Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2" February 10, 2000 " Z.B. <br /> <br /> Adult Ente~alnment-- City amends nnconsfitutional licensing and zoning <br /> ordinance. <br /> : <br /> NEVADA (01/14/00)'--.Baby Tam & Co. Inc. appealed the rem0~al of a per- <br /> /nanent'injuncfion enj0i~in~ the city of Las Vegas from denying Baby,Tam a <br /> Hccnse to operate an adult bookstore. The city was enjoined as long as' th6 <br /> city's bookstore licensing and zoning 9,r.dinance failed to provide for prompt <br /> review of licensing'denials by :a judiciflT~ffi~,er.. - · .." <br /> '~- In accordance with the court order, .the. dity'added a ndw section to its zon- <br /> ing and li~nsing or~,din...anc.e. The new seCtion stated: "(A) The Director shall <br /> issue.or deny the book~'to3e ~iCense'to~h;~&pplicant Within thirty days from <br /> recmpt of a complete application and f"e~;~:upon 'compliance 'with'the require- <br /> ments of this Section and any applicable,"~rovisions 6f Title 6 of this Code. (B) <br /> .?id~.~'of the DireCtor to appr0Ye:or deny.,,._.fine license application within the <br /> hlrty days shall r~ul~ in the lic~ii~e beih'~"~ted." ' " · <br /> After the new sections'were added,:the city ~ked the'cOurt t° remove the <br /> injunction. The court granted the city'~'3equest. ' <br /> - ptmal .es1 ' .. <br /> -' '-. Baby Tam a . <br /> · -:.:s,...~.. . ,..- :.... ,: ,. ,. ,.,.~. . 5-;, :.. . :~ .. . <br /> DECISION: Reversed and returned to lower court. <br /> .! "Tile ordinance Was' itill uhC0nstim{i~6nal because it'failed to Provide an <br /> adequate time limit for decisions ....... <br /> Section (B) said the director had to act "within the thirty days." The use of <br /> "the" identified the 30 daYs as the period referred to in Section (A). <br /> Under (A), the 30 days began after "the receipt of a complete applica- <br />tion and fees upon compliance with the requirements of this Section and <br />any applicable provisions of Title 6 of'this Code." Other applicable provi- <br />sions of the ~ode i:eferred to health standhrds, zoning, and fire and sitfety <br />laws. There was no time limit for th~=.~.S._.atisfaction of th~ds~"r~qUirements.. <br />· Consequently, the 30 days within which, the director must act could be in- <br />:~:5 definitely POstponed. This possibility~mhde the ordinance unconstitutional <br /> Under the First and 14th Amendments2"T:,< 5, :, . - ..,.: ,. . <br /> .~.'-' .'::_ ... .: ...... <br /> ' Citation: B%y Tdm/& Co'.'Inc. '). City '~i~a Vegas, 9th U.S. Circui~ Court of <br /> <br /> Hawaii, Idaho, Montans, Nevada, Oregon; and Washington. <br /> see also: FW/PBS Inc. v. City of D~llas, 4~$ U.S. 215 (1~90). . <br /> se~ also: Baby Tam & Co. Inc. v. City of Las Vegas, I54 F. 3d 1097 (1998). <br /> <br /> Subdivision . Developer clair~ plm~ does'not reqUire board approval <br /> IVIASSACHUSETTS (01/(~4/®) -- Gates wanted to divide Ns property into <br /> 12 lots. Gates submitted an "approval not required" (/MNR) plan to the Planning <br /> <br /> <br />