Opinion ID: 2355946
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Significance of the certificate of occupancy for time to appeal.

Text: Petitioners' contention is that the appeal period began to run on the date when the certificate of occupancy was issued. They are correct that the issuance of a certificate of occupancy is an appealable event. See D.C.Code § 6-641.07(f) (authorizing appeals to the BZA from any decision . . . granting or refusing a building permit or granting or withholding a certificate of occupancy, or any other administrative decision based in whole or in part upon any zoning regulation or map. . . .); see also 12A DCMR § 110.6 (Any person aggrieved by the action of the Director granting, withholding, or revoking a Certificate of Occupancy may appeal the action to the Board of Zoning Adjustment). This makes sense because a certificate of occupancy may evidence a decision that is different from any that has come before with respect to a project. For example, a certificate of occupancy evidences a determinationand in most cases, we presume, is the first notice to the publicthat renovation of a structure has been completed in conformity with the earlier application for a building permit. . . . Tri County Indus. v. District of Columbia, 339 U.S.App. D.C. 378, 380, 200 F.3d 836, 838 n. 1 (D.C.Cir.), amended, 2000 U.S.App. LEXIS 12831 (D.C.Cir.2000); cf. Boatman v. Town of Oakland, 76 F.3d 341, 342 (11th Cir.1996) (noting that after obtaining a permit to build a manufactured home, petitioners sought but were refused a certificate of occupancy for the as-built structure, because the inspector found that they had constructed a mobile home that was in violation of a zoning ordinance). Further, as explained earlier, see note 16, supra, a certificate of occupancy may provide the first notice of zoning approval for a proposed use of a building (such as when there was no new construction that required a building permit). A certificate of occupancy may also be the first evidence of zoning approval for a project to differ from what was previously approved. See Woodley Park, 490 A.2d at 636 (noting that plans approved as part of the building permit for a hotel provided for 798 parking spaces, but that revised plans submitted with application for certificate of occupancy provided for only 595 parking spaces, and that a partial occupancy certificate that incorporated the new parking calculations was issued after the Zoning Administrator agreed . . . that only 579 parking spaces were required to meet the requirements of the zoning regulations). Our case law establishes that a certificate of occupancy is separately appealable where it provides the first notice from which an aggrieved person knew or reasonably should have . . . know[n], 11 DCMR § 3112.2(a), of the resolution or decision that the certificate represents. See Woodley Park, 490 A.2d at 637 (appeal filed within thirty days after certificate of occupancy was issued was timely as to issue of required number of parking spaces at hotel because petitioners were not chargeable with notice of the Zoning Administrator's approval of a reduced number of spaces until the certificate was issued, but appeal was untimely as to height, setback and use issues that had been resolved a year earlier through issuance of building permit). [24] A certificate of occupancy does not, however, start another sixty-day appeal period as to any and all DCRA zoning decisions affecting a project that preceded issuance of the certificate. [25] If that were so, every zoning determination that preceded issuance of a building permit would effectively be subject to review again at the certificate-of-occupancy stage, and no property owner could ever have assurance that a building project would not be stopped in its tracks at the last minute. We conclude that the BZA did not clearly err in finding that an appealable zoning decision on the issue of seven units was made by May 26, 2005, and that the certificate of occupancy represented neither a new decision on this issue nor the present petitioners' earliest notice of the decision. Moreover, nothing in the record supports a conclusion that the decision was tentative, or that petitioners could reasonably have expected that it was subject to change up until the actual issuance of the certificate of occupancy. [26]