|
ambient and background sound levels. People D, pically rate
<br />annoyance with reference re relative rather than absolute
<br />criteria, based on the information in Table 3.
<br /> Relative increases between 5 and 10 dba typically provide
<br />practical limits to noise generation, independent of the source.
<br />Absolute criteria (setting not-to-exceed absolute decibel limits) are
<br />more appropriate for dealing with noise levels high enough to cause
<br />noise-induced hearing loss than D, pical environmental concerns.
<br /> Los Angeles's noise code uses a relative limit of 5 dba above
<br />certain minimum values depending on the land use and time of
<br />da.,,'. An}' relarive limit lower than 5 dba is not recommended.
<br />in the cases where background sound levels cannot be
<br />monitored because the source of interest is continually
<br />
<br /> . , - -..¥ ;' ~ ~. .... . .'...- .~ -?;....,~ :,::; .... : . -...
<br />increase tq Noise Level (dBA) Hum';n-- 'PeroePtlon-
<br />
<br />: . ... -. 0 to 2 , Not usually noticaable
<br /> 3 -Just noticeable'
<br />: .......... 6 Clearly noticeable '.
<br />
<br /> : 10 Twice as loud .
<br /> 20 ' Four times as loud
<br />
<br />operating, an absolute limit can be used, but it should be chosen
<br />carefully based on the specific environment.
<br /> Noise is a source of environmental stress that can cause
<br />deterioration in the quails, of life as effectively as any other
<br />source. The best way for a municipality to control noise is for its
<br />governing bodies to draft an effective noise ordinance that is
<br />actively enforced. A noise ordinance can be effective and actively
<br />enforced only when the limitations and enforcement proceoures
<br />are easily implemented. Although the field of acoustics and
<br />noise control ma)' seem complicated, it need not be when
<br />dealing with local annoyances. With proper guidance, local
<br />communities can provide a comfortable acoustical environment
<br />for all of their inhabitants.
<br />
<br />Housing Program
<br />Debated in
<br />Montgomery County
<br />
<br />A proposed site for affordable housing under a new program in
<br />Montgomen., County, Mars.,land, is stirring controversy among
<br />wealthy homeowners in the surrounding area. The counD,'S
<br />Producrivits,, Housing Program seeks to increase the availability
<br />of affordable housing to households at or below the areawide
<br />median income, which is close to $60,000 for a four-person
<br />household. Under this plier program, zoning regulations will be
<br />relaxed for six selected sites across the county as an incentive for
<br />developers to build homes for middle-interne buyers.
<br /> The site creating the controveru, is on Newbrldge Drive in
<br />Potomac, in the western part of the county. It consists of 16
<br />acrm of vacant land surrounded by homes costing upwards of
<br />$1 million on two-acre lots. The program will allow up to four
<br />housing units per acre, for a maximum of 64.
<br /> Potomac residents sa), the program will place an undue
<br />burden on their neighborhood. Edgar F. Czarra, Jr., opposes the
<br />placement of these houses on the site opposite his home on the
<br />
<br />grounds of"neighborhood compatibiliD'~ traffic, property
<br />values, compliance with the zoning ordinances and master
<br />plans, and everything the area is set up for." The master plan
<br />designates this site as appropriate for affordable housing. But it
<br />also aims to retain low density for the entire planning area,
<br />causing some confusion over how the land should be developed.
<br /> Many other residents also feel that they have been "targeted"
<br />because of their incomes and because Potomac is reputed to not
<br />carry its fair share of affordable housing, even though it already
<br />has units in a different project aimed at households with an
<br />annual income of around ,5;33,000. According to Srephan/e
<br />Killian, a senior planner with the countT's housing and
<br />communitT development department, the site was chosen not
<br />because it is located in Potomac, but because of its access to
<br />public transportation, water and sewer hook-up, and
<br />environmental suitability.
<br /> The Productivity Housing Citizens Advisory Committee,
<br />three of whose eight yeti.nJ members are Potomac residents,
<br />voted against the Newbridge site in favor ora smaller Potomac
<br />site on the outskirts of the planning area. V"ictor R. Bruscia, the
<br />housing department's director, agreed with on})' two of the
<br />committee's six recommendations, citing "grave reservations"
<br />about the rest, including the alternate Potomac site.
<br /> In a March 29 letter to the committee justin, lng his
<br />renomination of the Newbridge site, he wrote, "The master plan
<br />for this area recommends this site for affordable housing ifa
<br />school is not built. The site is convenient to transportation and
<br />shopping and is currently serviced by existing water and sewer
<br />lines. A total of approximate}), 54 units could be situated on this
<br />tract of land in a design that would screen the 27 ProductiviD'
<br />Housing Units from a view of the existing homes in the
<br />communJt3' as well as from automobiles traveling on Newbridge
<br />Drive. i see no environmental constraints that wi}l prohibit
<br />development of this site at ProductMts., Housing 6ensiries."
<br /> A group of residents disappointed with this nomination has
<br />hired an attorney and vowed to raise hundreds of thousands of
<br />dollars to fight the program in their neighborhood.
<br /> One Potomac resi6ent, however, has taken a stand against
<br />her neighbors. In a letter to the Washington Post, she wrote, "I,
<br />for one special area taxpayer, cannot think of a better wa),.r0
<br />spend my tax money than by bringing new blood to Potomac."
<br />The count),, council is scheduled to make the final decision
<br />on the site locations sometime this summer. Sarah Bohlen
<br />
<br />Black Church Faces
<br />Difficulty in Norfolk
<br />
<br />The welcome mat has nor been out for the Calx, an, Revival
<br />Church in Norfolk, Virginia. The ciD' council created an
<br />unexpected furor last November when it voted 5-2 to rezone
<br />~ 10-acre tract in a commercial area to institutional use to
<br />allow Calvary ~o build a 3,000-seat church. The congregation
<br />serves poor, black 'inner-ciD, families and provides, besides
<br />the ministr)', an educational and community service facili .ty
<br />for its members. '. '
<br /> The proposed location is on East Little Creek Road, a
<br />commercial corridor close to a four-lane major arterial highway.
<br />The area behind the road is occupied b), a predominantly white,
<br />low-income residential neighborhood. The site is occupied by a
<br />farmers' market, which holds a short lease on the land that is
<br />unlikely to be renewed because the owners are anxious to sell.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|