According to the site: "The proposed zoning ordinance limits “group assembly” at residences to 49 people a day. Such gatherings “shall not occur more frequently than three times in any 40-day period.”
What do you all think? I can say from my experience I can see limiting the size and number of gatherings in neighborhoods with limited parking because of the stress on the neighbors. 49 people is a lot and would probably mean 25-30 cars. Also too many cars could hinder emergency vehicles if they needed to get thru.
But then, doesnt that kind of go against a persons rights?
Well, any law which is in any way restrictive goes against the rights of those affected by it, in that they no longer have the right to do whatever it is that the law restricts.
The more interesting question, though, is whether this particular restriction is an unconstitutional infringement of “the right of the people peacably to assemble”, or some other constitutionally-protected right. It’s clear that there’s no absolute and overriding firht to assemble as many people as you like whenever you like wherever you like. I don’t know whether there is much case law on what kind of restrictions and limitations will survive scrutiny by the courts, but planning codes in many places impose restrictions on conducting activities that might generate large crowds.
I had to look it up to see if assembly was even an incorporated right (it is). But there isn’t a lot of case law on just the basic concept of gathering a crowd. The right to assembly is usually used as the basis for some more specific right like forming an organization or participating in a protest.
There’s Cox v. New Hampshire (1941) which says the government can enact time, place, and manner restrictions on speech as long as they’re reasonable and they don’t discriminate based on the content of the speech. I would assume the government has a similar power over assembly. Cox would seem especially relevant because it was over the issue of parade permits.
A separate consideration is privacy. Cox said the government could regulate speech to a limited degree in public spaces. The Virginia ordinance is regulating assembly inside private residences. That’s a key distinction I’d push if I was arguing against this law.
The government might be able to regulate issues like the number of cars parked on the street or the amount of noise that emanates from the crowd. But it arguably cannot set an arbitrary limit on how many people can assemble inside a private residence.
This, like most other matters concerning property externalities, is best left to the community to set and enforce such restrictions. If I live in a mansion it doesn’t make sense to limit my occupancy at 49, but in a small 2-bedroom house 49 occupants is way too many.
It’s not so much the size of the house (except for fire code issues) but the stress on the neighboring community in terms of traffic and parking.
For example, I used to have a close neighbor who held a “garage sale” every single weekend (no exaggeration). That’s really operating a retail business out of your house.
There’s no link to the actual proposed ordinance, so there’s no way to know what type of residential area it’s proposed for. It also doesn’t say if it’s in response to a growing number of complaints. Yes it says that the number of complaints for big group meetings is lower than other complaints, but that’s really not as pertinant as you might think.
Most complaints are for things like overgrown yards needing weed abatement, bushes growing over the sidewalk, excess noise, and loose dogs. The rates of these kinds of things stay pretty constant and guess what these complaints have in common? They all have ordinances controlling them already in place. If 50+ person neighborhood meetings are something new and the rate of complaints is rising, it’s going to end up included in with all the other topics of complaint: it’s going to get its own ordinance.
Let’s enter neighborhood ordinance space. The ordinances cover things that Neighbor A could lodge a complaint for against Neighbor B. An ordinance defines the area of ordinance space in which Neighbor B has to change something to keep from irritating Neighbor A (Neighbor A sometimes being the whole neighborhood) and also the area in which Neighbor A just has to suck it up and get used to it (even if it IS the whole neighborhood).
This can be thought of as eroding the freedom on Neighbor B, or it can be thought of as arming Neighbor A and giving her ammunition against the inconsiderate putz she’s stuck living next to. Without more information it’s hard to know if the new ordinance is an overreaction or if it’s patching a hole in ordinance space that wasn’t known to be there before someone started having weekly meetings of 60 like minded people in his . . . well, I doubt that they’d fit in his living room. They have to be out in the yard.
I think it’s telling that the ‘group assemblies’ of up to 49 are restricted to only 3 every 40 days. That gives it the same feel as a noise ordinance, to me. Count it out. You can have a meeting of 49 people every other week. If you want a larger group, or to meet more often than every two weeks, you have to, say, rent a meeting room at the library. Where there’s a parking lot. And multiple bathrooms.
This does not seem like a huge burden.
ETA - it just dawned on me that the ordinance is also explicitly stating that it’s legal to have meetings of 49 people every other week. In that sense, it’s also arming Neighbor B against that touchy shrew, Neighbor A.
Seems reasonable to have some limits on large group activities in a residential neighborhood. Three times in a 40 day period doesn’t sound like an excessive burden to me. They should probably establish a permit for more frequent occurences so there’s a work-around for some legitimate work-around in case it’s needed.
That’s begging the question. It’s not an issue of which level of government should set the standards. It’s a question of whether any level of government should be allowed to enact laws on this.
If a law said that no Catholics could live in a neighbourhood, it would obviously be unconstitutional regardless of whether it was enacted by the town, the state, or the federal government.
If you have a mansion, with a wall around it, and everyone is parking in your overflow parking area near the garage, who is going to lodge a complaint against you? In your case the ordinance will be moot.
If you’ve got a “mansion” without a screening wall and two mile driveway, and your group is parking in front of the other “mansions” - your neighbors were probably the ones who called their county representative, instead of the neighborhood complaint line, and got this ordinance drafted.
This appears to have stemmed from some complaints about people using a residential property for non residential usages, well that is what I got from the link that is inside the link the OP gave, but even that is vague as to what the problem is.
There should be a more direct way like if certain conditions are met then reclassifing the home to a ‘assembly hall’ or something which could fall under controls as to what could be done there, and what modifications would have to be made to ensure the safety of the guests and what is the max limit that the structure could accommodate.
This way you don’t run afoul of upsetting a kids birthday party, or a wedding or funeral, all fall within the normal usage of residential houses and can exceed the numbers given.
That’s a common problem - we’ve got one in our neighborhood - but one would assume such things would be forbidden by zoning restrictions. There is no Constitutional right to run a business in a place meant solely for residential purposes.
I suspect the law noted in the OP would be defended on the basis of being a reasonable limitation on the use of the property that is meant to uphold its intended purpose. Residential areas are not meant to host concerts. The article linked in the OP is remarkably alarmist.
I suspect a lot of this is the result of recent immigrants running churches out of the home in denser neighborhoods and taking up every parking spot every sunday.
Ouch. Yeah, assembly halls and churches might be allowed in residential areas, but they’d be required to have a parking lot. There would be occupancy limits on the building and a required number of parking slots based on maximum occupancy.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
Amend Article 10, Accessory Uses, Accessory Service Uses, Home Occupations, by 1 amending Sect. 10-102, Permitted Accessory Uses, to add the new Par. 31, to read as 2 follows: 3
4
10-102 Permitted Accessory Uses 5
6
Accessory uses and structures shall include, but are not limited to, the following uses and 7 structures; provided that such use or structure shall be in accordance with the definition of 8 Accessory Use contained in Article 20. 9
10
31. Group assembly when accessory to a dwelling unit shall be permitted, except any group 11 assembly exceeding forty-nine (49) people in one day shall not occur more frequently than 12 three (3) times in any forty (40) day period. 13
14
Amend Article 20, Ordinance Structure, Interpretation and Definitions, by adding a new 15 use of Group Assembly in proper alphabetical order, as follows: 16
17
GROUP ASSEMBLY: A permitted accessory use to the principal use of a dwelling unit; 18 however, such group assembly shall not include a CHILD CARE CENTER, CULTURAL 19 CENTER, HEALTH CLUB, PRIVATE CLUB, PRIVATE SCHOOL OF GENERAL OR 20 SPECIAL EDUCATION, RETAIL SALES ESTABLISHMENT, THEATER or any other 21 assembly for commercial purposes. 22
23
24
As written, it appears to be very difficult to enforce. To prove a violation, you’d have to prove 4 or more gatherings of 50 or more people at the same place within a 40 day period. Apparently an infinite number of gatherings of 49 or fewer people are permitted. Unless you require every house to install a turnstile with a date stamped and a counter at the door, I don’t how how the hell you conveniently prove that. Are the cops going to show up at every party and count people, then check their calendars for the last 40 days to cross reference other parties at the same address? I doubt it.
I think it probably passes muster as a zoning ordinance. It seems to me to be somewhat similar to the “time/place/manner” restrictions you mentioned above.
