Opinion ID: 1992744
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the mayor's agent's jurisdiction

Text: The HLHDPA provides that a permit for new construction shall be issued unless the Mayor, after due consideration of the zoning laws and regulations of the District of Columbia, finds that the design of the building and the character of the historic district or historic landmark are incompatible.... D.C.Code § 5-1007(f). Compatibility with the historic district or landmark is thus the sole statutory criterion for determining whether new construction shall be authorized. In contrast to other HLHDPA provisions, which expressly authorize the Mayor to consider unreasonable economic hardship (as well as the public interest) when evaluating applications for permits to demolish, alter, or subdivide a historic landmark or a property in a historic district, see D.C.Code §§ 5-1004 to -1006, Section 5-1007, which deals with permits for new construction, makes no mention at all of economic hardship. The difference between Section 5-1007 and the other provisions is not accidental. [I]n drafting this legislation, the City Council chose to separate the treatment of permit applications for new construction from those which seek to demolish, alter or modify existing structures within a historic area. Dupont Circle Citizens Ass'n v. Barry, 455 A.2d 417, 422 n. 24 (D.C.1983). Taking the statutory language at face value, we discern no basis for concluding that construction incompatible with a historic landmark may be permitted in order to avoid economic hardship to a developer. The result dictated by the language and structure of the statute is supported by common sense and by analogous judicial precedent. Indeed, a construction of the HLHDPA which would require the Mayor's Agent to grant an application for a building permit for the erection of a structure incompatible with the historic landmark would, in our view, be altogether unreasonable. A developer who claims that the denial of a permit for new construction constitutes an uncompensated taking of his property is free to bring an action against the District for damages, and thus has a readily available legal remedy. See, e.g., District of Columbia v. Wical Ltd. Ptnshp., 630 A.2d 174, 184-85 (D.C.1993). Given the availability of that remedy, a court would surely decline to order the District to issue a building permit. Id. There is nothing in the HLHDPA which suggests that the Mayor's Agent, whose powers are limited by statute, is authorized to grant relief which a court would deny. Indeed, after initially arguing the contrary, intervenors acknowledged in their supplemental memorandum that the Mayor's Agent could not have authorized the issuance of a building permit if he had concluded that denial of the new construction permit would result in unreasonable economic hardship, where a finding of incompatibility was also made. An administrative agency is a creature of statute and may not act in excess of its statutory authority. See, e.g., Spring Valley Wesley Hts. Citizens Ass'n v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 644 A.2d 434, 436-37 (D.C.1994); Davidson v. District of Columbia Bd. of Medicine, 562 A.2d 109, 112 (D.C.1989). The purported exercise of jurisdiction beyond that conferred upon the agency by the legislature is ultra vires and a nullity. See Auger v. District of Columbia Bd. of Appeals and Review, 477 A.2d 196, 209 (D.C.1984). Because the Mayor's Agent lacked authority to issue the requested building permits even if District Intown proved that it would otherwise suffer unreasonable economic hardship, his disposition of that issue was not only dictum, but also in excess of his statutory jurisdiction. An agency has no authority to conduct a factual or legal inquiry which cannot affect the proper disposition of the dispute. Even aside from the question of the Mayor's Agent's jurisdiction, his resolution of the issue of unreasonable economic hardship was not essential to his decision with respect to District Intown's application for new construction. For that independent reason also, it would have no preclusive effect in any future proceeding in which District Intown may claim an uncompensated taking. See, e.g., Washington Medical Ctr., Inc. v. Holle, 573 A.2d 1269, 1283 (D.C.1990) (discussing collateral estoppel and its applicability). [8]