Last month authorities handed Georgetown two significant victories in its continuing battle for expansion.
Boathouse wins approval
The D.C. Zoning Commission approved plans for a new Georgetown boathouse on Dec. 11, bringing a year-long series of hearings, delays, and meetings to a close. According to University Spokeswoman Laura Cavender, the University need only obtain building permits before starting construction.
“We’re just happy that this part of the process is completed,” said University Architect Alan Brangman.
The commission briefly discussed the most contentious aspects of the boathouse: its proposed size and its proximity to the popular Capital Crescent Trail and the C&O Canal National Historic Park. There was no discussion of a National Capital Planning Commission recommendation that its size be reduced, except that a 1995 land-swap agreement with the National Park Service will be changed to account for the size of the 54-ft.-tall, 35,000-sq. ft. boathouse.
The three commissioners present at the meeting voted unanimously to approve the University’s plans. One commissioner, a National Park Service representative, recused himself from the case; another was not present. “The building has significant bulk to it,” said Zoning Commissioner Peter May. “But it is an attractive building.”
The commission did impose a number of conditions regarding parking, waterfront access, use of the boathouse, and river traffic. The use of the boathouse will be officially restricted to people affiliated with Georgetown. Furthermore, vehicular access to the building will be strictly limited to maintenance vehicles and boat trailers.
Ernie Brooks, who opposed the University during the boathouse process as president of the Coalition for the Capital Crescent Trail, was disappointed by the Commission’s decision. “I had hoped that what the [NCPC] had said regarding the size had carried some weight,” he said. “They basically ignored those concerns.”
Brangman said that it may take over a month for the final order to be issued. He expects construction to begin six to nine months after the order is issued.
Enrollment cap struck down
The D.C. Court of Appeals delivered Georgetown a second win on Dec. 4, when it rejected several controversial conditions that the D.C. Board of Zoning Adjustment imposed on the approval of the University’s 2000 campus plan earlier this year. The Court of Appeals’ decision continues a long battle between the University and its neighbors over approval of its 10-year campus plan.
The court’s opinion says the BZA’s conditions “go far beyond the proper concerns and expertise of the BZA.” The court was highly critical of the board’s requirements that the University strictly regulate off-campus conduct.
Most crucially to the University, the court ruled that a 5,617-student enrollment cap imposed by the board is “not supported by substantial evidence.” The BZA statute required Georgetown to justify its desire be to increase enrollment. The court has instead asked the BZA to explain why it should not.
“Such micromanagement of the University’s disciplinary code and of other educational activities by an agency whose sole expertise is in zoning is, in our view, inappropriate and unreasonable, especially when it can lead to such draconian sanctions,” the opinion read.
The University welcomed this expression of support from the Court. “The Court’s decision seriously and thoughtfully addressed the issues the University has been working on,” said Cavender.
Both the city and residents of Georgetown, however, are disappointed with the decision. The city has asked for a rehearing with all nine judges on the Court present; three judges sat on the panel that delivered the ruling.
However, Richard Hinds, the legal advisor for the Citizens Association of Georgetown, does not expect the city to succeed. “If the court, as it generally does, does nothing, then it goes back to the BZA to determine whether they can defend the decision they made,” he said. The CAG was a participant in the case.
Nevertheless, he is optimistic that the BZA will be able to justify its original proposal to cap enrollment. “We obviously think they can, we think they already did,” he said.
While the order was a significant victory for the University, the court did criticize Georgetown for changing its legal positions toward certain aspects of the plan as the case progressed.
