Hyman v. Coe, Civ. A. 2075-49.

• Decision Date: 25 January 1952
• Docket Number: Civ. A. 2075-49.
• Citation: 102 F. Supp. 254
• Parties: HYMAN et al. v. COE et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

102 F. Supp. 254

HYMAN et al. v. COE et al.

Civ. A. 2075-49.

United States District Court D. of Columbia.

January 25, 1952.

Milton Strasburger, James C. Wilkes, and George A. Glasgow, all of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.

Vernon E. West, Corp. Counsel, D. C., Oliver Gasch, John F. Doyle, Assts. Corp. Counsel, Washington, D. C., for defendant.

MORRIS, Judge.

This is a proceeding in which a mandatory injunction is sought, requiring the Board of Zoning Adjustment to vacate its order denying appeal, and requiring said board to grant permission to plaintiffs to use their property, known as Number 1016 Sixteenth Street, N. W., Washington, D. C., for office building purposes, for a mandatory injunction requiring the Inspector of Buildings for the District of Columbia to issue to plaintiffs an occupancy permit for said premises to enable them to use their said building for office purposes, and for certain other relief.

Prior to April 22, 1947, the applicable zoning regulations prohibited the use of property on Sixteenth Street, between H and M Streets, N. W., from any business purposes, it being zoned as a residential area, permitting only dwellings, apartment houses, hotels, embassies, churches, private clubs, and certain other uses not including use as office buildings or banks. Recommendations were made to the Zoning Commission, seeking to have this part of Sixteenth Street rezoned to permit commercial uses. This was opposed by those who did not wish any change to be made, and out of this situation the Zoning Commission adopted a regulation, among other regulations then adopted, the pertinent parts of which are as follows:

"Powers Relative to Exceptions and Speical Questions.

"Upon appeals the Board of Zoning Adjustment is hereby empowered to grant requests for the following special exceptions, when, in the judgment of the Board, such exceptions shall be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning regulations and maps and will not tend to affect adversely the use of neighboring property in accordance with the zoning regulations and maps:

* * * * * *

"30. Permit in the Residential, 90 foot `D' Area District on streets not less than 160 feet in width, office buildings and banks, provided: (a) No articles of commerce are sold on the premises, (b) there be no projection made beyond the front building line and no display or show windows used, (c) there be no neon or gas tube signs or displays used, and no permitted sign extending beyond the front wall of the building, and (d) the use will not affect adversely the present character and future development of the neighborhood, and will not result in dangerous or otherwise objectionable traffic conditions."

The plaintiffs have brought three appeals during 1947 and 1948 to the Board of Zoning Adjustment for special exception under Regulation 30, for authority to use their property for office building purposes. During the course of the appeal, concerning which this proceeding is brought, the plaintiffs sought the use of their building for limited or professional office purposes. All of these appeals have been denied upon the ground stated as follows: "As the result of an inspection of the property by the Board, and from the records and the evidence adduced at the hearing, the Board is of the opinion that the use proposed will affect adversely the present character and future development of the neighborhood, and will result in dangerous or otherwise objectionable traffic conditions because of the lack of adequate automobile parking space for tenants of and visitors to the building."

Since the adoption of the regulation with reference to office buildings and banks in this area, the Board of Zoning Adjustment, upon appeals by...