Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/03/2010

Home

April 25,2010 ~ Volume 4 ~ No. 8 Zoning Bulletin the court held, in making such an assessment, "courts must consider the adequacy of alternatives available at the time the ordinance is chal- lenged"-not just when it is passed. Courts should therefore account for circumstances as they exist at the time the court issues its judgment, or as close to that time as is practicable.. The court said this is because postenactment changes could impact the sufficiency of available alter- - natives for communication and thus the constitutionality of an ordi- nance. Following the enactment of an ordinance limiting the location of adult-oriented businesses, alternative locations could disappear or they could increase. If the only consideration for constitutionality was the alternatives available at the time of enactment, then ordinances with adequate alternatives at that time would thereafter be immune from First Amendment challenge. Conversely, "a strict time-of-passage rule might arguably make it impossible for a city. to save a constifu- tionally deficient ordinance" such as by trying to make alternative sites more available. Based on its holding, the court vacated the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceeding. See also: City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41, 106 S. Ct. 925, 89 L. Ed. 2d 29,,12 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1721 (1986). j See also: Young v. Ameritan Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 96 S. Ct. ~~ 244Q 49 L. Ed. 2d 310, 1 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1151 (1976). Case Note: TJS had also argued that, in considering. its First Amendment challenge and the availability of alternative sites for its adult-oriented business; the district court was required to "con- sider only sites available to classes of businesses similar in physical characteristics to an adult entertainment business." The court of appeals disagreed. It said that "if sites are part of the commercial market generally, they are available even if they are not commer- cially viable for adult business specifically." Standing-City .grants permit to telecommunications provider City resident challenges giant, and city says resident lacks standing Citation: Drago a Garment, 2010 WL 769692. (S.D. N.Y. 2010) NEW YORK (03/02/10)-This case addressed the issue of wheth- er persons adversely affected by a local zoning board's decision to al- low the construction of a wireless cell antenna have a right under the © 2010 Thomson Reuters 58