remanding for more findings that would link the exceptional “narrowness of the property” to the applicant’s claimed “practical difficulty” of fewer parking spaces without a variance
How later courts described this case
- remanding for more findings that would link the exceptional “narrowness of the property” to the applicant’s claimed “practical difficulty” of fewer parking spaces without a variance
- “While ordinarily the verbatim adoption of the prevailing party’s proposed order will not necessarily lead to reversal . . . .”
- remanding BZA decision granting variance and special exception because of virtual verbatim reliance on applicant’s proposed order
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NEWMAN, Senior Judge,
concurring:
While I join the opinion of the court, I write separately to make explicit what the court’s opinion strongly suggests. On remand, the BZA should first hear from all interested entities on how to proceed. This may result in a determination that taking further evidence to deal with the deficiencies in the prior determination pointed out in the court’s opinion is necessary. In addition, the BZA should receive written and/or oral presentations and arguments by the parties. It then should properly determine the matter and itself prepare a proper written decision. It is in the spirit of hope that I note that the BZA’s decision in this case which we vacate was issued on September 3, 2014, eight days prior to our decision in Durant v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm’n, 99 A.3d 253 (D.C.2014). It is in that spirit of hope that I look forward to the BZA fully taking heed of the teachings of that decision (as well as the prior decisions it cites) and doing a proper adjudication on remand.