Laserfiche WebLink
<br />September 25, 20081 Volume 21No. 18 <br /> <br />!i .~\ opments, industrial parks, urban renewal and community development." <br />I' <br />I: The WPUD involved the mixed uses of property-~partments, commercial <br />space, office buildings, and a hotel (the "Hotel"). <br />Monu.r:nental Residential L.L.C. contracted to purchase the Hotel. It <br />filed an application with D.C.'s zoning commission (the "Commission") <br />to modify the WPUD. Among other things, the proposed modifications <br />would convert the Hotel into 133 cooperative apartments. <br />After holding hearings on the proposed modifications to the WPUD, <br />the Commission approved them. In doing so, the Commission found, <br />among other things, that: (1) the Hotel was not an "amenity," and its <br />loss would therefore not cause any adverse effect on any nearby proper- <br />ties; and (2) elimination of the Hotel was consistent with D.C.'s Compre- <br />hensive Plan. <br />Residents of neighboring apartment buildings' formed committees that <br />opposed the WPUD modifications: Watergate East Committee Against <br />Hotel Conversion to Co-Op Apartments and Watergate West, Inc. (col- <br />lectively, the "Opponents"). They appealed the Commission's approval <br />of the application for the WPUD modifications, arguing: (1) the modifi- <br />cations approved by the Commission interfered with their vested rights <br />in the existing balance of uses within the WPUD and amounted to an <br />unconstitutional taking of private property; (2) the WPUD modifications <br />should not have been approved because: (a) the Hotel was an "amenity," <br />the loss of which changed the essential nature of the WPUD; and (b) the <br />elimination of the Hotel was inconsistent with D.C.'s Comprehensive <br />Plan. <br /> <br />1i <br />H <br />!i <br />1\ <br />:i <br />I' <br />:! <br />" <br />\; <br />I, <br />" <br />i: <br />'I <br />Ii <br />I' <br />j! <br />!i <br />li <br />'Ii <br />ii <br />i: <br />l! <br />'i <br />i! <br />J1 <br />I' <br />Ii <br />II <br />I' <br />ii <br />jl <br />:i <br />'i <br />Ii <br />/' <br />:I <br />Ii <br />I' <br />l' <br />'i <br />Ii <br />Ii <br />,; <br />iI <br /> l <br /> " - <br />ii <br />I' <br />~ j <br /> <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br /> <br />The court affirmed the Commission's approval of the application. <br />The court held that the Opponents did not have a vested interest in <br />the existing balance of uses within the WPUD. Accordingly, the court <br />conc~uded that the Commission's approval of the application was not <br />an unconstitutional taking of private property. The court explained that <br />there was "no vested rights in zoning classifications." The court said that <br />a vested right had to be more than a mere expectation based on the an" <br />ticipated application of zoning law. <br />The Opponents had claimed a vested right in their "reliance interests." <br />They asserted that they bought their property with the understanding <br />that the Hotel would 'continue to remain part of the WPUD. The court <br />rejected that "vested right" argument.' The court said that PUDs were <br />not unchangeable arrangements. In fact, the court noted, D.C.'s zoning <br />regulations contained procedures for modifying PUDs. The court said <br />that just as there were not vested rights in the continuation of a zoning <br />classification, the Opponents had no reason to expect that the WPUD <br />would remain unchanged. The court further explained that because there <br /> <br />@ 2008 Thomson Reuters/West <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />83 <br />