Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2000

Home

,il) Z.B. -january 25, 2000 Page 5 DECISION: Affirmed.- , . The zoning decision did not Violate D.H.L.'s constitutional rights. Nude dancing was presumably constitutionally protected speech. The ira- portant question was whether the zoning ordinance was content-based or con- tent-neutral. An ordinance was not cohtent-neutral if it was adopted because the government disagreed with the.m,essage being, conveyed. An ordinance unrelated to the content Of the expressio, n was content-neutral if it was aimed at controlling secondary effects resulting from the protected .expression rather Tyngsborough was entiti~d to rely 6n the experiences of surrounding cities and towns. There was reason to believe negative secondary effects from nude dancing, which could involve significant consequences for community wel- such an ordinance, to conduct new studies or produce evidence other than that already generatedby other cities, S.O. !o~g as the evide~!ce the ~ity relied on was reasonably believed to be relevant to the problem.. Pr0tec .ting and preserving the quality of life was an important i~t[rest of TyngsboroUgh. Because the ordinance did not create an outright ban on adult entertain- ment and was enacted to address the s~condarY effects Of ·adult entertainment rather than its content, it was a time, place; and manh'er'restricti0n. To be con- stitutional, such restrictions must be. n.arrowly tailored to serve a substantial government interest and allow reasonable alternative aveflues of communi6ation. The ordinance was narrowly tailored because it' only applied to adult enter- tainment providers and did not effect other forms of entertainment. Also, Tyngsborough's use of a zoning ordin .ance to restrict the activity confined the ~mpact of the restriction to the.location of the actiwty only. There were reasonable~ . alternative avenues of commumcation even if only .09867 percent of the l~ind withifi the ~lown's border~.~as"designated as a B4 zone. Nothihg required 'a specific: · proportion 'of a:mUni~ipality be open for' adult businesses or'thata certain number of Sites. b~:~t~ailable'. Tyngsb6rough was a small rural town in which the commermal distri'c~'0'c6Upi~d vei-y little of the town's total acreage· All of the lots~in the B-4 zone Were potentially avail- Citation: D.H.L. Associat'~s inc2 v.. O'~orman, 1st. U.S: '~irCuit Court of- The 1st Circuit has jurisdic'tion Over Maine; MassachUsetts, New Hampshi~re, Puerto Rico; and Rhode Island. , ' '. see also: Barnes v. Glen Theatre Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991). see also: International Food & Bever~g~ Systems v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 794 E2d 1520 (1986). -" ~. -. -. Variance -- Zoning board's decisions regarding similar variance requests differ ., NORTH CAROLINA (12/21/99) ~ Through the Looking Glass Inc. (Glass)