where health department required restaurant with nonconforming drive-in service to store commissary carts undercover — which may have suggested, but did not require, use and “structural alteration” of a partially enclosed, roofless structure adjacent to the main building — the BZA could grant a variance under § 5 — 420 if the statutory criteria were met
How later courts described this case
- where health department required restaurant with nonconforming drive-in service to store commissary carts undercover — which may have suggested, but did not require, use and “structural alteration” of a partially enclosed, roofless structure adjacent to the main building — the BZA could grant a variance under § 5 — 420 if the statutory criteria were met
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Judgment
PER CURIAM.
This case came on to be heard on the record on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and was argued by counsel; and the trial judge having determined that the administrative record as stipulated is insufficient for the achievement of finality and having accordingly directed a remand for further proceedings before the Board of Zoning Adjustment at which additional testimony and argument may be adduced, as from Judge Youngdahl’s opinion will more fully appear,
Now, upon consideration of the foregoing and of the record before this court,
It is Ordered and Adjudged by this court that the judgment of the District Court, 231 F.2d 825 , substantially for the reasons set forth in its opinion, is affirmed.
It is further Ordered by the court that appellee herein recover from appellant its taxable costs on this appeal, and have execution therefor.