Opinion ID: 2164332
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: What ever happened to site 3?

Text: Although the new law school itself is to be constructed on site 4, the 1989 Campus Plan also calls for the regrading, landscaping and screening of a part of site 3 to convert a largely wooded and undeveloped tract of land into a parking lot. The BZA did not make any findings, evaluations or conclusions which referred to site 3 by name or number. The FGCA contends that the Board thus failed to address a significant contested issue in the case. If the agency makes no finding of fact on a material contested issue, this court on review may not fill the gap by making its own determinations from the record, but must remand the case. Levy, supra, 570 A.2d at 746 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The FGCA has contested this issue before this court, but it did not do so before the Board. This petitioner filed a proposed order with the BZA in which it included thirty-four proposed Findings of Fact, as well as almost a page and a half of single spaced Conclusions of Law and Opinion. Site 4 was mentioned at least sixteen times. Site 3 was not mentioned at all. Neither OP nor ANC 3-E made any allusion whatever to site 3. [7] In the absence of exceptional circumstances, this court will not entertain contentions not raised before the agency. Rafferty v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm'n, 583 A.2d 169, 178 (D.C.1990). The circumstances of the present case do not warrant our consideration of the FGCA's complaint about the treatment of site 3 when no such concern was presented to the BZA.