Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/07/2013

Home

Zoning Bulletin September 25, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 18 under the [District of Columbia Administrative Procedure Act] to challenge an agency order, the petitioner must allege . . . that the interest sought to be protected . . . is arguably within the zone of interests protected under the stat- ute or constitutional guarantee in question . . . and . . . [there must not be a] clear legislative intent to withhold judicial review . . .." Here, WELAG had alleged that the Commission's approval of the PUD violated three provisions: (1) by failing to properly consider the value of the land contributed by the District of Columbia, the Commission violated 11 DCMR § 2403.8 (2012); (2) by approving a plan that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Commission violated 11 DCMR § 2403.4; and (3) by permitting the PUD without insisting on compliance with IZ requirements, the Commission violated 11 DCMR §§ 2602.1, 2606.1 (2012). The court concluded that these provisions were part of an "integrally related zoning framework" and that the asserted interest of WELAG's members —the loss of the use and enjoyment of the existing library as a result of the approval of the PUD—fell within the "zone of interests" of that framework. Accordingly, the court concluded that WELAG had both constitutional and prudential standing to assert its claims. See also: Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351, 34 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1785, 22 Envtl. L. Rep. 20913 (1992). See also: Friends of Tilden Park, Inc. v. District of Columbia, 806 A.2d )'i 1201 (D.C. 2002). See also: Community Credit Union Services, Inc. v. Federal Exp. Services Corp., 534 A.2d 331 (D.C. 1987). See also: D.C. Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, Inc. v. District of Co- lumbia Dept. of Ins., Securities, and Banking, 54 A.3d 1188 (D.C. 2012). Case Note: The court went on to address the merits of WELAG's claims. The court concluded that: (1) the Commission acted reasonably in concluding that it was not required under an "adverse effects" zoning regulation to consider the value of land rights being transferred to a public contractor in determining whether to approve the PUD; (2) ev- idence supported the conclusion of the Commission that the PUD would not generate adequate revenue without relief from the inclusionary zoning requirements; and (3) evidence supported the Commission's determination that approval of the PUD would not be inconsistent with the District's comprehensive plan as a whole. © 2013 Thomson Reuters 9