Opinion ID: 2208658
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Special Exception Allowing the Addition to Exceed FAR Requirements

Text: In granting GWU a special exception from the applicable FAR requirements, the BZA noted that the Addition was in a highly urban area zoned R-5-C (medium-high density) and designated for institutional use by the Comprehensive Plan, [21] and concluded that it is appropriate to exceed the 3.5 FAR at this site. This is consistent with the policy of avoiding campus expansion into low-density districts. BZA CL ¶ 11. Petitioners contend that the BZA erred in so ruling. In Draude I we observed that colleges and universities may locate in residential districts if, among other requirements, they have an approved campus plan and obtain a special exception. 527 A.2d at 1248. The zoning regulations contain a special rule for colleges and universities, which in Draude I we called the aggregation rule. Under it, the BZA may authorize an exception to the FAR restrictions on a university structure in an R-5-C district as long as the total bulk of all buildings and structures on the campus shall not exceed the gross floor area prescribed for the R-5-C district. 11 DCMR § 210.3 (1987). The BZA, however, must also determine that any permitted structure is consistent with the policy of avoiding unreasonable campus expansion into improved low-density districts, [22] and that the permitted structure will not tend to affect adversely the use of neighboring property in accordance with the Zoning Regulations and Zoning Maps.... [23] We made this clear in Draude I: Universities cannot use the corporate FAR as a matter of right in residential zoning districts; they must obtain a special exception under 11 DCMR § 210.3. See 11 DCMR § 3108.1 (listing actions requiring special exceptions). Draude points out that the BZA orders do not address the special exceptions required before GWU can use the FAR aggregation rule in order to build the addition with an FAR substantially in excess of that normally permitted in an R-5-C district. Because we find no reference to this question in the BZA orders under review, the BZA on remand must determine whether such a special exception is justified.       ... Thus, before approving a university structure such as the Addition on the basis of the FAR aggregation rule, the BZA must find that the permitted expansion in the structure's bulk (1) is consistent with the policy of avoiding unreasonable expansion into improved low-density districts and (2) will not tend to affect adversely the use of neighboring property. 527 A.2d at 1249. Because the BZA had not made such findings in Draude I, we directed it to do so on remand. Now, in Draude II, we must determine whether the BZA followed the instructions we gave it in Draude I. We conclude that it did, and hence we affirm the granting of the special exception to the 3.5 FAR requirement.
In Draude I the petitioner argued that the Addition constituted an unreasonable expansion into an improved low-density neighborhood because it would generate unacceptably high levels of traffic. He further maintained that the BZA's finding on traffic impacts was not based on substantial evidence in the record. We accepted these assertions, stating, We agree that the BZA did not adequately justify its traffic finding.... 527 A.2d at 1250. On remand, however, the BZA received further evidence on this subject. Thereafter, in its final decision, the BZA found (1) that existing levels of traffic would not change as a result of the Addition (BZA FF ¶ 60); (2) that the distribution of traffic would be favorable because the location is convenient to a subway stop (one block away), as well as a major city bus route, and staff would be centralized, thereby creating carpooling opportunities (BZA FF ¶¶ 16, 61); (3) that after other medical facilities were consolidated in the Addition, rush-hour traffic would increase by only eighty-four vehicles, which would not change the operational levels of service on I Street, 22nd Street, and Pennsylvania Avenue (BZA FF ¶ 62); (4) that vehicles entering the Addition's parking garage on I Street would present no safety problems or significant traffic congestion (BZA FF ¶¶ 63, 64); [24] (5) that the Addition would not increase the number of university students (BZA FF ¶ 65); (6) that it would have a negligible impact on the adjacent street system (BZA FF ¶ 67); (7) that it would have adequate loading facilities (BZA FF ¶ 80); and (8) that it would not have an adverse impact on parking (BZA FF ¶¶ 54, 75). One of the Board's conclusions of law was that the Addition will not have an adverse impact on the traffic, because the levels of service will not be adversely affected and will remain in the current favorable condition. BZA CL ¶ 8. The BZA made these findings after considering written submissions and testimony by representatives of the Office of Planning and after hearing the testimony of John Callow, GWU's traffic consultant. Mr. Callow spoke at length, produced exhibits, and was subject to thorough cross-examination. The BZA's detailed findings, supported by ample evidence in the record, convince us that it faithfully followed our instructions in Draude I. The BZA also addressed other issues that might perhaps indicate unreasonable expansion. For example, the Board made a factual finding that a trash compactor would be located adjacent to the loading dock (BZA FF ¶ 81). [25] The BZA also found that the Addition had been designed to minimize any noise impact on the Condominium, stating that [t]he Addition is not a noise intensive use and does [not] create objectionable noise conditions (BZA CL ¶ 10). Finally, it noted that landscaping would be coordinated with GWU's overall campus landscape plan and would not conflict with the District's requirements for types, sizes, and locations of plant material (BZA FF ¶ 41). Even the roof covering the garage ramp would be landscaped (BZA FF ¶ 52).
On the question of whether the Addition would tend to affect adversely the use of neighboring property, 11 DCMR § 3108.1 (1987), one of the issues which prompted a remand in Draude I, petitioners contend that the Addition will deprive the Condominium of sufficient light and air. We shall address this issue hereafter in part D of this opinion, and hence we do not discuss it here. There are, however, two additional matters that fall under the heading of adverse impact: noise and resale value. The former, although discussed in the BZA's findings of fact, [26] does not appear to concern petitioners, but the resale value of the condominium units is very much at issue. Petitioners contend that the Addition adversely affects the value of units on the west side of the Condominium because units looking at a blank wall with sunlight blocked are less attractive and bring lower prices. One of the owners testified that the Addition has already made units on the west side of the Condominium more difficult to rent. At the hearing on remand, GWU presented testimony on resale value from William S. Harps, an expert real estate appraiser. A representative of the unit owners, petitioner Draude, also testified. After weighing their testimony, the BZA found: The Addition will have no adverse effect on the fair market value of units in the President Condominium. Based upon the totality of the evidence about sales, including Mr. Draude's testimony in particular, the Board finds that the value of the units in the President which would hypothetically appear most likely to be affected by the Addition has not been adversely affected by the construction of the Addition.... BZA FF ¶ 83. Because this finding is based on extensive testimony, we have no reason to second-guess the BZA's decision on this point. Furthermore, although we strongly encourage the articulation of reasons, see, e.g., Harris v. District of Columbia Human Rights Commission, 562 A.2d 625, 631-632 (D.C.1989), we have repeatedly held that an administrative agency is not legally required to explain ... why it favored one witness or one statistic over another. Citizens Ass'n of Georgetown, supra, 402 A.2d at 47 (footnote omitted).