Opinion ID: 2338257
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Timeliness of the appeal as to lots 161 and 162

Text: The timely filing of an appeal with the BZA is mandatory and jurisdictional. Mendelson v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, 645 A.2d 1090, 1093 (D.C.1994) (citations omitted). Because the rules of the BZA contain no specific time limit on appeals, a standard of reasonableness is applied in determining whether an appeal is timely. Id. (citations omitted); see Waste Management of Maryland, Inc. v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, 775 A.2d 1117, 1122 (D.C.2001). Under the reasonableness standard, the time for filing an appeal commences when the party appealing is chargeable with notice or knowledge of the decision complained of. Id. (citations omitted). In addition, the BZA's conclusion with regard to the timeliness of an appeal is entitled to special deference because the agency is interpreting its own internal rules of procedure. Id. With these standards in mind, we find no error in the BZA's decision that the permits for lots 161 and 162 were not timely appealed. Those permits were issued in final form on August 28, 1996, and became appealable on that date. The GRA did not file its appeal with regard to those permits until March of 1997, approximately seven months later. Although the GRA contends that it was unaware that permits for these lots had issued at that time, there was substantial evidence from which the BZA could find that the GRA was chargeable with notice in August of 1996. See Woodley Park Community Ass'n v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, 490 A.2d 628, 636-637 (D.C.1985). Specifically, an ANC 2-E representative testified before the BZA that by August of 1996 the ANCs and the larger community were aware that the Acting Zoning Administrator had made her decision concerning the permits and knew that the permits had been issued. In addition, there was evidence that University representatives had appeared before ANC 2-E at least three times and had gone door-to-door to inform community residents of the decision. On this record, and recognizing the deference we must give to the BZA's decision on the matter, we conclude that the seven-month delay from the issuance of the permits to the filing of an appeal was not reasonable. See Waste Management, 775 A.2d at 1122 (delay of one or two months may be reasonable (citing cases), but delay of four months probably is not); Woodley Park, 490 A.2d at 637 (delay of one year unreasonable); Maroney v. Friere, 74 Misc.2d 339, 340, 343 N.Y.S.2d 183, 185 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1973) (delay of 127 days unreasonable); cf. Sisson v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, 805 A.2d 964, 969-970 (D.C.2002) (upholding BZA decision that appeal was timely i.e., filed within a reasonable timewhen neighboring property owner challenged the issuance of four separate construction permits on different dates from January through August, but her appeal was not filed until September; BZA ruled that because of the cumulative, piecemeal nature of the [permit] applications, the full extent of [Mr. Sisson's] construction project could not be discerned as each individual permit was issued and therefore they must be considered as a whole). [20]