Guy Durant v. District of Columbia Zoning Commission and 901 Monroe Street, LLC
2014 D.C. App. LEXIS 376
| D.C. | 2014Background
- 901 Monroe Street, LLC sought a PUD and zoning changes for a ~60,000 sq ft parcel in 900 block of Monroe St NE.
- Parcel zoned partly R-2 residential and partly C-1 commercial; FLUM designates portions for low- to moderate-density mixed uses; GPM marks Neighborhood Conservation Area.
- Plot located near Brookland/CUA Metro; plan contemplated six-story building with 205–220 residential units and ground-floor commercial space; several residences on site would be demolished.
- 200-Footers residents object, arguing project conflicts with Comprehensive Plan policies and neighborhood character; remand ordered to address plan consistency and specific policies.
- On remand, the Commission adopted the developer’s proposed order almost verbatim, failing to address key objections and to explain its conclusions.
- Court remands to (1) classify density (moderate vs medium), (2) address UNE-2.6.1 special-care policy for 10th Street residences, (3) reassess consistency with Plan in light of those findings, and (4) provide independent reasoning for approval or denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should density classification be re-evaluated? | 200-Footers: project is medium-density, not moderate-density. | Commission treated project as moderate-density mixed-use. | Remand to determine proper density characterization and impact on plan consistency. |
| Is UNE-2.6.1 special-care for 10th Street adequately explained? | Policy requires protection of existing low-scale residential uses, conflicting with teardown and tall building. | Project allegedly respects/protects the low-scale character while balancing other policies. | Remand to provide fuller explanation of how special-care policy is satisfied. |
| Did the Commission exercise independent judgment given verbatim adoption? | Order largely copied from developer’s proposed order, undermining independent decision-making. | Practice of soliciting proposed findings is permissible with scrutiny; not per se reversible. | Remand and require independent findings; wholesale adoption warrants heightened review. |
| Does the project remain consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as a whole? | If density and 10th Street protections are misapplied, overall plan consistency fails. | Balancing policies supports consistency with Plan overall. | Remand to articulate full rational basis linking findings to plan policies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Durant v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm’n, 65 A.3d 1161 (D.C.2013) (remand for fuller explanation on plan consistency and contested issues)
- Watergate East Comm. Against Hotel Conversion to Co-op Apartments v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm’n, 953 A.2d 1036 (D.C.2008) (strict review when agency adopts party-proposed findings; independence of judgment)
- Foggy Bottom Ass’n v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm’n, 979 A.2d 1160 (D.C.2009) (need for articulate rationale and rational connection between facts and decision)
- Walsh v. District of Columbia Bd. of Appeals & Review, 826 A.2d 375 (D.C.2003) (agency findings must be grounded in articulated rationale, not post hoc reasoning)
- Sacks v. Rothenberg, 569 A.2d 150 (D.C.1990) (verbatim adoption caution; need for independent evaluation)