The D.C. Court of Appeals heard arguments last week in response to a complaint Georgetown University filed with the court over proposed amendments to the university’s 10-year plan. The plan, accepted unanimously by the D.C. Board of Zoning Adjustment, includes provisions that allow the BZA to regulate off-campus behavior and university enrollment.

The BZA is an independent, quasi-judicial body within the Washington government, charged with the task of granting zoning variances and approving certain uses of land within the District. Every 10 years, area universities are required to detail to the BZA changes they expect to make to their campuses and student population.

In return for such controls, the BZA had agreed to endorse university construction projects, including the Royden B. Davis, S.J., Performing Arts Center, a proposed science building and a graduate business school facility.

At stake are the issues of enrollment and the extent to which the zoning board can control student activity in the Georgetown neighborhoods. In 2000, the BZA denied a request by the university to increase the enrollment cap by 389 students, citing a failure by the university to comply with the expiring 10-year plan, which required “housing virtually all undergraduates on campus.”

“Given the enormity of the problems [students create] in the community, the BZA was entitled to take a wait-and-see approach,” assistant corporation counsel Donna Murasky, told the court. University counsel Deborah Baum said Georgetown is “very dependent on tuition revenue” and that the enrollment cap would be detrimental to the university

The second complaint by the university concerns a series of conditions designed to control student behavior off campus. The BZA would require the university to make records regarding student misconduct public, as well as enforcing sanitation, housing and vehicle registration.

The BZA claims that such demands on the university are within its rights, as they pertain to conduct within the Georgetown neighborhoods. Lawyers for the university maintain that the proposed conditions are unconstitutional and exceed the jurisdiction of the BZA. The D.C. Court of Appeals has requested a list of conditions proposed by both the university and the BZA to compare the two.

The case is still in court, with no indication of when a ruling will be handed down.