{"id":3058,"date":"2022-11-03T11:56:59","date_gmt":"2022-11-03T11:56:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.dcfeedback.com\/fit2print\/?p=3058"},"modified":"2022-11-03T12:08:41","modified_gmt":"2022-11-03T12:08:41","slug":"court-vacates-citys-boundary-decision-at-masonic-temple","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.dcfeedback.com\/fit2print\/dc\/3058","title":{"rendered":"Court Vacates City\u2019s Boundary Decision at Masonic Temple"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

Media Alert: Thursday, Nov. 3, 2022 <\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

Contact: Nick DelleDonne , <\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

delledonne.n@comcast.net<\/a><\/a>, 703 929 6656<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

In Major Victory for DECAA Court Issues Injunction against City,<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Agrees with DECAA on Boundaries of Masonic Temple Historic Landmark,<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Rules City Violated DECAA\u2019s Constitutional Right to Equal Protection of the Law<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

THE COURT\u2019S ORDER:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cORDERED that the Historical Preservation Review Board\u2019s May 23, 2019, Decision in 16th<\/sup>\u00a0Historic Landmark Case No. 19-06 pertaining to the Scottish-Rite Temple \u2026 is VACATED<\/span>;<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

ORDERED that the District of Columbia, its officers, employees, and agents are ENJOINED from taking any action pursuant to the Historical Preservation Review Board\u2019s May 23, 2019, Decision in Historic Landmark Case No. 19-06<\/span>;<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

ORDERED that Declaratory Relief is entered clarifying that the boundary of the Scottish Rite Temple historic landmark as entered in the D.C. Inventory of Historic Sites, located at 1733 16th<\/sup>\u00a0Street, Square 192, Lot 108, is equivalent to the boundary of Lot 820 as it existed in 1979<\/span>\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

BACKGROUND:\u00a0 Two years ago Dupont East Civic Action Association (DECAA) filed suit challenging the decision of the Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) to reduce the boundary of the Masonic Temple historic landmark site from more than 100 feet behind the Temple to less than 6 feet behind the Temple. HPRB did this so the developer, Perseus, could construct an oversized luxury apartment building on the site of the national historic landmark.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

On Oct. 31, DECAA won a stunning victory in Court.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The Court invalidated HPRB\u2019s decision and declared the boundary of the Temple landmark site runs from 16th<\/sup>\u00a0St. to more than 100 feet behind the Temple.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Shown at the bottom of the attached diagram with a red arrow is the crimped area HPRB tried to say was the site of this historic landmark. The blue arrow at the bottom of the diagram shows the Court\u2019s determination of the correct boundary of this national historic landmark (referred to by the Court as Lot 820).\u00a0 Marked in yellow on the diagram is what the Court determined is thus included in the footprint of this national historic landmark \u2013\u00a0more than 20,000 additional square feet of land.<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Based on the Court\u2019s determination the correct boundary lies through the middle of the luxury apartments and rooftop swimming pool and bar Perseus is presently constructing.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/i><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

The Court\u2019s injunction forbids DC and any of its officers and employees from relying in any way on HPRB\u2019s vacated 2019 decision.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The Court in its decision castigated the DC government\u2019s actions in this lawsuit as<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cDefendants\u2019\u00a0unrepentant, bad-faith<\/b>\u00a0conduct\u2026<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201can attempt to\u00a0unfairly prejudice<\/b>\u00a0the Plaintiff or else remedy its own negligence.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe Court is likewise\u00a0disturbed<\/b>\u00a0by the District\u2019s contention \u2026<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cSetting aside the District\u2019s\u00a0insinuation<\/b>\u00a0that it failed its duty to respond to discovery in good faith<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cDistrict\u2019s\u00a0contumacious conduct<\/b>\u2026\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

With respect to HPRB the Court held:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe challenge, however, is that the HPRB\u00a0commandeered<\/span>\u00a0Plaintiffs\u2019 application to expand the boundary and\u00a0warped it<\/span>\u00a0into a decision about reducing the boundaries.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201c[T]he District has not identified any instance where it decided to \u2026 reduce an historical landmark\u2019s boundary in response to an application to expand the boundary.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cTherefore,\u00a0as a matter of law<\/span>, the Court must hold that the\u00a0District treated Plaintiffs\u2019 application differently from any other application without a rational basis for doing so.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The Court then held that the\u00a0District government denied Plaintiffs their Constitutional right to Equal Protection under law.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

On remand to HPRB<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cNow that there is clarity that the boundary of the Temple landmark lies along the boundary line of the former Lot 820, the HPRB can consider the actual question presented: should the Temple landmark boundary be expanded to include all of Lot 108? On remand, the\u00a0HPRB shall\u00a0not<\/i>\u00a0be\u00a0free\u00a0take any action except to grant Plaintiffs\u2019 application, deny it, or expand the boundary in part.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The Court ordered that Plaintiffs \u201cshall be entitled to\u00a0reasonable attorney fees and costs\u00a0<\/b>incurred in this matter\u201d from the DC government.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

DECAA was represented by attorneys Barry Coburn\u00a0<\/span>https:\/\/www.coburnandgreenbaum.com\/barry-coburn<\/span><\/a><\/span>\u00a0and Marc\u00a0<\/span>Eisenstein<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>https:\/\/www.coburnandgreenbaum.com\/marc-e<\/span><\/a><\/span>\u00a0of the law firm of\u00a0Coburn and Greenbaum, PLLC,\u00a0who dedicated many hours\u00a0pro bono<\/i>\u00a0to a small civic organization. <\/span>DECAA was represented also by\u00a0DECAA Board Member\u00a0and former Assistant US Attorney Michael Hays.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201c<\/span>This unambiguous decision should be a signal to city leadership to respect its lawful obligation for historic preservation, not to commercial interests, but to the community it serves,\u201d <\/i><\/span>DECAA president\u00a0Nick DelleDonne\u00a0said.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Attachments: Diagram of Masonic lots, Court decision<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/div>\n

\"\"<\/a>
\npdf icon Superior-Court-decision-2019-CA-004130-B-Omnbs-Or.pdf<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Media Alert: Thursday, Nov. 3, 2022 Contact: Nick DelleDonne , delledonne.n@comcast.net, 703 929 6656 \u00a0 In Major Victory for DECAA Court Issues Injunction against City, Agrees with DECAA on Boundaries of Masonic Temple Historic Landmark, Rules City Violated DECAA\u2019s Constitutional Right to Equal Protection of the Law \u00a0 THE COURT\u2019S ORDER: \u00a0 \u201cORDERED that the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3059,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3058","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-dc"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.dcfeedback.com\/fit2print\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3058","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.dcfeedback.com\/fit2print\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.dcfeedback.com\/fit2print\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.dcfeedback.com\/fit2print\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.dcfeedback.com\/fit2print\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3058"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.dcfeedback.com\/fit2print\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3058\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.dcfeedback.com\/fit2print\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3059"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.dcfeedback.com\/fit2print\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3058"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.dcfeedback.com\/fit2print\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3058"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.dcfeedback.com\/fit2print\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3058"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}