Wisconsin-Newark Neighborhood Coalition v. District of Columbia Zoning Commission
33 A.3d 382
D.C.2011Background
- Giant sought a PUD and related Zoning Map amendment for a two-parcel site (North and South Parcels) totaling ~178,236 square feet bounded by Wisconsin Ave and Idaho Ave, fronting Macomb St, NW.
- Giant proposed a mixed-use development with a five-story North Parcel and a grocery store plus two-story mixed-use South Parcel buildings, including ground-floor retail and upper residential units.
- Giant requested zoning flexibility (height/density) under PUD guidelines and a rezoning of part of the South Parcel to C-2-A, plus removal of the MW Overlay to permit the project.
- The MW Overlay restricts eating-establishment frontage; Giant sought removal of the overlay via a PUD-related map amendment so overlay limits would not apply.
- Petitioners argued the Commission should refer the project to the BZA for special-exception review under MW Overlay §1308, and challenged consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the loading/truck plan’s feasibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commission could approve a PUD and map amendment removing the MW Overlay without BZA referral | Petitioners: required BZA review under MW Overlay §1308 | Giant: Commission had broad authority to approve PUD with map amendment and conditional overlay removal | Yes; Commission could proceed without BZA referral |
| Whether the PUD/rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan | Giant’s rezoning undermines Plan and MW Overlay goals | C-2-A not inconsistent; Plan supports higher density in mixed-use centers | Not inconsistent; PUD aligns with Plan’s Low/Moderate Density Commercial designations |
| Whether Idaho Avenue truck-loading findings have substantial support | DDOT findings show conflicts and loading impacts | DDOT and Giant credibly found Idaho Ave can accommodate trucks | Yes; substantial evidence supports two-way truck traffic feasibility |
| Whether removal of the MW Overlay through a PUD map amendment was permissible | Overlay restrictions must apply or require separate overlay review | Overlay can be removed conditionally via PUD map amendment; no error | Permissible; overlay removal conditioned on PUD |
| Whether the Commission appropriately analyzed MW Overlay and PUD interplay with BZA requirements | Overlay review standards apply, require BZA considerations | PUD process suffices; Commission can review uses not requiring BZA approvals | Affirmed; Commission properly interpreted its authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Hotel Tabard Inn v. District of Columbia Dep't of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs, 747 A.2d 1168 (D.C. 2000) (substantial-evidence and rational basis standard for agency findings)
- Foggy Bottom Ass'n v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm'n, 979 A.2d 1160 (D.C. 2009) (deference to agency interpretations of regulations; PUD flexibility)
- Blagden Alley Ass’n v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm'n, 590 A.2d 139 (D.C. 1991) (broad general authority of the Commission over zoning matters)
- Dupont Circle Citizens Ass’n II v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm'n, 426 A.2d 327 (D.C. 1981) (PUD process can justify rezoning and height/density flexibility)
- Watergate East Community Against Hotel Conversion to Co-op Apts v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm’n, 953 A.2d 1036 (D.C. 2008) (PUDs promote large-area development with public benefits; consistency with Plan required)