Robey v. Schwab

• Decision Date: 12 June 1962
• Docket Number: No. 16660 and 16661.,16660 and 16661.
• Citation: 307 F.2d 198,113 US App. DC 241
• Parties: Ralph ROBEY et al., Appellants, v. James E. SCHWAB et al., as Members of the Board of Zoning Adjustment, et al., Appellees. WOODLEY HILL AREA HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION et al., Appellants, v. Samuel SCRIVENER, Jr., et al., as Members of the Board of Zoning Adjustment, District of Columbia, et al., Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

113 US App. DC 241, 307 F.2d 198 (1962)

Ralph ROBEY et al., Appellants, v. James E. SCHWAB et al., as Members of the Board of Zoning Adjustment, et al., Appellees.

WOODLEY HILL AREA HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION et al., Appellants, v. Samuel SCRIVENER, Jr., et al., as Members of the Board of Zoning Adjustment, District of Columbia, et al., Appellees.

Nos. 16660 and 16661.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued March 26, 1962.

Decided June 12, 1962.

Petition for Rehearing Denied July 16, 1962.

Mrs. Louise Roe Smethurst, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Raymond S. Smethurst, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants in No. 16660.

Mr. John Wattawa, Washington, D. C., for appellants in No. 16661.

Mr. John R. Hess, Asst. Corp. Counsel for the District of Columbia, with whom Messrs. Chester H. Gray, Corp. Counsel, Milton D. Korman, Principal Asst. Corp. Counsel, and Hubert B. Pair, Asst. Corp. Counsel, were on the brief, for appellees, Board of Zoning Adjustment and Ilgenfritz.

Mr. John L. Hamilton, with whom Mr. George E. Hamilton, III, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee O'Boyle.

Before WILBUR K. MILLER, Chief Judge, and BAZELON and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.

BASTIAN, Circuit Judge.

Complaints were filed by appellants plaintiffs in the District Court seeking injunctive and mandatory relief from a decision and order of the Board of Zoning Adjustment which granted a special exception for the construction of a private school in an area zoned as residential. The complaints were consolidated and cross motions for summary judgment were filed by the respective parties. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of appellees defendants and these appeals followed.

Among other assertions of error, the appellants contend they were denied a fair hearing before the Board of Zoning Adjustment, that the action of the Board was arbitrary, capricious, not supported by the evidence, invalid for procedural irregularities, and contrary to the zoning regulations.

Under the Zoning Act of the District of Columbia, a Zoning Commission was created, whose function it is to make the zoning regulations to be applied in the District.¹ A Board of Zoning Adjustment was also created, whose function is, inter alia, to grant or deny, in accordance with certain prescribed standards, applications for special exceptions to the zoning regulations.²

On January 29, 1960, Patrick A. O'Boyle, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington, a corporation sole, one of the appellees hereinafter applicant on the instant appeal, filed with the Board an application for a special exception to permit the erection of a private school³ in an area zoned R-1 residential.⁴ Accordingly, acting pursuant to the pertinent provisions of the zoning regulations,⁵ the Board set a date for public hearing on the application.⁶ Appellants are property owners who appeared at the hearing and introduced both oral and documentary evidence in an attempt to sustain the position that the private school in question should not be erected in their residentially zoned area

On April 11, 1960, after the hearing on the application had been concluded but before the Board had reached its decision, the applicant mailed a letter to the Board suggesting certain alterations in the plans with respect to the structure of the proposed school. Thereafter, on May 24, 1960, the Board entered an order granting the special exception and incorporating certain structural features suggested in applicant's letter of April 11 as, for example, the erection of a single two-story building instead of three separate buildings as proposed in the plans initially submitted with the application. Appellants strenuously objected to the propriety of the order. In view of these objections, the Board scheduled a rehearing at which the time for argument was expressly limited to fifteen minutes for each side. At the rehearing, the applicant for the first time formally⁷ submitted the altered plans to the Board. At the close of this rehearing the Board again took the matter under consideration and, on August 17, 1960, issued an amended order approving the special exception.

In granting applicant the present special exception, the Board's order and its opinion in support thereof are basically devoid of any specific findings with respect to the decision rendered. In fact, the order of the Board is little more than a reiteration of the language of the regulations insofar as they set forth the conditions necessary for the allowance of a special exception of the type involved here.⁸ Consequently, we think the first question to be resolved on this appeal is whether the Board's order can properly be sustained on so general a predicate.⁹

We think the key to the proper resolution of this matter is to be found in the interpretation of Sections 8202.6 and 8202.64, which specify:

"Section 8202.6. Subject to the direction of the Board and its Chairman the Secretary of the Board shall perform the following duties:

* * * * * *

"Section 8202.64. Enter in the minutes book the resolution relating to each case acted on by the Board, the vote of each member of the Board, those absent or failing to vote being so marked, all other actions of the Board and the full reasons for its decisions." Emphasis added.

Obviously, Section 8202.64 calls for something more than a mere mechanical recitation of the regulatory provisions that authorize the granting of a special exception. With or without the express inclusion of the requirement of "full reasons," the ultimate factors established by the Zoning Regulations as the prerequisites for the allowance of a special exception of the type involved here¹⁰ must be satisfied before the Board may lawfully issue a decision on the merits of an application. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the interpretation of the requirement of "full reasons" must be made in the light of what experience has shown to be the soundest approach to the review and disposition of administrative determinations of a quasi-judicial character. In Saginaw Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Com. Comm'n, 68 App.D.C. 282, 96 F.2d 554 (1938), we stressed the underlying rationale of the requirement of full and complete findings by an administrative agency.¹¹ And see the discussion concerning this issue in Tri-State Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Com. Comm'n, 68 App.D.C. 292, 96 F.2d 564 (1938).

Accordingly, we think the requirement of "full reasons" must be construed to mean that, in order to support its conclusions, the Board shall make basic findings of fact in terms of the regulatory criteria established for determinations regarding special exceptions to the zoning regulations.¹² We do not mean, of course, to imply that the Board's findings must be set forth with such minute particularity as to amount to an exhaustive summation of all the evidence of record. We hold only that in a given case the Board must assume the responsibility of expressing the basic facts on which it relied¹³ with sufficient specificity to convey to the parties, as well as to the court, an adequate statement of the facts which persuaded the Board to arrive at its decision.

As the order appealed from is insufficient to meet the requirements imposed by Section 8202.64 of the Zoning Regulations, it follows that the case must be remanded to the Board for findings of fact.

Upon the remand, the Board is also directed to correct certain procedural irregularities that occurred in connection with hearings heretofore held on this application. Specifically, appellants are entitled to another hearing, if they desire one, on the proposed new school, in advance of which they are to be given official notice of the exact plans the Board will ultimately consider in determining its action on the application; and, thereafter, appellants are to be accorded full opportunity at the hearing to present evidence and oral argument...