Castle v. McLaughlin

• Decision Date: 25 June 1959
• Docket Number: No. 14909.,14909.
• Citation: 106 US App. DC 145,270 F.2d 448
• Parties: William R. CASTLE et al., Appellants, v. Robert E. McLAUGHLIN et al., members of the Zoning Commission of the District of Columbia, et al., Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

106 US App. DC 145, 270 F.2d 448 (1959)

William R. CASTLE et al., Appellants, v. Robert E. McLAUGHLIN et al., members of the Zoning Commission of the District of Columbia, et al., Appellees.

No. 14909.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued May 20, 1959.

Decided June 25, 1959.

Petition for Rehearing Denied September 18, 1959.

Mr. John H. Pratt, Washington, D. C., for appellants.

Mr. Hubert B. Pair, Asst. Corp. Counsel for the District of Columbia, with whom Messrs. Chester H. Gray, Corp. Counsel, and Milton D. Korman, Principal Asst. Corp. Counsel, were on the brief for appellee Robert E. McLaughlin and certain other appellees.

Mr. Eugene L. Goodridge, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. John B. Letterman, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellees Domain, Inc., and Lawrence N. Brandt.

Mr. Harold H. Tittmann, Washington, D. C., filed a brief on behalf of Progressive Citizens Association of Georgetown, Inc., as amicus curiae, urging reversal.

Mr. Henry G. Beauregard, Washington, D. C., filed a brief on behalf of Sheridan-Kalorama Neighborhood Council as amicus curiae, urging reversal.

Mr. Dean F. Cochran, Washington, D. C., filed a brief on behalf of Kalorama Citizens Association as amicus curiae, urging reversal. The Federation of Citizens Association of the District of Columbia, for whom Joseph Lapiana, Jr., Washington, D. C., entered an appearance, was allowed to join in the brief of the Kalorama Citizens Association, urging reversal.

Before EDGERTON, BAZELON and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.

Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied September 23, 1959.

WASHINGTON, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment of the District Court which denied injunctive relief to the plaintiffs-appellants in a zoning case. The basic question raised is whether on the facts before it the District Court was correct in holding that a purported amendment to the D.C. Zoning Regulations was not invalid as to the area championed by appellants, as against appellants' claim that in adopting it the Zoning Commission did not afford appellants the notice and hearing required by Section 3 of the Zoning Act of 1938, D.C.Code § 5-415 (1951).¹ The facts, as represented to the District Court and to this court, may be briefly summarized.

Appellants are property owners in an area which commencing in the midnineteen twenties was classified for zoning purposes as "A" R. This category permitted to be built or used only single family residential detached houses, and, with the approval of the Zoning Adjustment Board, semi-detached houses, with lot occupancy of 40 to 60% (depending on the shape of the lot).²

On April 17, 1957, the Zoning Commission published in a Washington newspaper a notice of a public hearing to be held on May 27, 1957, to consider proposed amendments to the zoning regulations and maps. The notice stated inter alia that "The Zoning Commission proposes to amend the Zoning Regulations and Zoning Map of the District of Columbia in their entirety so that no section of the present Regulations or Map will remain unchanged," and that "Every Lot and Parcel of real property located within the District of Columbia will be affected." In the general summary of the proposed regulations, the notice stated that "Article 22 provides for the adoption of the Zoning Map which consists of a series of ten sectional maps, and which is made a part of these proposed regulations * * *." Finally, the notice advised that "copies of the text of the proposed revised zoning regulations may be obtained," and "a copy of the proposed zoning map is available for inspection," in the Zoning Commission office.

Pursuant to the notice, appellants went to the office of the Zoning Commission to examine the appropriate sectional map, and found that the map proposed to change the area in question from the "A" R classification to an R-1-B classification. The R-1-B category would permit only detached single family dwellings on lots 50 feet wide, containing at least 5000 sq. ft. The category requires further that the dwelling occupy no more than 40% of the lot area, and have two side yards at least 8 feet in width. Accordingly, the stated proposal amounted to a minor "upgrading" in the zoning of the area.

At the public hearing on the proposed amendments, the appellants appeared and expressed general support for the proposed zoning plan. No objection was raised by anyone to the R-1-B zoning proposed for the area in question, nor was the matter of zoning the area in any way different from that proposed in the public notice presented or discussed.

On May 12, 1958, the Zoning Commission promulgated amended zoning regulations under which the area involved was not given the proposed R-1-B classification but was down-graded to an R-3 category. This category would permit the erection of row houses occupying 60% of the lot area on lots 20 feet wide containing at least 2000 sq. ft. No notice of this change from the proposed amendment was given and no public hearing on the change was held prior to its adoption.

We think it unquestionable that the notice and public hearing required by Section 5-415 of the Code were not given with respect to the R-3 zoning adopted for the area in question. The notice, by means of the map incorporated therein, made a specific proposal to classify the area as R-1-B for zoning purposes. Thus in terms it gave notice of that proposal only. To be sure, there was a general admonition in the notice that the zoning of all lots and parcels in the District would be affected and changed. But the proposal for R-1-B zoning in the notice did represent a change in zoning in the area. The general notice of change can hardly be construed as notice to the public that the zoning of the particular area involved would be changed in any other way than that specifically proposed.

The statute states that before an amendment is put into effect, a public hearing shall be held thereon. That was not done with respect to the amendment adopted for the area involved. The only hearing held related to the proposed amendment which was finally rejected by the Zoning Commission. Before another proposal could be adopted, a notice and hearing relating to it were required under the plain terms of the statute. Cf. McClatchy Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 1956, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 199, 239 F.2d 19, certiorari denied, Sacramento Telecasters Inc., v. McClatchy Broadcasting Co., 1957, 353 U.S. 918, 77 S.Ct. 662, 1 L.Ed.2d 665.

The hearing on the rejected amendment cannot be treated as an acceptable substitute for the required hearing, since the amendment purportedly put into effect on May 12, 1958, represented a major and substantial...