Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/03/2011

Home

August 25, 2010 1 Volume 4 1 No. 16 Zoning Bulletin Street (the "Residence ") in the city. The Residence was owned by Angel Barrios and leased to Flava Works. The Residence was lo- cated in a district zoned multifamily high- density residential (R -4). The persons residing at the Residence were independent contrac- tors of Flava Works. In exchange for $1,200 per month plus free room and board, the residents were "expected to engage in sexual relations which [we]re captured by the webcams located through- out the house." Individual subscribers paid Flava Works, through the Web site, for access to video feeds from the Residence. Flava Works' principal place of business, where accounting and financial aspects of the business were conducted, was at a different address. The computer servers, which housed the digital content and provided access to the Web site, were also located at a differ - ent address. In June 2007, the city notified Barrios that Flava Works was ille- gally operating a business in a residential zone. In August 2007, the city's code enforcement board (the "Board ") found Barrios and Flava Works violating a city ordinance prohibiting the operation of a busi- ness in a residential zone. Barrios and Flava Works filed an action in federal district court, seeking to quash the decision of the Board. The district court held that "the activities taking place at [the Resi- dence] [did] not amount to the unlawful operation of a business in a residential zone." The city appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, held that the activities taking place at the Residence violated the city ordinance prohibiting operation of a business in a residential zone. Flava Works was illegally operating a business in the residential zone. Flava Works had argued that no "business" was being conducted at the Residence because "no goods were bought or sold and noth- ing was manufactured on the premises." The court disagreed. It noted that the activities taking place at the Residence were "part and par- cel" to Flava Works' business operations. "The fact that certain as- pects of the business [were] performed at other locations [did] not al- ter th[at] analysis." Images, which were later sold over the Internet, were created at the Residence. While those images were not "tangible goods," the court found they had a "commercial value" and enabled Flava Works to "earn a profit." The court found those characteristics 10 © 2010 Thomson Reuters