Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/04/2009

Home

74 May 10, 20091 Volume 31 No.9 Zoning Bulletin ; i. I. I I I i I I J I I I i I j I I found that Moon would still have a buildable strip of land that was nei- ther-as Moon had claimed-"so small or narrow as to render it com- pletely unbuiIdable." See also: Bloom v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 233 Conn. 198, 658 A.2d 559 (1995). .~ ( ) Case Note: In rendering its decision, the court emphasized that "mere economic hardship" or a self-created hardship was not suf-. ficient to justify a variance. Nor was financial loss or the potential for financial gain. Constitutionality of Zoning Regulations- Ordinance prohibits lIadult entertainmentll businesses in specific zones in the township Adult novelty store owner says ordinance violates the First Amendment right to free speech . Cit~tion: Township af Cinnaminsan v. Bertino, 405 N.]. Super. 521, 966 A,2d 14 (App. Div. 2009) . (~) NEW JERSEY (03/09/09)-In July 2007, Robert and Deana Bertino began operating an adult novelty store in the township. The store was lo- cated in a strip mall in an area designated by the township as a Building Development Redevelopment Zone (the "BD Zone"). Merchandise sold at the store consisted mostly of adult novelty items, including: lingerie; greeting cards; games; videos; and "how-to-manuals." When the store opened for business, the Bertinos did not have, among other things, a site plan approval or a zoning permit. The township ob- tained a court order temporary closing the store, and the Bertinos then filed an application fora zoning permit. Eventually, the township's zon- ing officer, John Marshall, determined that the Bertinos' proposed use was not permitted under ~ 41l-8C(1) of the township's zoning code (the "Ordinance"). The Ordinance prohibited "adult entertainment (book- stores, video stores, theaters, exotic dancing)" in the .BD Zone. The township's Board of Adjustment affirmed Marshall's decision. In court, the Bertinos challenged the constitutionality of the Ordi- nance. They argued that the Ordinance violated the First Amendment right to free speech. The township argued that the. Ordinance "advanced a legitimate governmental purpose by preserving the integrity and char- acter of the [BD Z]one." Both parties moved for summary judgment, asking the court to find there were no material issues of fact and to de- cide the matter in their favor on the law alone. 4 1 I I 1 I @ 2009 Thomson R~ut~r~... _._. _~ ( ) ....--/