Zoning Decision Appeals Amendment Act of 2025

MURIEL BOWSER
MAYOR

October 3, 2025

The Honorable Phil Mendelson
Chairman
Council of the District of Columbia
John A. Wilson Building
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 504
Washington, DC 20004

Dear Chairman Mendelson:

Enclosed for consideration and adoption by the Council of the District of Columbia is legislation entitled
the “Zoning Decision Appeals Amendment Act of 2025.” This legislation is a vital piece of my Growth
Agenda to reduce red tape and spur development in the District.

This legislation will streamline zoning appeals and reduce bad faith actions that inhibit our ability to
provide new housing, retail, and community amenities. Under existing law, development projects in the
District are vulnerable to being slowed down by unnecessary and burdensome appeals; the delays and
costs associated with these appeals have already stalled or stopped several important projects throughout
the District.

The zoning process is designed to give a wide variety of stakeholders a chance to have their voices heard
and concerns considered before a zoning decision is made, and this bill will not reduce stakeholder input
in that process. Instead, the bill aims to prevent those who did not raise their issues during the zoning
process, those not closely affected by the zoning decision, and those who do not have good-faith, non-
frivolous reasons for their appeals, from using the courts to delay or stop development. It will also hold
parties accountable who use the courts in bad faith.

I urge the Council to take prompt and favorable action on the enclosed bill.

Sincerely,

Muriel Bowser

Enclosure

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 ABaL
9
10
11
~~ Chairman Phil Mendelson
at the request of the Mayor
12 IN THE COUNCa OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
13
14
15
16 To amend the District of Columbia Administrative Procedure Act to modify standing
17 requirements for appeals of zoning decisions to be limited to only those who
18 obtained party status in the administrative action or live within 200 feet and filed
19 a letter in the administrative tribunal; to limit the time for an appeal of a zoning
20 decision to 30 days from the action; to require appeals of zoning decisions to be
21 accompanied by a statement of issues to the court that were raised at the lower
22 level relating to the particularized harm suffered; to authorize bonds by courts to
23 account for costs associated with the delay of an appeal; and to authorize the
24 imposition of attorney's fees and other costs in actions where there the court finds
25 that the appeal was frivolous or was filed for an improper purpose.
26
27 BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
28 That this act may be cited as the "Zoning Decision Appeals Amendment Act of 2025".
29 Sec. 2. Section 11 of the District of Columbia Administrative Procedure Act,
30 approved October 21, 1968 (82 Stat. 1209; D.C. Official Code§ 2-510), is amended by
31 adding a new subsection (a-1) to read as follows:
32 "( a-1 )( 1) Judicial review under this section of an order or decision of the Zoning
33 Commission, the Board of Zoning Adjustment, or the Mayor 's Agent shall only be
34 available to a person who:
2
“(A)(i) Was granted party status by the Zoning Commission, Board 35
of Zoning Adjustment, or Mayor’s Agent in the contested case for which the person seeks 36
judicial review; 37
“(ii) Owns or legally occupies a property within 200 feet of 38
the property that is the subject of the contested case and filed a letter of support, 39
opposition, or of no position in the contested case; or 40
“(iii) For the purposes of judicial review of an order or 41
decision of the Mayor’s Agent, is a historic preservation organization as defined in 10-C 42
DCMR § 9901; 43
“(B) Files a petition for judicial review within 30 days after the 44
order or decision is mailed or emailed to the person by the Zoning Commission, the 45
Board of Zoning Adjustment, or the Mayor’s Agent, 30 days after the date the decision or 46
order is published in the District of Columbia Register, or 30 days after the date the 47
decision or order is published on a website of the District government, whichever comes 48
first, unless a later date is consented to by all respondents listed in the petition for review; 49
and 50
“(C) Pleads, in its petition for judicial review, specific facts 51
sufficient to support the existence of a particularized harm suffered by the person and 52
that: 53
“(i) Substantial evidence of the particularized harm was 54
presented to the Zoning Commission, the Board of Zoning Adjustment, or the Mayor’s 55
Agent during the contested case; 56
3
“(ii) The person’s particularized harm relates to the zoning 57
relief granted or denied; 58
(iii) The person’s particularized harm is not shared by the 59
general public; and 60
“(iv) The particularized harm is capable of being redressed 61
by a favorable decision by the Court. 62
“(2) The Court shall not have jurisdiction under subsection (a) of this 63
section of a petition for judicial review of an order or decision of the Zoning 64
Commission, the Board of Zoning Adjustment, or the Mayor’s Agent that does not satisfy 65
the requirements set forth in paragraph (1) of this subsection. 66
“(3)(A)(i) The Court may, upon the motion of a party or intervenor in the 67
appeal who is the person in whose favor the order or decision in the contested case was 68
issued (the “prevailing party in the zoning decision”), require a person who filed a 69
petition for judicial review covered by this subsection (the “petitioner”) to file a bond of 70
sufficient surety in an amount the Court considers proper, not to exceed $250,000, to 71
indemnify the prevailing party in the zoning decision against damages which such party 72
may sustain due to delays caused by the appeal; provided, that the likelihood and 73
estimated amount of damages is substantiated in the motion. 74
“(ii) In deciding whether to require such a bond and 75
determining the amount of the bond, if any, the Court shall consider the goal of 76
discouraging frivolous and vexatious appeals, the goal of not discouraging meritorious 77
appeals, the extent to which the delays caused by the appeal may harm the public interest, 78
4
the ability of the petitioner to pay the bond and the financial burden of the payment 79
relative to the petitioner’s means, and the apparent meritoriousness of the appeal. 80
“(B)(i) If the order or decision in the contested case is affirmed by 81
the Court, the Court may, if a bond was required under subparagraph (A) of this 82
paragraph and upon the motion of the prevailing party in the zoning decision, order the 83
petitioner to pay to the prevailing party in the zoning decision an amount the Court 84
considers proper to compensate the prevailing party in the zoning decision for the 85
damages it sustained due to delays caused by the appeal; provided, that the amount 86
ordered to be paid shall not exceed $250,000. 87
“(ii) In determining whether to order such a payment, and 88
the amount of such payment to award, if any, the Court shall consider the extent to which 89
the prevailing party in the zoning decision has substantiated that it sustained damages due 90
to delays caused by the appeal, whether the delays caused by the appeal harmed the 91
public interest, the goal of discouraging frivolous and vexatious appeals, the goal of not 92
discouraging meritorious appeals, the ability of the petitioner to make the payment and 93
the financial burden of the payment relative to the petitioner’s means, and the 94
meritoriousness of the appeal. 95
“(4) If the order or decision is affirmed by the Court and the Court finds 96
that the appeal was frivolous or filed for an improper purpose, such as to harass or to 97
cause unnecessary delay, the Court may order the petitioner to reimburse to the prevailing 98
party in the zoning decision reasonable attorney’s fees and other costs incurred by it in 99
defending against the appeal in an amount not to exceed $50,000. 100
5
“(5) For the purposes of this subsection, the term “Mayor’s Agent” means 101
a person designated by the Mayor to issue orders or decisions in contested cases pursuant 102
to the Historic Landmark and Historic District Protection Act of 1978, effective March 3, 103
1979 (D.C. Law 2-144; D.C. Official Code § 6-1101 et seq.), or the individual to whom 104
such person has delegated the authority to issue orders or decisions in such contested 105
cases.”. 106
Sec. 3. Fiscal impact statement. 107
The Council adopts the fiscal impact statement in the committee report as the 108
fiscal impact statement required by section 4a of the General Legislative Procedures Act 109
of 1975, approved October 16, 2006 (120 Stat. 2038; D.C. Official Code § 1-301.47a). 110
Sec. 4. Effective date. 111
This act shall take effect following approval by the Mayor (or in the event of veto 112
by the Mayor, action by the Council to override the veto), a 30-day period of 113
congressional review as provided in section 602(c)(1) of the District of Columbia Home 114
Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 813; D.C. Official Code § 1-115
206.02(c)(1)), and publication in the District of Columbia Register. 116
Government of the District of Columbia
Office of the Chief Financial Officer

Glen Lee
Chief Financial Officer

1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 203, Washington, DC 20004 (202)727-2476
www.cfo.dc.gov
MEMORANDUM

TO: The Honorable Phil Mendelson
Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia

FROM: Glen Lee
Chief Financial Officer

DATE: September 24, 2025

SUBJECT: Fiscal Impact Statement – Zoning Decision Appeals Amendment Act of
2025

REFERENCE: Draft Bill as provided to the Office of Revenue Analysis on September
23, 2025

Conclusion

Funds are sufficient in the fiscal year 2026 through fiscal year 2029 budget and financial plan to
implement the bill.

Background

The bill changes zoning appeals procedures for matters before the Zoning Commission, the Board of
Zoning Adjustment , and the Mayor’s Agent for Historic Preservation. Specifically, judicial reviews
would be limited to an individual who was granted party status at the administrative proceeding or
owns or occupies property within a 200 -foot radius of the subject property in the case , as well as to
a historic preservation organization.

The bill requires filings of appeals to be made within 30 days of a decision 1. The appeal must
demonstrate specific facts proving harm suffered and show that these facts were raised at the lower
level and that they are capable of being redressed by a favorable decision by the court.

The bill allows a court to require a petitioner post bond during an appeal not to exceed $250,000, to
account for the costs of possible delays to a project imposed on the property owner if the appeal is
not successful.

1 To be counted from the date the decision is mailed or emailed to the person, published in the District of
Columbia Register, or published on the website of the District of Columbia government.
The Honorable Phil Mendelson
FIS: “Zoning Decision Appeals Amendment Act of 2025,” Draft bill as provided to the Office of Revenue
Analysis on September 23, 2025
Page 2 of 2
Lastly, the bill permits a court to order reimbursement of attorney’s fees or other costs incurred if
the court finds that the appeal was frivolous or filed for an improper purpose, not to exceed $50,000.
Financial Plan Impact
Funds are sufficient in the fiscal year 2026 through fiscal year 2029 budget and financial plan to
implement the bill. Limiting zoning decision appeals does not have a cost to District agencies.
3
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BRIAN L. SCHWALB
ATTORNEY GENERAL

LEGAL COUNSEL DIVISION
M
EMORANDUM
TO: Tomás Talamante
Director
Office of Policy and Legislative Affairs
FROM: Adele El-Khouri
Deputy Attorney General
Legal Counsel Division
DATE: September 24, 2025
SUBJECT: Legal Sufficiency Review of Draft “Zoning Decision Appeals Amendment Act of
2025”
(AE-25-488)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
This is to Certify that this Office has reviewed the above-referenced draft
legislation and found it to be legally sufficient. If you have any questions in this regard, please do
not hesitate to call me at (202) 262-6402.
_________________________________
Adele El-Khouri