*HPA: 1989-395 through 1989-402
*Name: In Re: 2910 through 2980 Connecticut Ave, NW
*Location: 2901-2980 Connecticut Ave, NW; Lots 107-114
*Date of Order: 12/20/1991
*Type: Request for postponement/renotice
*Date of Case Summary: 10/4/2006
Applicant sought review of a denial of his application to construct eight new townhouses that would impact an historic landmark, but claimed that it had received insufficient notice of the hearing before the Mayor's Agent. The hearing was rescheduled, but Applicant's attorney objected that the rescheduled date was unacceptable for Applicant. Applicant requested that the matter be renoticed and sought indefinite postponement. The Mayor's Agent found that Applicant did not have "technically sufficient notice" of the first hearing, but that it was not a "flagrant" disregard of Applicant's rights, and that there was no requirement that the date for a hearing be approved by Applicant. Deciding that the matter had "simply languished too long," the Mayor's Agent denied all pending motions and dismissed the matter without prejudice, providing Applicant with the opportunity to file a new application.
*Mayor's Agent - Procedural:*
*Cathedral Mansions South Tenants' Association requested party status in this matter, and, having met the requirements of 10 DCMR 2517.1 and with no opposition toward its being granted a party, the Mayor's Agent granted this request.
*The Mayor's Agent stated that the date for a hearing does not need to be approved by an applicant and noted that "[p]arties to an action are entitled to an early resolution of their differences and this very definitely is not accomplished through continuing a matter indefinitely."
*Citing the applicable statute, the Mayor's Agent stated that the preservation purposes of the Act are for "the people of the District of Columbia," and thus is not limited solely to the concerns of Applicant. The Mayor's Agent stated that "it may be in the interest of judicial economy and convenience to set a mutually acceptable date [for hearings]," but that such interest "must be balanced with the interests of the 'people of the District of Columbia.'"
See HPA No. 1992-213 through 1992-220, order of March 8, 1993, and _District Intown Properties Ltd. v. DCRA_, 680 A.2d 1373 (D.C. 1996), 23 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 1998) and 198 F.3d 874 (D.C. Cir. 1999) for subsequent history concerning this property.