroe Street LLC on June 8, 2012; petitioners (the 200-Footers) challenge the decision as inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
- Property is ~60,000 square feet near Brookland/CUA Metro; currently contains multiple homes and Colonel Brooks’ Tavern; site spans R-2 and C-1 zones with FLUM/GPM designations for mixed-use and low-density residential in parts.
- Developer proposed full-site mixed-use: ground-floor commercial, 200+ residential units, up to six stories (60'8''), FAR 3.31, with five existing homes on 10th Street to remain.
- OP repeatedly concluded the project was not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, balancing competing policies toward Metro-area development and neighborhood preservation.
- Petitioners argued inconsistency with FLUM, SAP, and Plan elements; OP reports and the Commission's findings formed the basis for approval, though several contested issues were not explicitly resolved by the Commission.
- Court remands for supplemental findings on four disputed issues: FLUM reconciliation, specific Plan policies (UNE-2.6.1, LU-1.3.1, LU-2.1.6, LU-2.1.8, LU-2.3.1, UNE-1.1.1), and GPM Neighborhood Conservation designation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the proposal is irreconcilable with the Comprehensive Plan | 200-Footers contend it conflicts with Plan as a whole | Commission balanced Plan policies; not required to adhere to every policy | Remanded for explicit findings on balance and consistency with the Plan as a whole |
| Whether the Commission failed to resolve material contested issues | Key issues (FLUM, specific Plan policies, GPM designation) were not adequately addressed | Commission considered the issues within its order and relied on OP and record | Remanded for explicit findings on identified issues |
| FLUM accuracy and its impact on consistency | OP's FLUM reproduction overstated moderate-density designations; petitioners offered their own FLUM | FLUM is a broad guide; not a parcel-specific zoning map; balance with other Plan elements | Remand to resolve FLUM dispute and its effect on overall consistency |
| Need for explicit consideration of specific Plan policies LU-2.1.6, LU-2.1.8, LU-2.3.1, UNE-1.1.1 and omitted portions of LU-1.3.1 and UNE-2.6.1 | These policies favor neighborhood conservation and limit non-residential encroachment | Commission weighed policies; omission of some quotations was not fatal | Remand to address and explain these policies' impact on the decision |
| GPM Neighborhood Conservation Area designation and its effect | GPM designation may constrain intensity and require modest changes | GPM not determinative by itself; requires holistic balancing | Remand to make explicit findings on GPM consistency and its effect |
Key Cases Cited
- Wis.- Newark Neighborhood Coalition v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm’n, 33 A.3d 382 (D.C.2011) (deferential review; agency interpretation of plan given deference)
- Watergate East Community Against Hotel Conversion to Co-op Apartments v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm’n, 953 A.2d 1036 (D.C.2008) (deferential standard; not substitute judgment unless error)
- Tenley & Cleveland Park Emergency Committee v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 550 A.2d 331 (D.C.1988) (exclusive agency for ensuring Plan consistency)
- Dupont Circle Citizens Ass’n v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm’n, 355 A.2d 550 (D.C.1976) (deferential review; cannot substitute agency judgment)
- Cathedral Park Condo. Comm. v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm’n, 743 A.2d 1231 (D.C.2000) (agency findings required; not arbitrary/ capricious)
- 1330 Conn. Ave., Inc. v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm’n, 669 A.2d 708 (D.C.1995) (deference to agency’s interpretation of its regulations)
- Georgetown Citizens Ass’n v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm’n, 402 A.2d 36 (D.C.1979) (Plan is interpretive; not binding code absent specifics)
- Blagden Alley Ass’n v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm’n, 590 A.2d 139 (D.C.1991) (remand when plan conflicting policy not discussed)
- Hotel Tabard Inn v. District of Columbia Department of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs, 747 A.2d 1168 (D.C.2000) (course of proceedings; reasoned findings required)