Opinion ID: 1947634
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Significance to Neighborhood Planning and Development

Text: The significance threshold is prescribed by § 738(d) of the Home Rule Act, D.C. Code 1981, § 1-251(d), which provides: (d) In the manner provided by act of the Council, in addition to any other notice required by law, timely notice shall be given to each advisory neighborhood commission of requested or proposed zoning changes, variances, public improvements, licenses, or permits of significance to neighborhood planning and development within its neighborhood commission area for its review, comment, and recommendation. [Emphasis added.] This court first construed the statutory term significance in the Kopff case, in which we held that, at a minimum, all government actions for which a prior hearing is required by law are sufficiently significant to require written notice to the affected ANC. Kopff, supra at 1381. In other words, every contested case will automatically be significant enough to trigger the notice requirement, as long as the terms of § 1-261(c)(1) are satisfied. See D.C. Code 1981, § 1-1502(8). But Kopff also recognized that the term of significance encompasses more than just contested cases: We do not imply that all administrative agency matters for which hearings are not required are automatically excluded from the realm of significance. While it is difficult to conceive of many matters, not requiring a hearing, which would be sufficiently significant to neighborhood planning and development to warrant special notice to an ANC, we do not wish categorically to exclude all such cases. [ Id. at 1381.] See also Shiflett v. District of Columbia Board of Appeals and Review, D.C.App., 431 A.2d 9, 10 (1981). As discussed above, this case is not contested. I believe, however, that it falls within that narrow category left open in Kopff. Even though no prior hearing is required, the award of an exclusive right to submit a development proposal is a matter of significance to neighborhood planning and development, because it may have a tremendous impact on the type of development that occurs in these areas of downtown Washington. The award of an exclusive right creates a strong impetus toward the ultimate approval of that developer's plan. Rejection of a plan would lead to time-consuming delays, which the agency may have an economic interest in avoiding. Thus, without an opportunity to submit its views at the exclusive rights stage, the ANC may be deprived of any meaningful participation later. This risk emphasizes the significance of the initial selection of the developer. Because the significance threshold of the Home Rule Act is satisfied, in addition to the terms of the ANC Act (Part III (B)(1)-(3) supra ), I conclude that the ANC was entitled to notice pursuant to D.C.Code 1981, § 1-261(b). [7]