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

Heading: Expansion into low-density districts.

Text: The FGCA also maintains that the BZA failed to make a finding that the proposed location of the law school would not result in unreasonable campus expansion into low-density districts, as required by 11 DCMR § 210.3. While the Board did not use this precise phraseology, that is not conclusive. We are satisfied that the findings and conclusions which the Board did make demonstrate that it carried out the intent of this Regulation. We reach this conclusion, inter alia, on the basis of the following Findings of Fact: 26. In December, 1988, the University agreed to a major change.... [t]he law school was down-sized approximately 20,000 square feet. 51. The Board finds that the siting, massing and design of the law school building are appropriate and that the proposed plan is thoroughly responsive to the reasonable concerns of the neighbors. 62. The Board finds that the University thoroughly analyzed all available sites for the location of the law school ... and that the program and design [of the law school] will be compatible with the site and the adjacent neighborhood. 74. [T]he consultant later testified and confirmed that he reviewed the plans for the law school, and in his opinion, because of the geometry of the site [and] the topography and relationship of the site to Massachusetts Avenue, the University's proposal for the Cassell site is reasonable. See also FF ¶¶ 10B, 43, 45 through 48, 56, 58, 59 and 65. The Board then concluded as a matter of law that: Regarding the size of the proposed structure and the proximity of the building to the neighborhood, the Board has found that the siting and size of the building are appropriate. See also the discussion in Part I B, supra, and note 10, infra. The only rational conclusion which flows logically from the Board's findings is that there will be no unreasonable expansion of the campus into low-density residential areas, and that the siting and size of the building are appropriate. While it is true that the [Board's] analysis did not track or even mention [the specific criteria set forth in the Regulation], we conclude that [its] inquiry adequately addressed the critical factors there identified. In re D.R.M., 570 A.2d 796, 803 (D.C.1990). It would have been better if the Board had explicitly incorporated into its decision the language of the Regulation, so that no one could have doubted the Board's meaning. Its failure to do so, however, does not require reversal of its decision [6] by this court.