Opinion ID: 1964827
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Great Weight

Text: Finally, the FBA asserts that the BZA did not give the ANC's views great weight as required by statute. ANCs occupy a special position in the District of Columbia. Bakers Local Union No. 118 v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, 437 A.2d 176, 179 (D.C.1981). Under D.C.Code § 1-261(d) (1999), the issues and concerns raised by ANC officials shall be given great weight during the deliberations by the governmental agency and those issues shall be discussed in the written rationale for the governmental decision taken. [24] Concerning the great weight requirement, this court has said: [A]n agency must elaborate, with precision, its response to the ANC issues and concerns.... the agency must articulate why the particular ANC itself, given its vantage point, does  or does not  offer persuasive advice under the circumstances. ... [G]reat weight implies explicit reference to each ANC issue and concern as such, as well as specific findings and conclusions with respect to each. Kopff v. District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, 381 A.2d 1372, 1384 (D.C.1977). However, section 1 261(d) does not require special deference to the views of an ANC but, rather, that an agency address its concerns with particularity. Committee for Washington's Riverfront Parks v. Thompson, 451 A.2d 1177, 1194 (D.C.1982). The BZA gave the ANC's views the great weight that section 1-261(d) requires. Its order specifically declared that [t]he Board accorded ANC 2-A the `great weight' to which it is entitled. In doing so, the Board fully credited the unique vantage point that ANC 2-A holds with respect to the impact of the proposed hospital upon the ANC's constituents. It then went on to address the issues and concerns raised by the ANC, which for the most part echoed the issues and concerns raised by the FBA. At one point the BZA stated that it was not persuaded by the testimony of ANC witness McCarthy concerning alleged disruptive noise generated by the new hospital, and instead concurs with the applicant that the hospital is not a noise-intensive use that would tend to create objectionable noise impacts. In addition, any adverse noise associated with the hospital will be diminished through effective mitigation measures taken pursuant to this Order, such as the prohibition against deliveries to the loading dock before 7:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m. Similarly, the BZA was not persuaded by ANC 2-A's arguments that mitigation measures, such as paving and warning lights designed to enhance pedestrian safety, would impair any visual connection along 23rd Street between Washington Circle and the Lincoln Memorial. The great weight requirement, as Kopff makes clear, does not mean that the BZA must accept the views of the ANC no matter what. All that the law demands is that the views of the ANC be specifically addressed, and not ignored or overlooked, in the BZA's decision. On this record we are satisfied that the BZA gave the necessary great weight to the ANC's concerns and hence met the requirements of D.C.Code § 1-261(d).