# METROPOLE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT.

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · June 30, 2016 · 141 A.3d 1079

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9824472

## Case

- **Full name:** METROPOLE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, Et Al., Petitioners, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT, Respondent
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** June 30, 2016
- **Citations:** 141 A.3d 1079; 2016 D.C. App. LEXIS 209; 2016 WL 3569366
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Newman
- **Judges:** Washington, McLeese, Newman
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9824472

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9824472. Public record. Not legal advice.