Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/04/2000

Home

Page 4 -- November 25, 1999 z,g. exception hearings. After receiving a memo from the corporation counsel, the board voted to reopen the earlier applications in order to receive the corpora- tion counsel's advice. The condominium association was also made a party. The board then held public heatings and voted to deny the healthcare pro- fessionals' applications. The healthcare professionals demanded that the board issue an approval of their applications becaUse of the earlier vote. The board denied their request. The healthcare professionals asked the board to reconsider. The board re- considered their applications and again denied them. The healthcare professionals then took their case to the court of appeals. They argued the board was wrong to deny their applications for special excep- tions because the proposed uses were in harmony with the already existing offices. Also, other units and the condominium association should not have been involved. DECISION: Affirmed. The decision of the board was correct. The existing offices could not be considered. Regardless of the length of time any of the existing uses had operated in the complex, they were never legally established and could not be "grandfathered." The only existing legitimate use of the complex was for residential purposes. Also, because a condominium involves an ownership interest in the undi- vided whole of the common areas of the building, it was not wrong to require the participation of the condominium association. Those owners of condo- minium units who did not apply for special exceptions still had an interest in the proceedings by virtue of their shared interest in the common areas. Citation: Gage v. Di C. Board'of Zoning Adjustment, D.C. Court of Appeals, Nos. 96-AA-J5J9, 97-AA-237 (1999)... see also: Capitol Hill Restoration Socie~ In~. 'v. D.C. Board of Zoning Adjustment, 398 A.2d J3 (J979). see also: Neighbors on Upton St. v. D.C. Board of Zoning Adjustment, 697 A.2d 3 (J997). Taking - City is sued for allowing construction that aggravated flooding NEBRASKA (10/I/99) -- Bargmann's property was not within the city's cor- porate limits but was within the city.'s zoning jurisdiction. It was also within the I00-year flood plain of two rivers. Ice jams occurred in one of the rivers, forcing the river out of its banks and flooding Bargmann's property. Bargmann sued the city for allowing a highway and a subdivision to be built within the flood plain. She claimed these obstructions caused the flood- ing to be much worse. Specifically, Bargmann claimed the highway and the subdivision were constructed at an elevation above the 100-year flood level and acted as a dam' or levee that caused the floodwaters to accumulate.