Opinion ID: 2326822
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Great Weight Issue

Text: Lastly, we turn to the ANC's procedural claims. The ANC contends that the BZA failed to address KCA's argument, supported by ANC 1C in general terms in its December 23, 2003 vote and more specifically during the BZA hearing, that the actual method used by Montrose and the Zoning Administrator to calculate the basement FAR here was neither the grade plane method . . . nor the perimeter wall method . . ., but rather an unexplained mutation of the latter, which KCA has aptly labeled the front-wall-only method. The ANC also asserts that the BZA failed to address the ANC's explicit written objection in its December 22, 2003 report to Montrose's characterization of the upper story as an attic and failed to address the evidence adduced by ANC 1C regarding the amenities in the so-called attic (eight windows, convenience outlets, and ceiling light fixtures). Therefore, the ANC argues, the BZA failed to comply with the statutory requirement that it give great weight to the issues and concerns raised in the recommendations of the [ANC]. D.C.Code § 1-309.10(d)(3)(A); see also 11 DCMR § 3115.2.
To comply with the requirement that it give great weight to the ANC's recommendations, the BZA was required to acknowledg[e] . . . the [ANC] as the source of the recommendations and [to make] explicit reference to each of the Commission's issues and concerns. D.C.Code § 1-309.10(d)(3)(A). Furthermore, the BZA was required to articulate its decision in writing, to articulate with particularity and precision the reasons why the [ANC] does or does not offer persuasive advice under the circumstances, to articulate specific findings and conclusions with respect to each issue and concern raised by the [ANC], and to support its position on the record. D.C.Code § 1-309.10(d)(3)(B). The ANC recommendations that are entitled to great weight are the ANC's recommendations set out in a written report submitted pursuant to D.C.Code § 1-309.10(d)(1) and 11 DCMR § 3115.1; see also Friendship Neighborhood Coalition v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 403 A.2d 291, 295 (D.C.1979) (the statute does not require the Board to give `great weight' to [oral] testimony). The ANC submitted its report to the BZA [p]ursuant to 11 DCMR 3115 by letter dated December 22, 2003. In it, the ANC urged the BZA to sustain KCA's appeal on all three grounds stated in Attachment 1 to the KCA's appeal filing. The ANC then set out comments regarding those three grounds: the building height and the roof structure set back issues that KCA had identified (issues not involved in the instant petition for review), and the issue that the ANC entitled When is an `Attic' Not an Attic? When It's a Ruse-to Evade Applicable FAR Limitations. In the portion of its report beneath that heading, the ANC asserted that the space that DCRA treated as an attic is not an attic under the legally controlling [dictionary] definition of the term and also is not an attic because all signs seem to point toward a future resident's ability to use this space as a habitable room. The foregoing were the only issues that the ANC addressed in its December 22, 2003 report. Thus, in the written report that the ANC submitted pursuant to 11 DCMR § 3115.1, the ANC did not address the basement issue. Accordingly, we can deal in short order with the ANC's contention that the BZA failed to give great weight to its position that the method that the Zoning Administrator used was not the perimeter wall method. Since the ANC did not express that issue or concern or offer a recommendation or advice about it or any other aspect of the basement issue in its December 22, 2003 written report, the BZA was not required to give great weight to the ANC's views on the issue. [28] Regarding the attic issue, for reasons already discussed, we agree with the ANC that the BZA's written decision did not articulate with particularity and precision why the BZA rejected the ANC's position, expressed in the ANC's December 22, 2003 written report, that the sixth level of the subject building is not an attic. [29] On remand, to comply with D.C.Code § 1309.10(d)(3), the BZA must articulate in writing specific findings and conclusions with respect to the ANC's concern that the sixth level does not fall within the Webster's dictionary definition of attic and, if the BZA disagrees with the ANC's position, must explain in writing why it does not find the ANC's position persuasive. [30]