Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/02/2004

Home

November i 0. 2004- Page Noise Restrictions -- Commission allows uni-v-ersity to decide how to cumpl? with noise ordinance .. .4mends earlier campus pla~, specifying direction speakers could point Cir~rion: Syrin.¢ ~/~z[ley-~kziey Hei.ghrs Citizenx Association v, Disv~cr qF Co&mbia Zonin~ Cornmis.~ion, Dia'tncr of Columbia Court of Appealx, No. 02-&4-575 (2004) D [STP~CT O F C O L r~IB L~ (09/02/04) ~ ~efican University maintained campuses m residential districts in Was~ngron. D.C. in ~u ;~, after a prolonged decision-ma~nt process, the Disr~ct of Colum- bia Zoning Co~ss~on approved a campus plan-replacing the "1%9 Campus PIan." Under the 1989 Plan, the university was requ~ed to point loudspeakers at ~ts athletic fields away from the neighborhood. The new plan'contained no direc [ional restriction. The neighborhood .sued. and the court ruled in favor of the co~ssion. The neighborhood appealed, arguing the change in the campus plan was arbm'ary and capricious. The commission's conditions were neither arbitrary nor capricious. The co~ission agreed with the neighborhood on the necessity for a con- dition [o ensure the university's loudspeakers would not haFe an objectionable Unpacr on the neighborhood. The only issue to address was the best way form ulare that condition. The co~ission was not required to dictate the.2nute particulars of forcement. Ordering the university to solve the problem in only one way, for example, by pointing its speakers in one direction, was possibly too restrictive. In r'act, ir could be unnecessary or have unforeseen consequences. in lieu of a straightjacket approach, the co~ssion was entitled to insist the university meet a general level of peffo~ance, and yet give the university l. eewt~y as to how to achieve that level. Such a demand was not meritkess, as the 'university was exposed to serious consequences if it did not comply. ~'ee ,:tLro: Geocyerown Residents Alliance v. District of Cohm~bia Board Zonin.7,4djuszme~r, 802 A. 2d 359 (~ OOz). First Amendment -- Reli~ous school wants to expand and renovate Wlhtge denies application based on traffic and parking concer~z$ C'iz,.z:i,),.' ~F.wche.~'rer D~v School v. Village of Mcm~ronec.(, 2nd U.S. Circuit C,;,t r; ,¥' .4pl.~ecd. r, ,Vo. 03-9042 (2004; T.r~,~ 2rul Circuit hots j[u'ixdicrion over Conneoric,.tr, New ~brk, ant/ Vermont. NEW YORK t09/27/04~ ~ W~srchester Day School-operated 3s an Orthodox ;,~w::>;h ,:lay school m ~he V[tlage of Mamaroneck. The 3chool submitted an application for modification of &e special permit · :~:, 2~,:' '.,.. ::~,.:h ir '~yert~ted. qee~dn~ :o n!!,0w const~2cri,)n c.f ~ ne',., sch,:,ei b. uiidin~-. i: 200.z 'Zulntarn 9t',c~s~r~(~ ~,©uc. Any :aoroduc:lon it; ronib~ted. For more ,flforma[iofl 3ieass :ail '677! 89