Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/06/1999

Home

Z.B. February 25, 1999 Page 3 was an "adult eating establishment" and therefore couldn't operate in its cur- rent location. There was no question the cabaret "regularly" featured adult entertainment. Its owner admitted the cabaret featured topless dancing, as well as table and lap dances for a fee. The cabaret's argument that the city's zoning regulations didn't apply because it didn't admit minors defied logic and common sense. Regardless of whether in one isolated instance Stringfellow's admitted a 13-year-old boy, which it never actually proved, the cabaret didn't "customar- ily'' admit minors. The cabaret's status as an adult establishment was defined by the nature of its entertainment, which it admitted was meant for an adult clientele. That the same entertainment might also be attractive to minors with or without parental approval didn't change the nature of the business or re- move it from the scope of the zoning regulations. see also: Stringfellow's of New York Ltd. v. City of New York, 91 N.Y.2d 382. see also: Hickerson v. City of New York, 997 ESupp. 418. Editor's Note: The constitutionality of the zoning regulations in question was discussed in the Feb. 10 issue of Zoning Bulletin's. surnrna~y of the U.S. Su- preme Court's decision in Hickerson v. City of New York and Amsterdam Video Inc. v. City of New York. Code Violation .... Owner says court can't order him to remove junk vehicles . Citation: Polk County v. Mueller, Court of Appeals of 14qsconsin, Dist. 3, No. 98-2312 (1999) Mueller owned property in Polk County, Wis. The county cited him for operating an auto salvage yard in violation of the county land use ordinance. At trial, a zoning official testified ~that she saw 41 "junk or salvage" ve- hicles on Mueller's property and said Mueller had admitted that he sold car parts from the cars on the premises. ; Mueller claimed he planned to trade, not sell, parts from the cars. He admitted many of the cars couldn't be operated on a public road but said the cars were for his own personal use, even though most were unlicensed and uninsured. Based on the evidence, which included photos of Mueller's property, the court determined that Mueller was operating an illegal salvage yard. The court ordered Mueller to pay a fine of $1,319 and gave him 60 days to bring his property into compliance by either removing or registering and insuring the cars. If Mueller brought his property into compliance within 60 days, the fine would be reduced to $209. Mueller appealed, claiming there wasn't enough evidence for the court to find him guilty of operating a salvage yard. He also claimed the court had no authority to order him to license'and insure the cars remaining on his property as a means of correcting the code violations. According to Mueller, all the court could do was fine him.