Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/04/2003

Home

Z.B. ". August 10, 200`9 -- P~ge 6 to disparate treatment compared to other businesses in the town and compared to other applicants for zoning permits.'' They alleged that th/s treatment was irrational and wholly' arbitrary because it was based on a preconceived intent to destroy their business. This was sufficient to allow them to continue with t. heir equal protection claim. Citation: Gavlak v. Town o1' Some, s, U.S. DiStrict Court. for the Disrr,ict of Connecticut, No. 3.'02 CV 1410 (2003). see aiso: Ru.~o v. Civ~ O?'h~ar~brd, !84 F.. So,pp. 2d 169 (2002.): Adult Entertainment -- ZBA approves ordinance requiring special permit for exotic dancing Ordinance challenged on First Am,ndment grounds ILLINOIS (6/10/0.9) -- :am ~!derman of the Rocldord Ci2~ Council' suggested that r. he city's zoning ordinance add adult entertainment, including exotic danc- ing, [o uses that required a special penmt. ~e council then recommended this change and filed the text amendments with the city's zoning officen The Zoning Board of Appeals voted to approve the amendments, and the council then adopted the new ordinance on Dec. 9, 2002. The ne w ordinance described exotic dancing and further denied %lig}bility f,)~ a special permit for an exotic dancing night club in any of these distri, cts unless ir is more than 1000 feet from a church, school, residential district, or another exotic dancing nigl~tctub." The minutes of. the ZBA meeting reflected concerns that such uses in con- centrated areas or near residential uses attracted prostitution and other prob- lems. The new text amendments would help control such activities and prevent adverse effects on adjoining neighborhoods. R.V.S. LLC was in the planning stage of opening an establis~hrnent that could fail within the definition of exotic dancing and within 1000 feet of a residential area. RVS sued, seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop the city from enforcing the new ordinance. RVS claimed the new ordi- nance violated the Fb:st Amendment. RVS contended the ordinance was vague, overbroad, and an unlawful prior restraint on expression. DECISION: Judgment for the city, RVS contended the zoning ordinance gave city Officials unbridled discre- tion to deny an application for a special use perrmt and did not limit the time within which the decision maker had to issue a permit. The court disagreed. The city did not have unbridled discretion to deny a special use permit for exotic dancing wit, hour showing the particular exotic dancing club at that particular proposed location would have adverse effects ' above and beyond those associated with the same uses lo'cared elsewhere in the zoning district. Insofar as the time iirmtarions, the court noted that procedures for obtain- ing a special use permit applied to applications for ail uses, nor only exotic 133