Opinion ID: 2308960
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Procedural Matters Affecting BZA Review

Text: By law the BZA is required to consider both the issues and concerns raised by any affected ANC [13] and the recommendations of the Office of Planning [14] in its decision-making process. With respect to the ANC, we have repeatedly held: The BZA is required by the D.C.Code and its own organic regulations to give issues and concerns raised by the ANC great weight, and to discuss those issues in the written rationale for the governmental decision taken. The great weight requirement obliges the agency to elaborate, with precision, its response to the ANC issues and concerns, and to articulate why the particular ANC itself, given its vantage point, does  or does not  offer persuasive advice under the circumstances. While the agency is not required to defer to the ANC's views, failure to address ANC concerns with particularity is grounds for a remand even if other procedural requirements are met. Levy v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, 570 A.2d 739, 746 (D.C.1990) (citations omitted); see Kopff v. District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, 381 A.2d 1372, 1384 (D.C.1977) (BZA must make explicit reference to each ANC issue and concern as such, as well as specific findings and conclusions with respect to each (emphasis in original)); see also Bakers Local 118 v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, 437 A.2d 176, 180 (D.C. 1981) (discussing remedies for failure to comply with statute or regulations). The BZA concluded that because the ANC did not submit a written report in the instant appeal, the issues and concerns raised by the ANC were not entitled to great weight. The BZA order briefly summarizes the report submitted by the Office of Planning, but does not explicitly address the issues which it raises. Even assuming, as petitioners persuasively argue, that the BZA erred in finding that no ANC report was submitted, [15] and that the consideration given by the BZA to the issues raised in the Office of Planning report was inadequate, we nevertheless conclude that these errors provide no basis for reversal. The great weight requirement extends only to issues and concerns that are `legally relevant.' Bakers Local 118, supra, 437 A.2d at 179 (citation omitted). It is beyond dispute that the issues and concerns identified by both the Office of Planning and the ANC related only to whether or not a variance should be granted, not whether a variance was required in the first place. Thus they were not legally relevant unless the BZA ruled that the proposed use was not allowed as a matter of right, i.e., that it required a variance. Because the BZA concluded otherwise, a decision which we affirm for the reasons discussed hereafter, the issues raised by the ANC and the Office of Planning never became legally relevant. Hence the requirement that the BZA give consideration or great weight to the views of these two entities did not arise. Petitioners' final procedural argument must also be rejected. They contend that the BZA violated the District of Columbia Environmental Policy Act (DCEPA), D.C.Code §§ 6-981 to 6-990 (1993 Supp.), by failing to require an environmental impact statement [16] assessing the applicant's proposed use of the property. We disagree. The applicable regulation provides only that [n]o agency shall issue any license, permit, certificate, or authorization until completion of the environmental impact review process by the lead agency. 20 DCMR § 7203.2, proposed at 37 D.C.Reg. 7594, approved by the Council of the District of Columbia, Resolution 8-314, § 2(1), 37 D.C.Reg. 8262 (1990). The lead agency in this context is the District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. 20 DCMR § 7203.1(a), proposed at 37 D.C.Reg. 7593, approved, 37 D.C.Reg. 8262 (1990). Petitioner's invocation of the DCEPA is premature because the applicant's appeal to the BZA sought only a ruling that the proposed use could occur as a matter of right in a C-M district. Since the BZA order did not result in the issuance of any license, permit, certificate, or authorization specified in section 7203.2, the requirements of the DCEPA were not yet applicable, and the BZA did not err in failing to await the preparation of an environmental impact statement. There may well be a need for such a statement at some time in the future, but that time has not yet arrived.