Opinion ID: 2275560
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Proceedings Before the Office of Adjudication

Text: A hearing was held before the DCRA's Office of Adjudication (OAD). The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) assigned to the case made findings of fact and dismissed the DCRA's Notice of Proposed Revocation with prejudice, having concluded that Perkins' use of the premises was within the parameters of the certificate of occupancy. The ALJ found that Perkins' business consisted of compacting and deodorizing non-hazardous waste brought in by private contractors which was transferred to 18-wheel tractor trailers for transport to a landfill in Virginia within 12 hours of arrival. While there is no manufacturing of steel at the facility, some steel products were left by the previous owner, and there are some steel products in the waste material. In his application, Perkins listed as the nature of the business: Light manufacturing, processing, Fabricating, warehousing of steel products and office and retail construction Industrial supplies, All material no[n]-hazardous. [3] At the time Perkins applied for his certificate of occupancy, there was no zoning category for trash transfer facilities and no regulations which addressed specifically these kinds of facilities. There were seven privately owned transfer facilities in the District of Columbia (including Perkins') at the time for which the purposes listed on the certificates of occupancy varied widely. [4] The ALJ for the OAD determined that the uses permitted by Perkins' certificate of occupancy conformed with uses permitted as a matter of right under the applicable municipal regulation, 11 DCMR § 801.7(j) (1986). The ALJ also concluded that the fact that Perkins did not describe his business activity as a trash transfer station is not in issue and that the issue was whether the use of [Perkins'] property as a solid waste dumping site does not conform with the use permitted by the certificate of occupancy No. B 168010. In analyzing this issue, the ALJ considered the language describing the permitted use in the certificate of occupancy which read in pertinent part: Light Manufacturing, Processing, Fabricating, & Warehousing Steel Products and Office and Retail Construction Industrial Supplies; All Material Non-Hazardous; Not sexually oriented. Relying on the rule of statutory construction known as the Rule of Last Antecedent, [5] the ALJ rejected the District's argument that the term processing modified the term steel, thereby limiting the certificate of occupancy to processing steel products, not waste. Weighing in favor of this conclusion, the ALJ cited the broad descriptions of activities permitted in C-M districts. The ALJ also considered the dictionary definition of processing and concluded that the series of events at the Facility of condensing and deodorizing the waste from the small trucks to the 18-wheel long-haul tractors meets the definition of `processing.' [6]