Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/10/2003

Home

Page 4 -- June 10, 2003 Further, members of the public commented on whether the project com- plied with the city ordinance. Furthermore, Richmond filed a deta/led letter addressing issues raised throughout the hearing, including issues concerning compliance with the ordinance. Here, the court could not conclude the board acted unreasonably. In addition, there was sufficient evidence to support at least one' of the reasons for denial of the plan. The board found the project to be incompatible with the e,'cisting architectural and historic character of the historic buildings on or near the site and inconsistent with the patterns of the city. Testimony at the hearings and documents explained the value of the area's historic buildings and the need to preserve the style. Experts opined the project showed an ind/.f- ference to the .history and character of the city and provided little landscape desig-n, no plaza, and did not enhance the tributary to the Men4mack River. This opin/on and letters from the Concord Heritage Commission~ New Hamp* shire Division of Historical Resources, and other architects were sufficient to support the board's findings. Citation: The Richmond Company Inc. v. City of Concord, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, No. 2002-314 (2003). see also: Rix v. Kinderworks Corp, 618 A.2d 833 (t992). 192 Adult Entertainment-- Was adults-only entertainment definition ambiguous ? Owners claim city needs to prove business was ~obscene or harmful to juveniles' OHIO (04/15/03) -- Kahoots Was operated in a Commercial Planned Devel, opment District ("CPDD"). The city code prohibited the operation of "adults only entertainment" establishments in CPDDs and defined adults-only enter- tainment establishments as establishments that "feature totally nude, topless, bottomless, strippers, male or female impersonators, or similar entertainment or services which are obscene or harmful to juveniles." An investigator for the City of Columbus Building and Development Code Enforcement Section visited Kahoots on two occasions and observed enter- tainment that he believed violated the code. Kahoots was served with a zoning code violation order, alleging it was operating an adult entertahament establishment in violation of the CPDD. The Board of Zoning Appeals agreed, even though Kahoots argued, cording to the code, there had to be a determination that any topless or bottom- less dancing was "obscene or harrm~l to juveniles." The city responded that the phrase "obscene or harmful to juveniles" mod~t2ed the words "similar en- tert',fi.nment or services" and did 'not modify the words "topless" or "bottomless." Kahoots appe'aled to the lower court, wtfich alTn-med the board's decision. Here, the court decided the defin/t/on of an adult enterta/nment establishment