Source: https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/761673
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 23:12:10+00:00

Document:
In March 1992, the Mayor’s Agent denied petitioner’s permit to construct a townhouse on each of eight vacant lots carved from the lawn of the landmark Cathedral Mansions apartment building, holding that the construction would be incompatible with the property’s historic landmark status. Petitioner filed a petition for review under the D.C. Administrative Procedure Act in the D.C. Court of Appeals. The petitioner did not, however, challenge the Mayor’s Agent’s authority to deny the permit on the basis of incompatibility; rather, it argued that the Mayor’s Agent had exceeded his statutory jurisdiction in addressing the issue of economic hardship under § 5-1007 (now § 6-1107). Because the petitioner had not been “adversely affected or aggrieved” by the decision and did not “suffer a legal wrong,” the Court dismissed the suit on justiciability grounds. The Court agreed, however, with the petitioner’s assertion that the Mayor’s Agent had exceeded his jurisdiction in addressing the issue of economic hardship and noted that the sections of the decision discussing the issue would have no preclusive effect in subsequent proceedings in another forum.
Citing United States v. Silliman, 65 F. Supp. 665, 669 (D.N.J. 1946), the Court noted that if “the Mayor’s Agent lacked the authority to issue these findings and conclusions, his decision was ‘ineffective as an estoppel.’” Therefore, the petitioner’s “apprehensions of preclusive consequences ... have substance only if the Mayor’s Agent was authorized by law to decide the issue of economic hardship.” Because the Mayor’s Agent did not possess such authority, the discussion of economic hardship would not preclude the petitioner from filing a takings claim in another forum.
The Court held that § 6-1107 (previously § 5-1007) does not allow the Mayor’s Agent to grant a permit for new construction on the basis of unreasonable economic hardship. Economic hardship is a proper consideration only in the context of demolition, alteration, and subdivision permit proceedings under §§ 6-1104, 6-1105, and 6-1106.
Decision and Order of the Mayor’s Agent, HPA Nos. 92-213 through 92-220 (March 18, 1992).
District Intown Properties Ltd. Partnership v. District of Columbia, 23 F. Supp.2d 30 (D.D.C. 1998).
District Intown Properties Ltd. Partnership v. District of Columbia, 198 F.3d 874 (D.C. Cir. 1999).

References: § 5
 § 6
 v. 
 § 6
 § 5
 v. 
 v.