## Facts

- A property owner sought a special exception under 11 DCMR § 335.1 to operate a youth rehabilitation home for up to ten youths (ages 13–19) in a three-story row house at 2 T Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.
- The house had nine bedrooms and four bathrooms and was to be leased to a licensed operator (Gateway) that ran multiple youth homes in the District.
- The program was described as providing counseling, discipline, and supervision in a non-institutional setting for youths who had committed criminal offenses.
- Nearby residents opposed the application, asserting potential adverse effects on neighborhood safety, property values, and residential character.
- After a public hearing, the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) granted the special exception subject to conditions addressing supervision and related operational controls.
- The BZA referenced a “security plan” concerning operation of the home, but the plan was not provided to opponents and did not appear in the administrative record for review.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the BZA’s findings that the youth rehabilitation home satisfied the special-exception criteria and would not adversely affect neighboring property.
2. Whether procedural fairness was violated because the BZA referenced a security plan that was not disclosed to petitioners and not included in the record, depriving petitioners of an opportunity to review and comment.
3. Whether the BZA lacked impartiality in its consideration and approval of the application.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the BZA’s order in all respects except the handling of the security plan.
- The court remanded to the BZA to obtain the security plan, make it part of the record, allow petitioners to review and comment on it, and then reconsider whether the special exception was properly granted in light of the plan and comments.
- The court rejected challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence (aside from the security-plan problem) and rejected the claim that the BZA was biased.

## Legal Principles

- An appellate court upholds BZA action if supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion; the court does not reweigh evidence or make credibility determinations.
- A youth rehabilitation home may be approved by special exception when regulatory criteria are met, including harmony with zoning purposes and no undue adverse effect on neighboring property.
- Administrative decisionmaking must rest on a record open to the parties; when the agency considers material information bearing on approval, affected parties must have a meaningful opportunity to review and comment.
- Claims of agency bias require specific facts showing prejudgment or improper influence; disagreement with the outcome or the agency’s questioning at a hearing is insufficient.
- A limited remand is appropriate when a discrete procedural defect can be cured without setting aside the entire agency decision.

## Conclusion

The court largely upheld the BZA’s grant of a special exception for a youth rehabilitation home, but remanded because the BZA’s apparent reliance on an undisclosed security plan required that the plan be placed in the record, opened to opponent comment, and then reassessed as part of the special-exception determination.


Gladden v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 659 A.2d 249 (D.C. 1995)