Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/02/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin The Board had further argued that Hess waived its right to automatic approval. The Board said this was because Hess had: represented it was "working" with the Board after the thirty-day time limit had expired; failed to invoke the automatic approval provision immediately upon the expiration of the statutory time limits; and gave no notice of its intent to do so. The court said the Board could not assert confusion over the man- ner and time within which it had to act on the application. Moreover, said the tourt, under the CPA, Hess had no power to grant an open-end- ed extension. Also, by waiting to enforce the automatic approval provi- sion, Hess was not barred from seeking it, said the court. Finally, the court also rejected the Board's argument that the auto- matic approval provision could not be triggered because the proposed development presented questions of public safety. The court noted that the CPA provided no exception from the statutory timetables for cases involving public health and welfare. The court said that a project receiv- ing automatic approval would nevertheless be subject to conditions im- posed by the municipality and all relevant statewide health and welfare initiatives. See also: Manalapan Holding Co., Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Hamilton Tp., 92 N.J. 466,457 A.2d 441 (1983). Case Note: In its decision, the court noted that a board need not act within the original time constraints when a developer, with the consent of the planning body: (1). withdraws an application; or (2) unilaterally amends it to such an extent that effectively it is a new application. Project Modification-Zoning commission approves modification to PUD Adjacent building owners argue approval is an . ?TIconstitution~1 taking of their interest and otherwise Improper Citation: Watergate East Committee Against Hotel Conversion to Co-op Apartments v. District of Columbia Zoning Com'n, 2008 WL 2827436 (D.C. 2008) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (07/24/08)-The Watergate Planned Unit Development (the "WPUD") was located in the District of Colum~ bia (D.C.). As a PUD, it was "designed to facilitate the development of well-planned residential, institutional, commercial, and mixed-use devel- 10 @ 2008 Thomson ReuterslWest 82 i ') ) .--,' '\ I' I I I J i I 1 :1 :1