Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin July 10, 2013 Volume 7 Issue 13 <br />mission failed to make adequate findings as to several material contested <br />issues. <br />DECISION: Remanded. <br />The District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that the PUD approval <br />was not invalid on its face as irreconcilable with the Comprehensive <br />Plan. In so holding, the court explained that the Zoning Commission was <br />responsible for balancing the Comprehensive Plan's occasionally <br />competing policies and goals, subject only to deferential review by the <br />court. The court noted that, even if the PUD proposal conflicted with one <br />or more individual policies associated with the Comprehensive Plan, that <br />did not, in and of itself, preclude the Zoning Commission from conclud- <br />ing that the action would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as a <br />whole. <br />A Comprehensive Plan, said the court, "is not a code of prohibitions": <br />"it is an interpretive guide," which a zoning commission must consider <br />holistically. It provides a broad "statement of policy to guide future pub- <br />lic decision[-] making," and except where specifically provided, it is not <br />"binding"; it is only an interpretive tool. "Its discrete elements `guide[,] <br />but do not direct' a zoning commission's action," and it "do[es] not <br />impose specific implementation techniques," stated the court. Thus, even <br />if some individual policies are facially at odds with a particular zoning <br />action, that is not necessarily diapositive; the zoning commission must <br />still determine whether a proposed action would be consistent with the <br />Comprehensive Plan as a whole. <br />Here, however, the court also agreed with the Opponents that the Zon- <br />ing Commission had failed to resolve certain material issues. The court <br />found, that the Zoning Commission had failed to address or explain its <br />resolution of three contested issues. In light of that failure, the court <br />concluded that a remand for further consideration was required to resolve <br />those issues. <br />See also: Tenley and Cleveland Park Emergency Committee v. District <br />of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 550 A.2d 331 (D.C. 1988). <br />© 2013 Thomson Reuters 9 <br />