Opinion ID: 2075958
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Traffic

Text: In Z.C. Order No. 537, Finding 24, the Commission found that while Fourways' proposal to rezone for commercial use would have an adverse impact on traffic, [s]ome incremental increase [in development], and a corresponding increase in the traffic and parking demands generated by the site would not be unreasonable. This finding is supported by testimony from the Department of Public Works that Fourways' proposed building would generate minimal increase in traffic and parking demand. Since the Commission did not speak to this issue in Z.C. Order No. 555, which granted Fourways' rezoning application, we infer that any increase in traffic generated by the proposed structure would fall under the reasonable incremental increase mentioned in Z.C. Order No. 537. Although we have refused to infer a finding where no specific finding was made, Lee, supra, 411 A.2d at 639, we are willing to make inferences from general findings, such as those in Z.C. Order No. 537, when they are sufficiently detailed so as to provide this court with the `basic [and] underlying reasons' for the conclusions entered by the Board in making its decision. Wheeler, supra, 395 A.2d at 88 (quoting Palmer v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning, 287 A.2d 535 (D.C.1972)). We conclude that the Commission's traffic findings in Z.C. Order No. 537, specifically the permissibility of incremental increases generated from incremental development, are sufficient for this purpose. [21]