Reply to Hearst Playground story in Current

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Hearst Playground story in Current"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Not true. Read the Great Weight provision of the home rule charter.

ANC 3C can raise a stink, but as the park is in 3F, they have no more standing than a resident of Georgetown or Petworth in this matter.

[/quote]

Sorry, but you are quite incorrect. The Internet is your friend.  See 647 A.2d 793 (1994), NEIGHBORS UNITED FOR A SAFER COMMUNITY, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT, Respondent, and Roy Littlejohn Associates, Inc., Intervenor.

In that case, the DC Court of Appeals had to consider "whether the BZA, in considering the written reports of the "affect[ed]" Advisory Neighborhood Commissions ("ANCs"), afforded the ANCs' views the statutorily-required 'great weight'.... [S]ince the proposed adult rehabilitation home would be located on the street which forms the boundary line between ANC 6C and ANC 7B, but on the side which is within the area represented by ANC 6C, we must decide whether ANC 7B is an 'affect[ed]' ANC whose written recommendations are entitled to 'great weight.'"   The court went on to find, "the Applicant urges this court to construe the statutory requirement narrowly by limiting it to that area represented by the ANC 6C where the property is located.... We are not persuaded. [b] In our view, it would be manifestly unreasonable to conclude that the area represented by an ANC which is physically located directly across the street from the proposed facility ... would not be affected by it." [/b]
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics