www.dccourts.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/2018-04\/15-AA-1000.pdf<\/a>>.<\/p>\nI’ve pulled out a few key statements (See Below) from my perspective as a non-lawyer as to why so many are upset at this potential blow to the city’s pay-to-play development system, which often uses the PUD process as cover such deals.<\/p>\n
1. The Barry Farm ruling not only says that PUDs can’t be inconsistent (legal speak) with the Comp Plan, but also other policy documents including public financial subsidy and funding programs.<\/p>\n
2. The city and their development partners can’t just displace and disrupt neighborhoods, without clear policy justification and mitigation.<\/p>\n
Again, I’m no lawyer, but this and other rulings may be as important as the 1954 Brown ruling. Reading the Barry Farm makes clear this is not so much about affordable housing, but unchecked power. Any why judges are ruling against the city.<\/p>\n
William<\/p>\n
BARRY FARM TENANTS AND ALLIES ASSOCIATION, PETITIONER,
\nv. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ZONING COMMISSION, RESPONDENT,
\nand A&R DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL., INTERVENORS.<\/p>\n
II. DISCUSSION<\/p>\n
….Pursuant to 11 DCMR \u00a7 2400.2, the Commission may \u201cpermit flexibility of development and other incentives, such as increased building height and density\u201d as long as \u201cthe project offers a commendable number or quality of public benefits and . . . protects and advances the public health, safety, welfare, and convenience.\u201d The Commission must also \u201cfind that the proposed PUD is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with other adopted public policies and active programs related to the subject site [such as the applicable zoning regulations, the Future Land Use Map, the Barry Farm Small Area Plan, and the NCI].\u201d 11 DCMR \u00a7 2403.4. The Commission can approve a PUD that is inconsistent with one or more such provisions if the provisions at issue are worded in mandatory terms, only if the Commission (1) concludes that disregarding one such provision is necessary to comply with one or more other such provisions and (2) explains why it is deciding to favor one such provision over the other such provision. See Friends of McMillan Park v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm\u2019n, 149 A.3d 1027, 1034-35 (D.C. 2016). The Commission cannot simply disregard some provisions of the Comprehensive Plan on the ground that a PUD is consistent with or supported by other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Id.; see also Durant I, 65 A.3d at 1170 (stating that the Commission \u201cmust recognize these policies and explain [why] they are outweighed by other, competing considerations\u201d ).13<\/p>\n
….Moreover, the Commission must address each material contested issue of fact. Dietrich v. Board of Zoning Adjustment, 293 A.2d 470, 472-73 (D.C. 1972). And although the parties did not raise this issue, it is evident from the Applicant\u2019s proposed findings of fact in the record that the Commission\u2019s decision largely adopted nearly verbatim the Applicant\u2019s proposal. When this occurs, \u201c[a] stricter review of the record is in order\u201d to determine whether the \u201cfindings and conclusions ultimately represent\u201d an independent determination.<\/p>\n
E. The Relocation Plan<\/p>\n
Because the URA <www.hud.gov\/program_offices\/comm_planning\/affordablehousing\/training\/web\/relocation\/overview<\/a>> did not confer jurisdiction on the Commission, the Commission concluded that the relocation process was outside its jurisdiction. This conclusion was erroneous in light of the URA\u2019s language explaining that the URA is meant to run concurrently with local government actions, not in place of them.19<\/p>\nAs such, the Commission needed to consider any local policies addressing relocation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
This was originally posted to the Adams Morgan Listserv on May 14, 2018, as message #48198, https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=TLM94DnKkQo In the comings weeks, we will hear a lot about lawsuits appealing PUDs, housing demand, affordable housing, displacement, gentrification and amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. This article, Angry D.C. developers fight back against appeals from angry citizens […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-393","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-housingarchive"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.dcfeedback.com\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/393","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.dcfeedback.com\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.dcfeedback.com\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.dcfeedback.com\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.dcfeedback.com\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=393"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.dcfeedback.com\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/393\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.dcfeedback.com\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=393"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.dcfeedback.com\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=393"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.dcfeedback.com\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=393"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}