Opinion ID: 2164332
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Scope of Review and Related Concerns.

Text: The special exceptions which the University requested in this case were approved by the BZA pursuant to 11 DCMR §§ 210 and 3108. As this court explained in Stewart v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 305 A.2d 516, 518 (D.C.1973), [s]pecial exceptions, unlike variances, are expressly provided for in the Zoning Regulations. The Board's discretion to grant special exceptions is limited to a determination whether the exception sought meets the requirements of the regulation. The burden of showing that the proposal meets the prerequisite enumerated in the particular regulation pursuant to which the exception is sought rests with the applicant. In sum, the applicant must make the requisite showing, and once he has, the Board ordinarily must grant his application. The Board's interpretation of the regulations must be accorded great weight, and must be upheld unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulations. Levy, supra, 570 A.2d at 748. An applicant who seeks a special exception for college or university use must submit a plan for developing the campus as a whole, showing the location, height, and bulk, where appropriate, of all present and proposed improvements. 11 DCMR § 210.4 (1987). To obtain approval of the Campus Plan, the applicant must prove that the proposed use will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Regulations and not likely to become objectionable to neighboring property because of noise, traffic, number of students, or other objectionable conditions. 11 DCMR §§ 210.2 and 3108.1; see Levy, supra, 570 A.2d at 742. In residential areas, the applicant must also demonstrate that the proposed use will not unreasonably expand the campus into improved lowdensity districts. Levy, supra, 570 A.2d at 742; 11 DCMR § 210.3 (1987). The BZA unanimously held that the University had qualified for the special exceptions. With respect to most contested issues, the Board made comparatively detailed findings. In reviewing its decision, we must inquire (1) whether the agency has made a finding of fact on each material contested issue of fact; (2) whether substantial evidence of record supports each finding; and (3) whether conclusions legally sufficient to support the decision flow rationally from the findings. Levy, supra, 570 A.2d at 746 (citations omitted); see also D.C.Code § 1-1509(e) (1987).