Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2000

Home

Page 4 -- January 25, 2000 the "B-4 zone," in which adult entertainment and other commercial uses were authorized. The ·zone, although existing in theory, did not actually contain any parcels of land. In 1992, D.H.L. Associates Inc. applied for and received both an all-alcoholic beverage license and a live entertainment license for its restau- rant. The restaurant was located in a general commercial use zone. : In 1994, D.H.L. advertised it would begin presenting nude dancing. The following month, an open town meeting was held to discuss adult entertain- ment. Soon after, the town notified D.H.L.. adult entertainment was not in- eluded in its entertainment license. The .town zoning ordinance defined "adult entertainment establishments" as including those providing live entertainment "which consists of entertainers engaging in sexual conduct or nudity." ' D.H.L. applied to amend its entertainment license to include adult enter- tainment based on its belief its entertainrfient license inherently authorized adult The board of selectmen held a hearing to consider D.H.L:'s request but delayed a decision. The next evening, a~'aresult of a petition signed by several hundred registered voters, a special toWn meeting was held to consider adopt- lng an ordinance prohibiting establishments holding liquor licenseS from of- fering any form of nude entertainment.::: . O'Gorman, the chairman of the board of selectmen, instrUcted the town administrator and the special counsel t6 research adult entertainment, how it could be controlled, how it could be zoried, and how other ~ommunities were handling it. The town was aware that two clubs in town allegedly offering adult entertainment generated more police calls than .other clubs did. Alleg- edly, public reaction to a proliferation of unlicensed adult entertainment was tremendous, and many residents expres.s.ed great concern. The selectmen sub- sequently denied D.H.L"s application lip ~.amend its entertaihment license to include live nude dancing because the restaurant wa~ 'not located within the B-4 Zone., -,:, - '.. · .: ,, '~. -' ' ' ' ' '~ i '..' After. the application to amend was ~e~i.'ed, the town reissued D.H.L.'s en- tertainment license,annually, but refused.t..9,extend it to include nude dancing. Although the restaurant offered nude dancing on a daily basis, the town made only one attempt to enforce the license's.I.~m!tations or.othe .r~yise penalize the restaurant for:. violating zo.nin, g.and liceri~ing.~ 'regulati0n. s.-.~ ... .: . . : .:. D.H.L. sued, alleging its state and f..e. deral constitutionhl rights were vio- lated. The town asked for the case to be heard in federal c0urti' . 'Prior to trial, town' residents establish&d'a B"-4 'gone on 'twO"small lots of land in a commeicial 'subdivision. Th& c'0urt'upheld the Constitutionality of the ordinance, basing its decision on the ne.W.l:) established zone. D.H.L. appealed. It challenged the town's claim the ordinance was enacted becauSe of the secondary effects of nud~ dancing onlY. D.H.L. claimed Tyngsborough did not rely on any studies' of these potential.effects. It also argued the new zone did not provide enough opportunity for D.H.L. to engage in constitutionally protected speech.