Opinion ID: 2354276
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The ANC's Standing to Appeal

Text: Bannum first contends that the BZA should not have entertained the ANC's appeal because ANC 5-B does not qualify as an aggrieved party. Bannum argues that aggrieved status requires that the appellantin this case, Commissioner James, a member of ANC 5-B show a greater injury than one that is suffered by the general public, and that ANC 5-B presented no evidence to support its claim of injury. [5] D.C.Code § 6-641.07(f) (2001) provides: Appeals to the Board of [Zoning] Adjustment may be taken by any person aggrieved, or any organization authorized to represent such person, or by any officer or department of the government of the District of Columbia or the federal government affected, by 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 . . . . [Emphasis added.] [6] The BZA, referring to several documents in the record showing that Commissioner James was authorized to represent the ANC, concluded that the ANC had automatic standing because it was a department of the District of Columbia government, and because it was affected by the decision to grant the building permit. The documentary and testimonial evidence from Ms. James and from Joan Black, acting chairperson of ANC 5-B, amply supported this conclusion by establishing that the CCC, if allowed to operate, would have a particularly negative effect on the community represented by the ANC. Moreover, 11 DCMR § 3199.1 states that [t]he ANC for the area within which the property that is the subject of the appeal is located is a party to any appeal to the Board from, inter alia, any decision granting or refusing a building permit. . . . See 11 DCMR § 3200.2. The BZA ruled that section 3199.1 thus grants automatic party status to any ANC in any appeal involving property located with in [its] area. This ruling, in our view, was entirely reasonable as an interpretation of section 3199.1. [7]