Opinion ID: 2178314
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Omission of Certain Conditions from the 1989 Campus Plan

Text: In 1990, when the BZA approved American University's 1989 Campus Plan, its Order incorporated the terms of a separate 1989 agreement between the University and several community organizations. Commitments that the University made in that agreement thereby became conditions of the 1989 Plan. In the proceedings on the 2000 Campus Plan, the issue arose as to whether those commitments should be carried forward automatically as conditions of the new Plan. Concluding not, the Zoning Commission ruled that [a]ny conditions which the parties believe should be included for the next 10 years must be specifically addressed in the record of this case and incorporated by the Zoning Commission in its new order. [6] Thereafter, in its Order approving the 2000 Campus Plan, the Commission did not find it necessary to incorporate verbatim all of the detailed commitments that American University had made to neighborhood groups in 1989. Illustratively, and of particular (although not sole) concern to petitioners, the Commission modified a provision relating to noise abatement at the University's athletic fields, which are located on the western boundary of the Main Campus. The 1989 Plan specifically required loudspeakers at the athletic fields to be directed away from the neighboring residences, inward toward the campus. Instead of this precise directional restriction, the Commission required as a condition of the 2000 Campus Plan that loudspeakers not be permitted unreasonably to interfere with or disturb neighbors' enjoyment of their property or with the University's academic or administrative activities. Petitioners contend that the Commission acted improperly in eliminating without explanation the directional restriction and other University commitments that the BZA had imposed as conditions in approving the 1989 Campus Plan. We are not persuaded. The Commission was not bound by what the BZA decided in a separate proceeding on an application for approval of a different campus plan. The mere fact that the BZA deemed particular conditions appropriate in 1990 does not mean that the same conditions were necessary over a decade later, let alone that the Commission was without discretion to revise those conditions. [7] We are obliged to affirm the Commission's conclusionsi.e., the conditions it chose to imposeso long as they are rational and not arbitrary or capricious. See, e.g., President & Dirs. of Georgetown College, 837 A.2d at 67. That test is met here. Petitioners argue that the University failed to present evidence to justify the omission of a specific directional restriction in the loudspeaker condition that the Commission imposed. But the Commission agreed with petitioners on the necessity for a condition to ensure that the University's loudspeakers would not have an objectionable impact on the neighborhood. The only issue was the best way to formulate that condition. In our view, as with the parking sticker proposal, the Commission was not required to dictate the minute particulars of enforcement. Ordering the University to solve the problem in only one wayto point its loudspeakers in only one directionmay be too restrictive; it may be unnecessary or have adverse unforeseen consequences. In lieu of a straitjacket approach, the Commission is entitled to insist that the University meet a general level of performance and yet give the University leeway as to how to achieve that level. Such a demand is not toothless; as we said before, the University is exposed to serious consequences if it does not comply.