The D.C. Zoning Commission unanimously sided with Georgetown University against local residents in two rulings last week regarding the university’s enrollment cap and 10-year campus plan.

The commission has agreed to reevaluate the enrollment cap it placed on Georgetown University as part of the 10-year plan, which passed in 2001, in addition to rejecting a motion brought by local residents that asked the court to reassess Georgetown’s compliance with the plan.

“The university was greatly concerned about the potential ramifications of how the enrollment cap would be defined and what it could mean, so we wanted a clear understanding from the zoning commission of how to proceed,” Julie Green Bataille, assistant vice president for communications, said.

The Board of Zoning Adjustment will not allow the Zoning Commission to approve planned campus construction, including the Royden B. Davis, S.J., Performing Arts Center, if the university exceeds the enrollment cap of 5,627 undergraduates.

University officials say that the provision unfairly restricts enrollment, which forces tuition prices up or increases reliance on endowment.

The Zoning Commission objected to the university’s averaging of fall and spring enrollment. The university usually has a higher fall enrollment because more students choose to study abroad during the spring semester.

“The bottom line is that it could have tremendous financial repercussions for the university if we have to have an enrollment cap that does not allow us to average,” Bataille said.

Enrollment figures for Fall 2003 are expected to exceed the cap. University officials claim that the loss of as few as 100 students could cost the university $3 million in revenue.

The current wording in the 10-year plan could have far-reaching effects, as well. Exceeding the cap could cost the university building permits as well as revenue, and could also bring about fines.

Despite the 3-0 vote in favor of reconsidering the enrollment cap, two of the commissioners still expressed disagreement with the practice of averaging enrollment.

At the Oct. 20 hearing, Chair Carol Mitten said she felt that averaging circumvents the spirit of the provision, while University Architect Alan Brangman said he would have preferred the commission strike down the proposed prohibition on averaging entirely.

The Zoning Commission also heard a request from the Citizens Association of Georgetown asking the commission to reevaluate whether the university was meeting other provisions set forth in the campus plan. The citizens claim that the university has failed to discipline students for behavior problems off campus.

The motion urged against approving any further campus construction projects until the university complies more closely with the provisions.

Commissioners rejected the motion 3-0, arguing that the same arguments were made at the April 14 hearing where the commission approved the Davis Performing Arts Center.

“I thought we fleshed them out in their entirety the first time,” Vice Chair Anthony Hood said.

Barbara Zartman, a member of the Citizens Association of Georgetown, said the goal of the motion was to put the community’s concerns on record.

The hearing also addressed unclear wording of the agreement between the university and the BZA that effectively traded approval of campus construction for jurisdiction over off-campus student conduct.

The agreement calls for substantial compliance with provisions such as on-campus housing for “virtually all” undergraduates, public notification of student misconduct records and enforcing sanitation, housing and vehicle registration.

The Zoning Commission refused to hear the arguments again, opting instead to urge the BZA to word such provisions more clearly in the future.