Opinion ID: 2075958
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Reliance on the covenant.

Text: The record indicates that the covenant affords substantial protection against future commercial development. [23] Although the residential property owners within 75 feet of Fourways' property, including Petitioner, Daro Realty, Inc., did not join in executing the amendments, the amendments retained all earlier restrictions and added more. [24] The amended covenant specifically names J. Phillip Sherwood and his successors, heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns as beneficiaries, thus making irrelevant for purposes of enforcing the covenant Sherwood's sale of his property. The covenant may also be enforced by the owner of the Rodney Apartment building, which abuts Lot 60. [25] In addition, the covenant runs with the land until December 30, 2017, binding all future owners to these added restrictions. See Capital Hill Restoration Soc. v. Zoning Commission, 380 A.2d 174, 184 (D.C.1977) (covenant running with land is generally enforceable). While it is true that the residential property owners within 75 feet of Fourways' property, did not sign the amendments, the Commission decided that these signatures were not necessary and we see no reason to second guess the Commission's judgment regarding this issue. Moreover, the Commission was advised by the Corporation Counsel that the covenant was enforceable, and the OP, which had initially opposed rezoning the property, dropped its opposition and supported the application based on the protections against future development afforded by the covenant. In light of these conditions, terms, and legal effects, we conclude that the Commission reasonably could rely on the protections afforded by the covenant. Id. at 185 (Zoning Commission may consider covenants in rezoning decision because private restrictions may provide greater flexibility and control in meeting the demands for rezoning in areas which have undergone recent changes.).