Opinion ID: 2202658
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Height Litigation

Text: We address, first, Carr's 1975 litigation challenging the building height limitation on his West End property. Carr v. District of Columbia Zoning Commission, Civ. Action No. 4122-75 (1975). [20] Former Assistant Corporation Counsel Iverson Mitchell, now one of intervenor Carr's counsel, represented the Zoning Commission. Carr successfully alleged that a 60-foot height limitation imposed by the Zoning Commission on buildings in the West End within 220 feet of Rock Creek Park (as compared with the 90-foot limitation in the rest of the CR zone) was arbitrary and capricious and thus an unconstitutional taking of his property. As a result, the usable floor-area ratio (FAR) for Carr's property was increased from approximately 4.5 to 6.0, thereby permitting Carr to plan a larger building or buildings there. [21] The height litigation accordingly achieved Carr's objective of increasing the allowable rental space. It is important to note that this litigation did not reflect or portend any particular type of development or parking arrangement. An increase in the FAR, while increasing rentable space as of right, has no direct bearing on whether the property can be developed for commercial or residential purposes. Nor, as to residential development, does an increased FAR have a direct relationship to the number of permitted parking spaces. The number of off-street residential parking spaces permitted as of right is directly related not to FAR but to the number of dwelling units  a maximum of two spaces per three units. D.C. Zoning Regs. § 4505.1 (1982). [22] An increased FAR will either permit more dwelling units of the size originally contemplated or allow the same, or even a smaller, number of units if designed to be more luxurious, and thus larger, than initially planned. Accordingly, an increased FAR bears no necessary or direct relationship to the number of parking places eventually permitted as of right  or by special exception  because FAR does not necessarily dictate the number of dwelling units. This is not to say that an FAR increase is unlikely to result in additional dwelling units and related parking spaces; more often than not it probably will. The relevant point, however, is twofold. First, there is no way one can say with reasonable certainty that in 1975 the height litigation, premised only on constitutional issues, had a direct bearing on the number of dwelling units and parking spaces to which Carr would be entitled. Developmental choices were still his to make, albeit with greater flexibility after he won the lawsuit. The dissenters are simply wrong in asserting, post at 61, that the height litigation concerned the Westbridge, i.e., the particular residential building Carr elected to develop much later, after winning the height litigation and aborting a different, mixed use air rights condominium proposal for the property. Second, additional dwelling units automatically permit additional parking spaces  two spaces for every three residential units added. See supra note 22. The question of a special exception for still more parking spaces is wholly separate from the increased number permitted as of right as the number of dwelling units increases. The dissenters overlook this point, and thus improperly tie the height litigation automatically to the later special exception proceeding, when they say that, having previously obtained an increase of some three stories for the building, this created a related need for more parking spaces in the building. Post at 63; see post at 68. Because the height litigation did not alter the ratio of parking spaces to residential units permitted as of right, it did not create or otherwise affect the need for more parking spaces. There is a need for more parking spaces by way of a special exception only if the increased number permitted as of right  as an indirect result of the height litigation  proves insufficient for the particular project eventually planned. At the time of the height litigation this additional need was anything but clear, especially because the particular development eventually built  the Westbridge  was not yet contemplated, so far as we can tell. We elaborate these implications of the height litigation, as well as our response to the dissenters' analysis, to show that, in the absence of evidence  and there is none  that Mitchell may have been privy to information somehow relating it to Carr's specific plans for the property and the District's likely response, it does not appear that increasing the FAR would have had any relationship to a later special exception case concerning off-street parking at a development eventually planned for the same property. The BZA found no such relationship following remand of Brown I: Nothing in the record herein demonstrates that any of the issues in the height litigation related to the subject of parking. Findings ¶ 8. The BZA emphasized that [t]he sole issue was the sixty foot height restriction and there was no reference to parking issues. Findings ¶ 9. Most significantly, the BZA found that no information available to Mitchell from the height litigation would have aided Carr in the special exception case. Findings ¶ 27, supra note 19. [23] We see no basis for disturbing these findings; they are supported by substantial evidence. The record shows that the Zoning Commission imposed the height limitation on buildings adjacent to Rock Creek Park for aesthetic reasons, not because of a desire to limit traffic and related parking. The record also shows that, as a result of the trial court's striking the height limitation, Carr was entitled to an increased FAR. But the record amply supports the BZA's finding that the effect of the litigation on the eventual number of dwelling units and related parking spaces  as we elaborated above  was indirect and thus coincidental. Findings ¶ 27, supra note 19. Furthermore, in view of the fact that Carr proffered a mixed use air rights condominium proposal to the District government a few months after the height litigation, it is extremely unlikely that at the time of the height litigation Mitchell could have been privy to information about Carr's eventual, wholly residential project in the West End: the Westbridge.