Opinion ID: 2275560
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Appeal to the Board of Zoning Adjustment

Text: The District, on behalf of the Department of Public Works, appealed the OAD's decision to the BZA. The District stated that the appeal was being brought pursuant to D.C.Code § 5-424(f) (1994 Supp.), which provides for appeals to be taken by... any officer or department of the government of the District of Columbia . . . affected, by any decision of the [DCRA]. . . based in whole or in part upon any zoning regulation. [7] In an order of December 12, 1995, the BZA defined the issue on appeal to be whether the ALJ erred in concluding that the use at the subject site complies with the uses permitted in the [certificate of occupancy]. The BZA summarized the evidence of record concerning how Perkins secured the certificate of occupancy. The opinion stated that Perkins and his associate, intending to engage in a business involving a solid waste transfer station, searched the records of the DCRA for a property with a certificate of occupancy suitable for their purposes. Having located the subject premises, which had a certificate of occupancy with the word processing among its purposes, they settled on the subject property. [8] After considering the arguments of the parties, and after hearing from other interested parties, [9] the BZA listed as factual findings that: 1. [Perkins'] proposed use under Subsection 801.7(j) was also subject to the provisions of Sections 804 and 805 [of the zoning regulations]; [10] 2. There is no evidence that [Perkins] submitted information to DCRA to address the external effects issues raised in the Zoning Regulations. 3. Proper procedures were not followed in issuing the subject certificate of occupancy. 4. The ALJ did not consider these procedures in deciding not to revoke the certificate of occupancy. Therefore, the BZA concluded that the ALJ's decision was in error and that the certificate of occupancy should have been revoked. The BZA determined that Perkins had not submitted the appropriate documentation regarding external effects when he submitted his application and that the ALJ had failed to examine whether the process had been complied with. Accordingly, the BZA reversed the ALJ's decision. On December 26, 1995, Perkins filed a request for reconsideration. In support of the request, Perkins argued that the issue regarding whether he complied with the external effects provision in the regulations was not raised in the Notice of Proposed Revocation and was not an issue before the OAD. Therefore, Perkins contended that the BZA acted beyond the scope of its authority in addressing it. In addition, Perkins argued that 11 DCMR § 805 (1986) only applied to applications for a permit, rather than applications for certificates of occupancy. In its Memorandum in Opposition to the Request for Reconsideration, the District did not oppose the request insofar as it would lead to a clarification of the Board's decision in this matter. While arguing for affirmance, the District stated that: [t]he Board need not here rule on whether as a matter of fact [Perkins] complied with the rules governing the standards of external effects. The Board need only rule that the ALJ's interpretation below was flawed, for reasons of grammar and logic and because the District's regulatory scheme so demonstrates. Upon reconsideration, the BZA adhered to its opinion that the OAD erred in failing to revoke the certificate of occupancy due to noncompliance with the process. The BZA clarified its order as follows: The Board concludes that the decision of the ALJ is erroneous for the following reasons: The [certificate of occupancy] at issue allows for light manufacturing, processing, fabricating and warehousing of steel products ... The ALJ's interpretation effectively allows for warehousing of steel products, but light manufacturing, processing and fabricating of anything the operator wishes to handle, simply because the desired use is not specifically delineated in the Zoning Regulations. The Board believes that this interpretation is not logical, that the words steel products clearly apply to each of [the] activities listed, not just warehousing. (Emphasis added.)