Opinion ID: 2111774
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Adequacy of the Factual Findings.

Text: Petitioners have identified several material issues contested before the Commission which, they allege, the Commission failed to address in its findings of fact. This court has stated, however, that an issue is not necessarily material simply because evidence was presented on the point at the hearing. See Wheeler v. Board of Zoning Adjustment, D.C.App., 395 A.2d 85, 88-89 (1978), and an administrative agency does not have to make findings of fact upon contentions that are collateral or immaterial. Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. United States, 361 U.S. 173, 80 S.Ct. 229, 4 L.Ed.2d 223 (1959). Thus, while the language of § 1-1509(e) requires that issues be contested by the parties before the agency need address them in its findings, this court additionally requires that the issues concern matters which the agency must consider as part of its decision-making process. See Wheeler v. Board of Zoning Adjustment, supra at 88-89; Dietrich v. Board of Zoning Adjustment, supra at 473. For example, in Dietrich we reversed an order of the Board of Zoning Adjustment approving a special exception to the zoning map because the Board failed to enter factual findings on issues which were contested and which the Board was required to resolve by the Zoning Regulations. In contrast, in Wheeler we deemed the question of neighborhood stability an issue immaterial to the Board's decision whether to grant a special exception, since, even though contested, neighborhood stability was a product of the Board's decision and not a prerequisite to it. With respect to applications for amendments to the zoning map, the Zoning Regulations do not delineate what factors are to be considered by the Commission, thus distinguishing this case from Dietrich. Nor were the material issues defined in the proceedings below, since the parties to this action, not agreeing on what issues below were material, did not present to the Commission all of the issues now claimed to be material by petitioner. Therefore, we must determine what are the material issues before us. See Citizens Ass'n of Georgetown, Inc. v. Zoning Commission, D.C.App., 402 A.2d 36, 43 n.10 (1979). On the basis of our review of the record and our evaluation of the adequacy of the factual findings of the Commission, we find that the material issues left for appellate consideration are the Commission's decision regarding (1) the effect the increased density resulting from rowhouse development will have on the neighborhood and the surrounding area; (2) the impact rezoning will have on traffic along the pertinent stretches of Arizona Avenue, MacArthur Boulevard, and Sherrier Place, Northwest; (3) the impact rezoning will have on neighborhood parking; (4) the feasibility of development under R-1-B zoning; (5) the compatibility of rowhouse development with existing area uses; and (6) the impact rezoning will have on the environment. We proceed to the question of whether the Commission's findings of fact adequately address these issues. (1) Parking. The issue of parking was clearly presented to the Commission by both sides. The testimony of the opponents to the amendment, which was supported by photographic evidence, indicated that a parking problem already existed in the neighborhood, primarily due to the influx of commuter vehicles. Rowhouse development, the witnesses maintained, had the potential of bringing 15 more families into the neighborhood than would the R-1-B development and would seriously exacerbate the parking problem. Proponents of the amendment countered this argument by offering evidence that there would be little or no increase in parking on neighborhood streets because site plans provided for adequate off-street parking. Despite this presentation during the hearing, the Commission made no finding whatsoever on the issue of parking. Respondents ask us to infer that this issue is encompassed in the Commission's findings of fact on the issues of traffic and density. This we cannot do. In a contested case, whenever an administrative agency fails to make a finding on a material contested issue, this court cannot properly fill the gap itself by inferring findings on a party's objections through inspection of the record, the agency's other findings, and the ultimate decision. Citizens Ass'n of Georgetown, Inc. v. Zoning Commission, supra at 42. Thus we are compelled to remand this case for findings on this issue. (2) Traffic. Petitioners also contend that the Commission's treatment of the issue of traffic was fatally defective because it failed to address the concern of opponents to the amendment that traffic along Sherrier Place would increase precipitously as a result of rowhouse development. The record reveals that three findings made by the Commission allude to the issue of traffic. Finding No. 16 states that good public transportation [exists] at the subject site [and] ... is an important factor in achieving the goal of reduced automobile traffic. Finding No. 17 concludes that the proposed development would not adversely impact on existing traffic conditions on either MacArthur Boulevard or Arizona Avenue and, in fact, fewer trips are generated per unit in R-1-B development than in R-3 development. Finally, Finding No. 22 mentions the contention of ANC and other opponents to the amendment that a rezoning would increase traffic. However, the Commission found that any potential adverse impacts that might result from rowhouse development were unlikely to occur. Clearly, we are not faced with failure to make a finding on a material issue, as was the case with respect to the issue of parking. Here, the Commission did make several factual findings concerning the overall issue of traffic, which indicated that good public transportation, aiding the reduction of traffic levels, was provided at the site and that traffic along Arizona Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard, where most of the traffic on Sherrier Place must exit or enter, would not be significantly increased. Although the Commission might well have made a specific finding as to traffic on Sherrier Place, the findings made on traffic generally were sufficiently detailed so as to provide this court with the `basic [and] underlying' reasons for the conclusions [of law] entered by the Commission in support of its final decision. Wheeler v. Board of Zoning Adjustment, supra at 88, quoting Palmer v. Board of Zoning Adjustment, D.C.App., 287 A.2d 535, 538 (1972). (3) The Other Material Issues. We deem the Commission's findings on the other material contested issues to be sufficient. Findings Nos. 2, 4, 6, 14, and 22 touched on aspects of the density issue and clearly demonstrate the Commission recognized that rowhouse development would result in increased density but it nevertheless concluded that the increase would not cause significant environmental or traffic problems or be in conflict with the character of the neighborhood. Feasibility of development under R-1-B zoning was specifically discussed by the Commission in Finding No. 8. There, the Commission concluded that R-1-B development was infeasible due to prohibitive costs and topographical difficulties. [2] The Commission also discussed the related issue of the feasibility of rowhouse development in Findings Nos. 7, 10, and 11. In those findings the Commission concluded that rowhouse development would be more practical and marketable than R-1-B development. The issue of compatibility with existing uses was explicitly discussed by the Commission in Findings Nos. 4, 9, 12, and 13. The final material issue of adverse environmental impact was directly covered in Finding No. 22, where the Commission determined that such adverse conditions were unlikely to occur.