Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin <br />February 25, 2011 1 Volume 51 No. 4 <br />See also: Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 111 S. Ct. 2456, <br />115 L. Ed. 2d 504 (1991). <br />See also: California v. LaRue, 409 U.S. 109, 93 S. Ct. 390, 34 L. Ed. 2d <br />342 (1972). <br />Case Note: In its decision, the court noted that "adult entertainment <br />zoning ordinances and generally applicable public nudity ordinances <br />`must be distinguished and evaluated separately. "' Zoning ordinanc- <br />es were constitutional and not in violation of the First Amendment <br />if they survived the three -part test described in the decision. Con- <br />tent- neutral public nudity ordinances were constitutional if they met <br />a different, four -part test: (1) whether the government acted within <br />the bounds of its constitutional power in enacting the ordinance; <br />(2) whether the ordinance furthers a substantial government inter- <br />est; (3) whether the government interest is unrelated to the suppres- <br />sion of free expression; and (4) whether the ordinance restricts First <br />Amendment freedoms no more than is essential to further the gov- <br />ernment's interests. Here, the court found the County also met its <br />burden under the second prong of that former test. <br />Repeal of Regulations— County Rescinds <br />Conditional Commercial Zoning Designation of <br />Portion of Landowner's Land <br />Landowner says this rescission is an unconstitutional taking <br />and deprives him of procedural due process <br />Citation: Bettendorf v. St. Croix County, 2011 WL 167030 (7th Cir. <br />2011) <br />The Seventh U.S. Circuit has jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana, and <br />Wisconsin. <br />SEVENTH U.S. CIRCUIT (WISCONSIN) (01/20/11) —This case in- <br />volved the rescission of a commercial zoning designation of a portion of <br />a landowner's property, in response to a court order to do so. The case <br />addressed the issue of whether that rescission of the zoning designation: <br />(1) amounted to a government taking without just compensation; and <br />(2) deprived the landowner of his procedural due process rights. <br />The Background/Facts: John Bettendorf owned property in St. Croix <br />County (the "County"). When Bettendorf acquired the property, it was <br />zoned agricultural- residential. In 1984, Bettendorf applied to the County <br />Planning, Zoning, and Parks Committee (the "Committee ") for a rezone <br />of a portion of his property to commercial so that he could operate a <br />© 2011 Thomson Reuters 5 <br />