Opinion ID: 2076284
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Advisory Neighborhood Commission Issues.

Text: The Zoning Commission recited in its eleventh Finding of Fact that ANC 3-D, which represents the district in which the PUD is located, opposed the Raffertys' application on the ground that it would destroy the architectural integrity of the court configuration of the PUD, would invade the privacy and enjoyment of adjacent neighbors, and would block sunlight from open space. The Commission reported in its sixth Conclusion of Law that it had accorded [ANC] 3-D the `great weight' to which it is entitled. [8] The Raffertys challenge the Commission's action upon the ground that ANC 3-D had violated notice requirements imposed by applicable regulations. [9] They also claim that the ANC meeting was not fairly conducted. The Raffertys further maintain that the Zoning Commission failed, in violation of its own rules of procedure, to mail a copy of the notice to ANC 3-E, which they say is within two hundred feet of the property involved in the application. See 11 D.C. M.R. § 3015.3(c) (1987). They contend that ANC 3-E has a more significant elderly population than ANC 3-D does, and that residents of ANC 3-E would probably have been more sympathetic to their position than were their counterparts in ANC 3-D. The Commission did not address in its decision the alleged deficiencies in the procedures of ANC 3-D, perhaps because it did not view its responsibilities as including the evaluation of alleged irregularities in the proceedings of another agency. The issue was, however, forcefully argued by the Raffertys in their post-hearing submission. A remand being required in any event for additional factual findings and legal conclusions regarding estoppel and laches, the Commission should likewise explain its disposition of the Raffertys' claim regarding ANC 3-D. The Commission's alleged failure to mail notice of the hearing to ANC 3-E appears not to have been raised by the Raffertys before the Commission. The only reference to that issue appears in the Raffertys' brief in this court. In the absence of exceptional circumstances a reviewing court will refuse to consider contentions not presented before the administrative agency at the appropriate time. Goodman v. District of Columbia Rental Hous. Comm'n, 573 A.2d 1293, 1301 (D.C. 1990) (citations omitted). [C]ontentions not urged at the administrative level may not form the basis for overturning the decision on review. Id. Although we have occasionally shown a measure of flexibility in relation to the requirement that any contention made in this court must first have been raised before the agency, id.; see also J. Parreco & Son v. District of Columbia Rental Hous. Comm'n, 567 A.2d 43, 45 n. 4 (D.C.1989), we discern no exceptional circumstances here which would warrant departure from the general rule. Accordingly, we decline to address on the merits the Raffertys' contentions with respect to the alleged lack of notice to ANC 3-E. [10]