Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/05/1998

Home

7~B. April 10, 1998 -- Page 3 on erotic literature that had "literary, artistic or political value" and might be read to regulate such places as lingerie shops. The district attorney general appealed. DECISION: Order vacated; returned to the district court. The court should not have found the statute invalid. The bookstore was right --the statute, wasn't content neutral. It regulated only sexually explicit speech, which was no more content neutral than a statute that regulated only political campaign advertising. This didn't mean, however, that it was invalid. The question was one of reasonableness-- whether the law was designed to serve a substantial government interest and allowed for alter- native avenues of communication. The government had a substantial interest in reducing crime and prostitu- tion and preserving the aesthetic character of the areas around adult busi- nesses. Restricting the hours of shops selling sexual literature could deter prostitution or the creation of drug corners. By deterring such behavior, the areas might be able to ward off high vacancy rates, a blighted appearance, and reduced property values. Moreover, access to adult businesses wasn't unduly restricted . they could still be open many hours each week. The court was also wrong in finding the statute overly vague. There was no need to consider vagueness when an otherwise valid law indisputably applied. Richland's bookstore was clearly an "adult-oriented establishment" as defined by the statute, so any vagueness in the statute didn't apply to Richland. Re- gardless, the law wasn't as vague as the bookstore claimed. To be regulated, the business must have as its "principal or predominant stock or trade" sexu- ally oriented materials or paraphernalia and must-restrict admission to adults only. These were common terms that most people would understand. see also: Young v. American Mini Theatres Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 49 L.Ed.2d 310, 96 S. Ct. 2440 (1976). Zoning Violation -- Town cites owner for running kennel in residential neighborhood Township of Penn v. Seymour, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 2196 C.D. 1997 (1998) Seymour Owned a house in a residential neighborhood in the Township of Penn, Pa. He owned four Rottweiler dogs, which he kept in a fenced area in his backyard. He bred two of the dogs once a year and sold the puppies when they were eight weeks old. Neighbors complained to the township that Seymour had too many dogs and was breeding dogs on his property. The zoning officer issued Seymour a violation notice for operating a kennel in a residential zone. The township's zoning ordinance defined "kennel" as a building or land used to board or breed four or more dogs. Seymour applied to the township's Zoning Hearing Board for a variance