Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />were no vested property rights at risk, there was no unconstitutional tak- <br />ing of private property by government. Such a taking, the court said, oc- <br />curred only when the government acquired private property by ousting <br />the owner or destroying property. The court found: the Opponents were <br />not being ousted from their apartments; their property was not being de- <br />stroyed; and D.C. was not "acquiring" anything. <br />The court next a,ddressed the Opponents' argument that the WPOO <br />modifications should not have been approved because the Hotel was an <br />"amenity," the loss of which changed the essential nature of the WPOO. <br />The court held that even if the Hotel was an "amenity" in the WPOO, <br />the Commission had the authority to balance the loss of the Hotel <br />against the gains from the modifications. <br />The court also found that substantial evidence supported the Com- <br />mission's finding that the proposed modifications were consistent with <br />D.C.'s Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan"). The Commission had read "the <br />[P]lan as a whole" and found a stronger emphasis placed on housing de- <br />velopment than hotel development." The court found the Plan did rec- <br />ognize a need for housing development. The court found it also set goals <br />of "increasing the quantity and quality of employment opportunities" in <br />D.C. The court found that an expert had testified that the changes would <br />fulfill those goals. <br /> <br />See also: Dupont Citcle Citizens Ass'n v.Batty, 455 A.2d 417 (D.C. <br />1983). <br /> <br />See also: Foggy Bottom Ass'n v. Disttict of Columbia Office of Planning, <br />441 R Supp. 2d 84 (D.D.C. 2006). <br /> <br />Case Note: In its discussion, the court also noted that to the extent <br />that the Opponents were suggesting that the approval of all WPOO <br />owners was necessary for approval of the proposed modifications, <br />their position was contrary to law. D.C. zoning regulations did not <br />require consent of owners of properties within a POO before a mod- <br />ification coUld be approved. Nor did the Commission, in practice, <br />require such consent. <br /> <br />::~~~I!!~}iaRi~ti~~~i~fim~:.~i!~~~1~~t~it~1~i~t~;~~~t~~i~~ll~ <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />@ 2008 Thomson ReuterslWest <br /> <br />84 <br />