Opinion ID: 2355946
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether our decision in Bannum should control the outcome here

Text: Our decision in Bannum does not require a different conclusion. Bannum wrote a letter to DCRA identifying itself as a contractor that constructed and operated community correctional centers (CCC's). The letter quoted the language of 11 DCMR § 801.7(k) (authorizing a temporary detention or correctional institution on leased property for a period not to exceed three (3) years), and asserted that a CCC that Bannum proposed to build could operate as a matter of right in its proposed location. The letter requested DCRA's concurrence with that interpretation of the regulation, but did not provide (and DCRA did not ask for) any details regarding the nature of the CCC that Bannum proposed to build or how long it would be in operation. See 894 A.2d at 427. The Zoning Administrator signed off on the dotted line on the same sheet of paper and mailed it back to Bannum the same day. Id. Several months later, Bannum sent another, virtually identical concurrence letter to DCRA, again without details about the proposed CCC, and the Zoning Administrator again signed off on it. Id. Sometime thereafter, DCRA issued to Bannum a building permit to construct and operate a 150-bed CCC, and about a month later, issued a revised permit. ANC 5-B then appealed to the BZA from the DCRA's issuance of both the original building permit and the revised building permit. Id. at 427-28. Bannum argued that because the ANC failed to appeal within sixty days from issuance of the concurrence letters, its appeal was untimely. Id. at 430. The BZA ruled that the letters were appealable as other administrative decisions, but concluded that `separate appeals' from concurrence letters and building permits should be allowed. Id. at 430 n. 9. Among other things, the BZA reasoned that [t]here is no doubt that the two concurrence letters are decisions, but not decisions to grant a building permit. Id. We concluded that we need not decide whether the concurrence letters were separately appealable, but agreed with the BZA that the ANC's failure to appeal from a concurrence letter, `even after notice, does not bar a subsequent appeal of the related building permit.' Id. at 430. We explained that [b]ecause the issuance of a building permit requires the DCRA to comply with the public notice and other requirements set forth in the zoning regulations, we hold that a party such as ANC 5-B may wait to appeal until the DCRA takes official action by issuing the permit, regardless of whether or not that party has appealed (or tried to appeal) from any earlier interlocutory `administrative decision.' [27] Id. at 430. We also reasoned that it was by no means clear that the ANC had notice of the concurrence letters at the time they were issued . . . and there was testimony indicating that Bannum never even advised ANC 5-B of the letters, and concluded that [t]he ANC surely cannot be required, or even expected, to appeal from an `administrative decision' of which it had no notice. Id. at 430 n. 10. Bannum is unavailing to the petitioners here. Unlike the ANC that sought BZA review in that case, petitioners here were not entitled to formal notice that permitted them to wait for issuance of a permit (here, an occupancy permit) before their time to appeal the underlying zoning decision began to run. It is also clear that, unlike the ANC in Bannum, petitioners did have notice of the DCRA letter (Director Canavan's May 26, 2005 letter), within a day after it was signed. And while the BZA found that the interlocutory concurrence letters in Bannum did not signify decisions to grant a building permit, Director Canavan's letter clearly signified a decision not to withhold a certificate of occupancy allowing the Irving Street building to have seven units. Further, the concurrence letters in Bannum were issued by DCRA without information about the details of Bannum's proposed facility and thus, unlike the subsequent building permits that the ANC appealed, were not decisions approving the particulars of Bannum's facility; by contrast, Director Canavan's letter was issued after DCRA had been fully briefed on how the conversion of the Irving Street building to a seven-unit building conflicted with the zoning regulations applicable to R4 districts, so that it represented a decision on the very issue that petitioners asked the BZA to review. In light of all of these differences, Bannum does not require us to hold that the June 10, 2005 certificate of occupancy triggered another opportunity for the petitioners here to appeal DCRA's decision regarding seven units.