Laserfiche WebLink
212 <br /> <br />Page 6 -- March 10, 2003 <br /> <br />Z.B. <br /> <br /> DECISION: Affirmed. <br />The university could use the former hotel as a dormitory as a matter of right. <br />The relevant law stated a special exception was required for dormitories <br />located "on the campus." Since the former hotel was offcampus, the university <br />was not required to obtain a special exception. <br /> While the university had to submit a comprehensive development plan to <br />the board, this regulation did not restrict a university from owning and using <br />property beyond its campus borders, so long as that use was consistent with <br />applicable zoning restrictions. ' <br /> The site of the former hotel was in a district where property owners were <br />expressly permitted to use their propertie~ as dormitories. Zonkng controlled <br />use, not ownership, and the use was expressly permitted whether the property <br />was owned by a university or a private party. No provision justified treating <br />universities differently from other property owners. <br /> <br />Citation: Watergate West [nc. v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning <br />Adjustment, District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Nol 00-AA-227 (2003). <br />see also: Spring Valley Wesley Heights C_~tizens Association v. District of <br />Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, 644 A.2d 434 (1994). <br /> <br />see also: George Washington University v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning <br />Adjustment, 429 A~2d 1342 (198]). <br /> <br />Special Exception-- Developer wants to build grocery store in wetland area <br />Claims large store is reasonable use of land <br /> <br />NEW HAiVIPS~ (01/21/03) -- Bayson Properties Inc. owned property <br />zoned general commercial. However, .the property was also within the city's <br />Wetlands Conservation District. <br /> Bayson applied for a special exception to build a large grocery store and a <br />parking lot with 302 parking spaces. The City of Lebanon Zoning Board of <br />Adjustment granted the special exception. <br /> McK2bbin sued to stop the construction. However, the court affmned the <br />booxd's decision. <br /> McKibbin appealed. <br /> <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br /> The special, exception was properly granted. <br /> Under local ordinances, a special exception applicant had to establish "due <br />to the provisions of the Wetlands ConserVation District, no reasonable use of <br />the lot can be made without the requested wetlands exception." <br /> Bayson simply had to prove it could not reasonably use the property with- <br />out some encroachment upon the wetlands. Economic. return, measured from <br />an objective standpoint, was a valid consideration when determining reason- <br />able use, <br /> <br /> <br />