Opinion ID: 4560834
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Demolition Permit

Text: DCPL first challenges the Mayor’s Agent’s decision to issue a demolition permit. We uphold that decision. Under the Preservation Act, the Mayor’s Agent may approve the demolition of a historic landmark if the demolition is “necessary in the public interest.” D.C. Code § 6-1104 (a), (e). Demolition is “[n]ecessary in the public interest” if it is “necessary to allow the construction of a project of special merit.” D.C. Code § 6- 1102 (10). A project has special merit if it provides “significant benefits to the District of Columbia or to the community by virtue of exemplary architecture, specific features of land planning, or social or other benefits having a high priority for community services.” D.C. Code § 6-1102 (11). To establish the necessity of demolition, an applicant must show that “all reasonable alternatives were considered.” Citizen’s Comm. to Save Historic Rhodes Tavern v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Dev., 432 A.2d 710, 718 (D.C. 1981). If the 7 Mayor’s Agent finds that demolition is necessary to a project having special merit, the Mayor’s Agent must then balance that special merit against the harm to historicpreservation values that would result from the demolition. Rhodes Tavern, 432 A.2d at 715-16.
DCPL challenges the Mayor’s Agent’s finding that the project had special merit. “[A] proposed amenity [must] meet a high standard in order to qualify as a ‘special merit’ project, the construction of which would warrant demolition of a building of historical significance.” Comm. of 100 on the Fed. City v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs, 571 A.2d 195, 200 (D.C. 1990). “[A] project’s special merit [can] rest in whole or in part on a combination of features that in isolation would not necessarily rise to the level of special merit.” Friends of McMillan Park v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm’n, 149 A.3d 1027, 1039 (D.C. 2016) (“FOMP I”). The Mayor’s Agent found that the project provided the following specialmerit benefits: (1) “[t]he conversion of the polluted and inaccessible coal yard into a well-designed public park, provided to and maintained for the residents of the 8 District at no cost,” and connecting Rock Creek Park, the C&O Towpath, and the Georgetown Waterfront Park; (2) financial support for restoration of the C&O Canal Trail; (3) financial and project-management support for restoration of the nearby Mt. Zion Historic Cemetery; (4) monetary contributions of at least $2.8 million to entities supporting affordable housing in the District, including primarily the D.C. Housing Production Trust Fund; (5) an interpretive on-site exhibit concerning the industrial history of Georgetown; and (6) documentation of the history of the Plant, to be donated to the D.C. Public Library. DCPL does not appear to dispute, and we therefore take as a given, that the project has at least some special merit, due to the land-planning benefits associated with the public park and the restoration of the C&O Canal trail. DCPL does, however, challenge several other aspects of the Mayor’s Agent’s analysis.
DCPL argues that the proposed donations to support affordable housing and the Mt. Zion Historic Cemetery are “off-site” benefits that cannot properly be considered special-merit benefits. We disagree. As previously noted, to qualify as necessary in the public interest, a project must be “of special merit.” D.C. Code § 6- 9 1102(10). The Preservation Act defines “special merit” to include “social or other benefits having a high priority for community services.” D.C. Code § 6-1102(11). Those provisions do not appear to require a physical nexus between the site of the demolition and the “location” of all of a project’s special-merit benefits (even if we were to assume that it would be generally feasible to determine the “location” of special-merit benefits). Nor does our case law support such a requirement. To the contrary, we have approved consideration of special-merit benefits that do not seem to be tied tightly to the physical site of the demolition. See, e.g., Friends of McMillan Park v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm’n, 207 A.3d 1155, 1173-74 (D.C. 2019) (“FOMP II”) (exceptional economic benefits can contribute to project’s special merit); Rhodes Tavern, 432 A.2d at 717 n.13 (same); compare Kalorama Heights, 655 A.2d at 874 (general economic benefits to District and specific benefits to residents of project do not by themselves suffice to constitute special merit). DCPL argues that two previous decisions of the Mayor’s Agent preclude consideration of “off-site” benefits: Archdiocese of Washington, HPA Nos. 99-219, etc. (Nov. 9, 1999), and King’s Palace, HPA Nos. 88-825 and 88-826 (Mar. 1, 1989). DCPL apparently did not bring those decisions to the attention of the Mayor’s Agent in this case, and the Mayor’s Agent’s decision does not address them. Under the circumstances, we doubt that a claim of inconsistent agency decision-making is 10 properly before this court. See, e.g., Stackhouse v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 111 A.3d 636, 639 (D.C. 2015) (“[I]n the absence of exceptional circumstances, we will not entertain a claim that was not raised before the agency.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); LeMoyne-Owen Coll. v. NLRB, 357 F.3d 55, 61 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (Roberts, J.) (where party makes significant showing that analogous cases have been decided differently, agency must address argument); Walker v. Gen. Servs. Admin., Nos. 99-3310 etc., 2000 WL 991919, at  (Fed. Cir. July 19, 2000)