Opinion ID: 1933178
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Commission's Compliance With The Remand Order

Text: Second, petitioners complain that the Commission failed to comply with this court's remand order in Hotel Tabard Inn, supra, and assert that a public hearing should have been held on remand. Specifically, petitioners argue that a good cause determination was not made with respect to the second and third extensions, and that a hearing was required to consider disputed facts relating to the fourth and fifth extensions. The Archdiocese contends that the Commission complied with the remand order, and that no hearing was required. We said in Hotel Tabard Inn, supra : Because we conclude that the extension of the PUD order is actually a prolongation of a contested case, we remand the proceeding to the Zoning Commission to determine whether good cause was shown to extend the PUD order .... This will require the Commission to review its policies regarding good cause shown and decide whether some type of hearing is required in order to effectively determine whether such good cause exists. If, in a proceeding to determine whether an effective date extension of the PUD should be granted, it becomes necessary to resolve a material factual conflict which has been generated by the parties, then this would establish the need of a limited evidentiary hearing for the purpose of resolving the particular factual conflict, so that an informed determination may be made upon the request for the extension of the PUD. On the other hand, the issue on extension of the validity perhaps may be resolved adequately from a review of the documents filed by the parties and, if advisable, by oral presentation of counsel to elucidate the positions taken in the documents. While it is settled that a PUD proceeding is a contested case, this is not to say that an adjudicative, testimonial proceeding is necessarily required in a post-decision hearing such as the request for an extension of the PUD, just as this would not necessarily be required in a post-judgment proceeding on the civil side of the trial court unless a material factual conflict required it.... If there are no material factual disputes, there is no need for an evidentiary hearing on an extension request and a submission of documents, perhaps supported by oral argument, would suffice. 661 A.2d at 154 (footnotes and citations omitted). Following our June 1995 remand, the Commission proceeded to develop good cause regulations and announced those regulations on January 13, 1997. Section 2408.10(c) of 11 DCMR authorized the Commission to extend a PUD order if [t]he applicant demonstrates with substantial evidence that there is good cause for such extension, as provided in Subsection 2408.11. Section 2408.11 set forth the grounds for good cause, including those pertaining to changes in economic and market conditions beyond the applicant's reasonable control and pending litigation. [4] Section 2408.12 specified when a public hearing was required: The Zoning Commission shall hold a public hearing on a request for an extension of the validity of a planned unit development only if, in the determination of the Commission, there is a material factual conflict that has been generated by the parties to the planned unit development concerning any of the criteria set forth in Subsection 2408.11. The hearing shall be limited to the specific and relevant evidentiary issues in dispute. The primary instructions to the Zoning Commission on remand were to review its good cause policies and to determine whether a public hearing was necessary before a good cause determination could be made. The Commission also was required to determine whether good cause was shown to extend the PUD order. The Commission complied with the primary instructions by promulgating good cause regulations, and by deciding that no evidentiary hearing was required in this matter. Given the passage of time, and the granting of the fourth and fifth extensions, we cannot fault the Commission for focusing on whether good cause was shown to extend the PUD order in response to the fourth and fifth extensions since the second and third extensions had expired by the time the good cause regulations were issued in January 1997, and because the stated reasons for the second and third extension requests were similar to those for the fourth and fifth requests. Nor do we find support in the record for petitioners' argument that the Commission's decision not to hold a hearing on the fourth and fifth extension requests was arbitrary and capricious. In asking for a hearing and stating their opposition to the Archdiocese's fourth extension request, the petitioners made three arguments: (1) the subject PUD time extension request does not meet the `good cause' exception standards; (2) there is no pending litigation evidencing `good cause' for a time extension; and (3) there have been material factual changes to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations which undermine the original PUD approval. Order No. 496-D at 5. Petitioners' arguments to the Commission with respect to their opposition to the fifth extension and their request for a hearing were somewhat different: (1) there is no nexus between the current litigation, just initiated, and the two years since the prior litigation ended; (2) there is no basis for concluding that market conditions have hampered the Archdiocese from obtaining a tenant; ... (3) there have been changes to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations which undermine the original PUD approval; and (4) the change in the project developer (not the applicant) constitutes a change of material fact under § 2408.10(b) .... Order No. 496-E at 3. In their brief on review, petitioners contend, inter alia, that [b]ecause of inconsistent representations made by the applicant [that is, arguing in 1994 and 1995 that market conditions and pending litigation precluded forward movement on the project while simultaneously maintaining that it had the financial capability to complete the project] and the consequent credibility determinations that would have to be resolved,... [it was] error for the Zoning Commission to refuse to hold a ... hearing on the grounds that there existed no dispute of any material fact. The material factual disputes identified in petitioners' brief on review are: (1) the existence of substantial changes in the design of the project found by the Mayor's agent and later approved by the Mayor's agent; (2) the impact of the loss of one of the co-applicants to the PUD; and (3) the Zoning Commission's reliance on factors unique to the co-applicant as basis for prior extensions.... Moreover, the petitioners call our attention to no affidavits or documentary evidence supporting their allegations of a material factual conflict. On the other hand, our reading of the record shows that: (1) the first alleged material factual dispute set forth in petitioners' brief apparently was not presented to the Commission in their opposition to the fourth or fifth extensions, and further, the HPRB addressed and approved the design changes at its December 8, 1994 hearing; (2) Order No. 496 never required a co-applicant, and thus, as the Commission found in Order No. 496-E, a change relating to the project developer could not have been a material fact; and (3) the Commission previously had considered the change in market conditions and the pending, ongoing litigation as factors indicating good cause for an extension, and analyzed these factors in Order No. 496-D and 496-E. In addition, we note that § 2408.12 of 11 DCMR leaves the decision as to whether to hold a public hearing on a PUD extension request solely to the determination of the Commission. We are not persuaded on this record, which reflects review and decisions by the Mayor's Agent, the HPRB, the Commission, and the Office of Planning, that the Commission's decision not to hold a public hearing on remand was arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, we conclude that the Commission complied with our remand instructions by developing good cause regulations and by determining that no public hearing was required with respect to the extension requests.