Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/01/2005

Home

Page 6 --November 10, 2005 Z.B. This was a sufficient indication of Mans' hostile intent to establish a cla/m of adverse possession. see also: Spiek v. Department of Tran~porration' 572 N. W. 2d 201 (1998). see also: West Michigan Dock & 3¥arker.Corp v. Lakeland [n~estments, 5.34 N.W. 2d 2i2 (1995). Taking-- Neighborhood does not want large amount of student housing Zoning board forces university to house students elsewhere Citation: George Washington University g. District of Columbia, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 0f-0895 (£FO) (2005) DISTRICT OF COLD~iB LA (09/16/05) -- In 1999, the George Washington Uni- versity submitted a campus plan to the District of Columbia's Board of Zoning Adjustment. As part of its plan, it wanted to develop its student dorms in the Foggy Bottom neighborhood. However, the board imposed several conditions on the new plan. First, it required the university to house 70 percent of its students on campus, and capped enrollment at 8,000 under~aduates. Any student over the 8,000 cap had to be housed on campus or outside of Foggy Bottom. Importantly, the board believed that the property the university owned in Foggy Bottom for undergaduate housing and "informal" off-campus housing threatened the liv- ability and residential character of the neighborhood. The university argued that the on-campus or outside Foggy Bottom hous- ing requirements rendered the university's off-campus student housing in Foggy Bottom d.uplicative. However, nothing in the plan forced the university to give up its off-campus Foggy Bottom dorms or prevented it from continuing to laouse students there. If it chose, the university could continue supplying that housing in addition to the new beds required under the board's plan. The unive~-sity sued, arguing the board's actions resulted in an illegal taking. DECISION: Judgment in.favor of the board. There was no taking. At most~ the university alleged that it would cost money to' comply. This was not, however, a substantial loss Of property value. Although the university argued that it would lose the use of its e,'dsting properties in Foggy Bottom, it could still use these properties for off-campus housing, it simply could not use them to count toward its 70 percent student' housing requirement. Importantly, there was no interference with. the university's investment- backed expectations because it was on notice that its property was subject to governmental regulation. Moreover, the board expressed concern in 1985 about the university's growth, and -- following the university's decision to undergo a sharp expansion in enrollment in the late 1990s -- the university should have anticipated that further regulations could be imminent. Finally, given the university's potential impact on the surrounding neigh- 2005 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more iniormation please call (617) 542-0048. 64