Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/07/2003

Home

98 P~ge 6 -- Iuly 10~ 2003 Z,B. Although the theater was the last adult theater within the city, the takingof its building for redevelopment purposes did not necessarily eliminate reason- able alternatives of communication. The government did not have to ensure adult' theaters or any other speech-related businesses could obtain sites at bar- gain prices. There was ample evidence detailing locations in and around the city fearer/ne adult materials, including some with' booths, and places where videos could be rented. Public access to such mater/als would not be curtailed by the Authority's taking. The redevelopment plan was arrived at after years of study. The authohty determined correcting the neighborhood's blight required acquisition of all the properties in a three-block area and their reuse according to a coordinated overall plan. The only alternative to acquiring the theater was permitting it to continue operation. However, the government's interest in recovering a blighted area would then be severely undermined or destroyed. Citation: Condemnation by Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh of Certain Land in the 22nd Ward, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, Nos. 65 C.D. i999 & 1063 C.D. 2002 (2003). see also: Fleer v. Redevelopment Authority of CounU of Washington, 607 A.2d 311 (i992). see also: United States v. Alberrini, 472 U.S. 675 (1985). Special Use -- Developer wants to build two restaurants Claims pedestrian safety will be dealt with later N-EW YORK (05/19/03) -- Dries proposed building two restaurants between two outlet malls. He applied for a special use permit to do so. The Town Board of the Town of Riverhead denied the application, citing traffic concerns. Dr/es sued, and the court ruled in the board's favor. Dr/es appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The board's decision was correct. The board was concerned about the safety of pedestrians going from the outlets to the restaurants along areas with a high volume of vehicular traffic. Failure to comply with any condition was sufficient to support denial. How- ever, it was impermissible to deny a special use permit based solely on gener- alized objections or commumty pressure. The board's decision was based on evidence submitted by Dries's ex- perts, a State Environmental Quality Review Act report, and the knowledge of the board and community members about traffic flow in the vicinity. Dries was given an opportunity to address the concerns about pedestrian safety raised at a public hearing, but he chose not to, stating the details for pedes- trian crossings would be developed at a later time. This response did not satisfy the board's concerns.