Opinion ID: 2338257
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to give great weight to ANC views

Text: The ANC with jurisdiction over the Georgetown University site, ANC 2-E, did not submit a written report expressing its views on the project and took no position on this appeal. The GRA contends, however, that the BZA was required to give great weight to the written recommendations of two other ANCs, ANC 2-A and ANC 3-D, [21] and that its failure to do so was reversible error. See D.C.Code § 1-261(d) (1999); [22] 11 DCMR § 3307.2. We disagree. The GRA bases its argument on Neighbors United for a Safer Community v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, 647 A.2d 793 (D.C.1994), in which property on the borderline between two ANC areas, 6-C and 7-B, was the subject of a proposed special exception. This court held that the views of the ANC (7-B) whose area was directly across the street from the proposed facility (which was in 6-C) were entitled to great weight under section 1-261. Our rationale was that the BZA's decison affected both ANCs and that therefore the written reports of both ANCs ... were entitled to `great weight.' Id. at 795. Neighbors United is inapposite here. Although the two ANCs that submitted recommendations may have an arguable interest in any precedent established in this case, neither Poulton Hall nor Georgetown University itself is within or adjacent to the areas of either of those ANCs. Nor were their views specifically solicited by the BZA, as was the case in Neighbors United. Section 1-261 provides in part that [e]ach Advisory Neighborhood Commission... may advise ... [the BZA] with respect to all proposed matters of District government policy ... which affect that Commission area  (emphasis added). This court stated in Neighbors United that it would be manifestly unreasonable to conclude that the area represented by an ANC which is physically located directly across the street from the proposed facility for which the special exception is sought would not be affected by it. Id. at 797 (emphasis added). But Neighbors United does not expand the requirements of section 1-261 to other ANCs with any potential interest in the outcome of a BZA proceeding, even those in more remote parts of the city; [23] its holding is based solely on the physical proximity of the ANC area to the property at issue. Thus we hold that the BZA was not required to make these other ANCs parties to the proceedings and was under no obligation to give great weight to their written submissions.