Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/05/1999

Home

Page 8 -- December 10, 1998 Z.B. tainment to get a permit. In January 1995, the housing department's commis- sioner sent all owners of adult businesses a letter explaining the licensing ordi- nance. The letter stated all owners had until June 1995 to comply with the ordinance. Dembo knew about the licensing requirement but never applied for a license. The housing department cited Dembo for violating the licensing ordinance and ordered him to discontinue all adult entertainment at his club. Dembo appealed to the zoning board, seeking a permit to use the premises as a tavern with live entertainment and dancing, including adult entertainment. The board determined Dembo's tavern was no longer eligible for a license as a nonconforming adult entertainment business and denied his request. The board said the tavern had been a legal nonconforming use but Dembo's failure to apply for a license for more than a year meant he abandoned its nonconform- ing status. Dembo appealed to court. The court reversed the board's decision, finding the tavern's nonconforming status wasn't terminated simply because Dembo failed to get a license. The court ordered the city to issue Dembo a certificate of occupancy allowing him to use the premises for a tavern "with live entertain- ment, dancing, and adult entertainment." The court also found the licensing ordinance couldn't be enforced against legal nonconforming uses. The city appealed. DECISION: Reversed in part. Dembo's business didn't lose its nonconforming status, but Dembo still needed to get a license. The board failed to see the difference between the city's power to zone and its power to license. A property owner couldn't lose its nonconforming status simply by failing to comply with a licensing law. Dembo's business would have "abandoned" its nonconforming status only if it had .stopped offering adult entertainment. But even though Dembo's business retained its nonconforming status, he still had to comply with the new licensing ordinance. The city had the power to regulate nonconforming adult businesses to protect the health and welfare of its citizens. The city had the power to enforce reasonable regulations against nonconforming adult businesses unless those regulations would immediately terminate the businesses' nonconforming status. Dembo had the right to apply for a license to operate as an adult entertain- ment business, and the city had the right to pursue any available enforcement remedies against him if he refused to get a license. see also: Beugnot v. Coweta County, 500 S.E. 2d 28 (]998). see also: Rhod~A-Zalea & 35th Inc. v. Snohomish County, 959 P. 2d ]024 (1998). see also: Mortimer v. Howard Research and Development Corporation, 575 A.2d 750 (1990).