## Facts

- George Washington University (GWU) sought a certificate of occupancy to use a former hotel as a student dormitory.
- The property was located in an R-5-E (high-density) residential zoning district that permits a range of residential and compatible institutional uses.
- The Zoning Administrator approved the certificate, treating the dormitory use as permitted as of right and not requiring a special exception.
- Watergate West, Inc., owner of a cooperative apartment building across the street, appealed to the District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA).
- Watergate argued the District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan barred the off-campus dormitory use and that the Plan operated as an independent, directly controlling restriction on zoning decisions.
- After a hearing, the BZA affirmed, concluding the Comprehensive Plan was not self-executing, the use was consistent with relevant Plan policies, and the dormitory use was permitted as of right.
- Watergate petitioned for review in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether the District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan is self-executing so that its policies directly control and can invalidate an otherwise permitted zoning approval absent implementing regulations.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the BZA’s conclusion that converting a former hotel to a dormitory was consistent with Comprehensive Plan housing policies.
3. Whether the zoning regulations allowed the dormitory use as a matter of right in the R-5-E district or instead required a special exception.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the BZA’s order upholding the Zoning Administrator’s issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
- The court held the Comprehensive Plan is a general policy document implemented through zoning regulations and actions of the Zoning Commission and zoning officials, not an independent set of parcel-specific commands.
- The court concluded the BZA reasonably determined the hotel-to-dormitory conversion did not reduce the city’s permanent residential housing stock and was consistent with the Plan.
- The court upheld the BZA’s interpretation that the dormitory use was permitted as of right in the R-5-E district and did not require a special exception.
- Applying substantial-evidence review and deference to the agency’s reasonable interpretations of its governing law and regulations, the court found no arbitrariness, caprice, or legal error.

## Legal Principles

- The District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan functions as a broad statement of policy goals and is implemented through zoning regulations and decisions; it does not operate as an independent, self-executing bar to specific land uses absent implementing zoning measures.
- The Zoning Commission bears the primary responsibility to ensure zoning regulations and maps are not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and administrative zoning decisions are evaluated within that regulatory framework.
- Courts review BZA decisions for substantial evidence and will uphold reasonable agency interpretations of statutes and zoning regulations unless arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
- An agency may reasonably find consistency with Comprehensive Plan housing policies where the challenged use does not diminish the stock of permanent residential housing (for example, converting a hotel rather than displacing long-term residences).

## Conclusion

The court upheld the BZA’s approval of GWU’s use of a former hotel as a student dormitory, rejecting the claim that the Comprehensive Plan independently prohibited the use and deferring to the BZA’s reasonable, evidence-supported determinations that the use was plan-consistent and permitted as of right under the applicable zoning regulations.


Watergate W., Inc. v. D.C. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 815 A.2d 762 (D.C. 2003)