Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/05/1999

Home

Page 4 m September 10, 1999 Z.B. tising devices, it did allow Medina to use stationary signs for advertising purposes. In fact, she already had five signs on her store, including two neon "open" signs. Citation: Medina v. Town of Watertown, Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial Dist. of Waterbury, at Waterbury, No. 970140408 (1999). see also: Central Hudson Gas v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557, lO0 S. Ct. 2343, 65 L.Ed. 2d 341 (]980). see also: Burns v. Barrett, 561 A.2d 1378 (1989). Variance Topless club accuses village of selectively enforcing variance restriction NEW YORK (8/11/99) -- LaTrieste Restaurant operated the Diamond Club, a topless sports bar in Port Chester. It had a variance that allowed it to operate in a district that prohibited live entertainment. The variance, which was issued to the previous occupant, allowed live music, dancing, and other cabaret entertainment only after 10 p.m. The previous owner violated the time restriction, but the village took no action. That business closed. The owners of LaTrieste leased the premises in 1992, and four months later, opened a restaurant that offered live music. The owners told the village they would abide by the 10 p.m. restriction, but they violated the restriction by starting live music between 7 and 9 p.m. on weekends. The village took no action. The restaurant closed a year later. In 1993, the owners opened the Diamond Club. The club attracted strong public opposition, and the mayor personally picketed the club. He told resi- dents he would use all of the village's resources to legally stop any topless entertainment in the village. Like its predecessors, the Diamond Club violated the zoning restriction by offering topless dancing before 10 p.m. The village issued a violation notice warning the club it would lose its certificate of occupancy if it continued to violate the restriction. The owners asked the zoning board for a new variance allowing them to provide topless dancing before I0 p.m., but the board denied their request. A court later upheld its decision. The owners continued to ignore the 1t3 p.m. restriction, and the village responded with additional violation notices. The owners sued the village, claiming it violated their constitutional right to equal protection by selectively enforcing the 10 p.m. restriction with the intent to inhibit them from exercising their First Amendment right to show topless dancing. The court awarded the village judgment, finding it didn't for- feit its right to enforce the zoning restriction by failing to enforce it against previous businesses. The owners appealed, and the appeals court returned the matter for trial. It found factual questions existed as to whether the village selectively enforced the restriction against the Diamond Club to punish it or inhibit its offering