Watergate West, Inc. v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
815 A.2d 762 (2003)
In the early 1980s, the District of Columbia enacted the District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan (Plan). The Plan includes regulations regarding land use in the District of Columbia. The Plan specifically states that George Washington University (GWU) “must continue to construct student dormitories to alleviate the pressure on the housing stock outside the boundaries of the campus plan.” The District of Columbia Zoning Commission (Commission) has exclusive responsibility for making sure zoning regulations are consistent with the Plan. In 1999, GWU sought permission to use a former hotel as a dormitory for some of its students. The head of the Commission, the Zoning Administrator, approved GWU’s request for a certificate of occupancy to use the hotel as a dormitory. Watergate West (Watergate) (plaintiff) protested the certificate, arguing that the Plan prohibited GWU from using the off-campus building as a dormitory because the purpose of the Plan was to prevent GWU from reducing the housing stock near campus. Watergate contended that the Plan is self-executing. This would mean the Plan’s requirements are outside of and separate from the Commission’s zoning-regulation authority. Accordingly, under Watergate’s theory, the Commission must comply with the Plan when making zoning decisions, and any Commission decisions that are inconsistent with the Plan cannot be enforced. The District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment’s (BZA) (defendant) ruled against Watergate, holding that the Plan was not self-executing. Rather, according to the BZA, the Plan could only be enforced through zoning regulations and decisions, and those zoning regulations and decisions are made exclusively by the Commission. Therefore, any zoning action by the Commission is the official interpretation of the Plan’s requirements. In addition, the Zoning Administrator testified he did consider the Plan when approving the certificate of occupancy, and the BZA found the certificate was consistent with the Plan’s housing restrictions for GWU. Watergate challenged the BZA’s ruling.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Terry, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.