Opinion ID: 2326822
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The ANC's Argument

Text: Lastly, we turn to the ANC's procedural claims. The ANC contends that the BZA failed to address KCA's argument, supported by ANC 1C in general terms in its December 23, 2003 vote and more specifically during the BZA hearing, that the actual method used by Montrose and the Zoning Administrator to calculate the basement FAR here was neither the grade plane method . . . nor the perimeter wall method . . ., but rather an unexplained mutation of the latter, which KCA has aptly labeled the front-wall-only method. The ANC also asserts that the BZA failed to address the ANC's explicit written objection in its December 22, 2003 report to Montrose's characterization of the upper story as an attic and failed to address the evidence adduced by ANC 1C regarding the amenities in the so-called attic (eight windows, convenience outlets, and ceiling light fixtures). Therefore, the ANC argues, the BZA failed to comply with the statutory requirement that it give great weight to the issues and concerns raised in the recommendations of the [ANC]. D.C.Code § 1-309.10(d)(3)(A); see also 11 DCMR § 3115.2.