Watergate West, Inc. v. District Of Columbia Board Of Zoning Adjustment

815 A.2d 762 (2003)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The District of Columbia enacted the District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan (Plan). Under the Plan GWU “must continue to construct student dormitories to alleviate the pressure on the housing stock outside the boundaries of the campus plan.” P owns a cooperative apartment building across the street from the building at issue. In May 1999 GWU purchased the former Howard Johnson Hotel with plans to convert it into a dormitory for 388 students. GWU applied to the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs for a certificate of occupancy. During the processing of this application, the Zoning Administrator was asked whether GWU needed to obtain a special exception before converting the hotel into a dormitory. The Administrator replied that a dormitory was a matter-of-right use in the R-5-E district where the building was located. The certificate of occupancy was issued on July 28, 1999. P appealed to the BZA on August 2. P contends that university uses are not permitted in residential zones as a matter of right. P maintains, that GWU is required, under 11 DCMR § 210, to obtain a special exception to use any building, and must demonstrate to the BZA that its proposed use is not likely to cause offense to neighboring property because of noise, traffic, number of students, or other objectionable conditions. The Zoning Administrator explained that dormitories are permitted as a matter of right in an R-5-E district and that for this reason, GWU's application for a certificate of occupancy met the zoning requirements. He testified that 11 DCMR § 210, which deals generally with 'Colleges and Universities,' did not apply in this case because the building site was located off campus. Consequently, GWU's application for a certificate of occupancy was reviewed in the same manner as any other request by a private institution. The Administrator explained that the relevant provisions of the Plan sought to prevent GWU from converting existing permanent residential housing into dormitories. However, because the building at issue was a former hotel, i.e., was not and had never been permanent residential housing, these provisions did not apply to GWU's application. In fact, it was posited that GWU's use of the building as a dormitory would help to relieve pressure on other housing stock in the area, and thus it furthered the stated goals of the Plan. The BZA affirmed the Administrator's approval of GWU's application for a certificate of occupancy. The BZA recognized that the Administrator had considered the Plan and concluded that his determination that the dormitory was consistent with the Plan [was] a reasonable interpretation of the intent of the Plan. P appealed.