Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/07/1995

Home

Page 6- January 15, 1995 Z,B. · show the cabaret was the primary source of noise and littering in the area. The court affirmed the board's decision, and CBH appealed again. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the board. The board was ordered to issue CBH its special exception permit, subject to any conditions or restrictions the board found necessary and appropriate. The board also had to consider the merits of CBH's application for the off- street parking variance. As long as CBH met the conditions for a special exception, the board had to find the cabaret would not adversely affect the surrounding area. There was no evidence to show the board had reasonable grounds for denying the permit, so CBH was entitled to it. The board could not deny the permit just because neighbors asserted "community pressure" through general objections and con- cerns. However, there was evidence some neighbors were disturbed by boise and vibrations from the cabaret. The board could impose restrictions on the cabaret to minimize disturbances. Matter of Carrol's Developme~t Corp. v. Gibso~b 422 N.E.2d 581. Special Exception -- Citizens Group Challenges Board's Authority to Allow Youth Treatment Facility Citize~s Association of Georgetow~ v. District of Columbia Board of Zooming Adjustment, 642 A.2d 125 (District of Columbia) 1994 The District of Columbia's Department of Human Services announced it would establish a residential treatment center for 24 emotionally disturbed youths. The district then bought an old institution in a residential zone, which had been a home for the blind. After buying the property, the district began renovating it to use as the treatment center. It did not seek any zoning review because a court decision stated the district's zoning laws did not apply to district-owned property. How- ever, the court decision was later overturned, so the district then applied for a special exception from the Board of Zoning Adjustment. At a public hearing, the Citizens Association of Georgetown opposed the plan. Tim association claimed the board could not grant the special exception because the district's zoning regulation only authorized special exceptions for community residence facilities (which housed adults age 18 and over), not for youth care residential homes (which housed youths under 18). The association said these two facilities were fundamentally different and had different poten- tial impacts on neighborhoods. The ordinance did not allow special exceptions for the youth care homes just because it allowed them for community residence facilities. In addition, the district's zoning code only permitted youth residen- tial care homes to house a maximum of 15 people. The board granted the district's special exception, and the association ap- pealed. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the board. /,The association was correct. The code allowed special exceptions for a