Opinion ID: 1950318
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Timeliness of Administrative Appeal The August 25, 2003 Permit

Text: Under the applicable BZA regulation [a]n appeal shall be filed within sixty (60) days from the date the person appealing the administrative decision had notice or knowledge of the decision complained of, or reasonably should have had notice or knowledge of the decision complained of, whichever is earlier. 11 DCMR § 3112.2. The BZA may extend this time limit only if (1) there are exceptional circumstances that are outside of the appellant's control and could not have been reasonably anticipated that substantially impaired the ability to file the appeal, and (2) the extension of time would not prejudice the rights of other parties to the appeal. Id. § 3112.2(d). There is no dispute that the appeal of the August 25, 2003 permit (filed on January 6, 2004) was outside of the sixty-day period prescribed in the regulation. Petitioners argue, however, that exceptional circumstances existed to justify extending the sixty-day period in this case because due to the piecemeal manner in which [Sunrise's] permit revisions were processed, the substantial nature of the changes made to the original building permit was not apparent until the final permit was issued on November 7, 2005. See Sisson v. D.C. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 805 A.2d 964, 967, 971 (D.C.2002) (affirming BZA's conclusion that an appeal filed outside of the sixty-day window was justified because as a result of the cumulative, piecemeal nature of the applications, the full extent of [the] construction project could not be discerned as each individual permit was issued and therefore they must be considered as a whole). We conclude that the BZA properly dismissed the appeal of the August 25 permit. At the hearing, Dr. Chiapella explained some of the difficulties she had encountered obtaining information about the plans, which she said she received in a piecemeal fashion (Over 25 visits [to DCRA], many of which produced nothing and incomplete plans.). Dr. Chiapella added that she delayed appealing the permit because if you're filing an appeal on each one individually, it's $800 per filing, and because obtaining the ANC's support at that point would have been difficult. Dr. Chiapella recognized the possibility that other permits would be granted, decided to wait, and eventually filed on January 6, 2004 an appeal covering six permits, including the two permits she continues to challenge in this court, as a way of enhancing the probability that she would secure the ANC's support (which she eventually did obtain) and reducing the cost by challenging all the permits in one appeal. Petitioners maintained at the hearing and argue before this court that these factors constituted extraordinary circumstances justifying the untimely filing of the appeal of the August permit. The BZA disagreed, noting that this case is unlike Sisson, where an untimely appeal was excused because the successive manner in which permit applications were made rendered the full extent of [the] construction project [impossible to] discern[]. 805 A.2d at 967. As the BZA stated in the order dismissing the appeal of the August permit as untimely, the alleged violations relating to that permit were known or should have been known to Dr. Chiapella when it was issued on August 25, 2003, or shortly thereafter. This is a factual finding that is supported by substantial evidence in the record, and Dr. Chiapella has not disputed that she was aware that the permit was issued and of the violations she alleges in time to file a timely appeal. [4] Rather, as Dr. Chiapella explained, she elected to wait until a later date to save money and garner support from ANC 3/4G. [5] Although her reasons to delay may be understandable, they were not outside of the appellant's control, nor were they reasonably unforeseeable. 11 DCMR § 3112.2(a)(1). Accordingly, we conclude that the BZA's determination that there were no extraordinary circumstances excusing the untimely filing of the appeal was not arbitrary or capricious.