Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/06/1996

Home

Z.B. December 15, 1995 -- Page 3 occur. Although members of the public might strongly oppose the sexual behav- ior expected at Hooters, it was more important to prevent any infringement of constitutional rights. Hooters had a substantial chance of winning at trial. The evidence pre- sented at the hearing suggested that the correctional center did not contain a "church," as that term was defined by the ordinance. A church had to be a building. To call the worship space a church would mean either that the church "building" moved every time the worship space moved, or that the entire correctional center was a "church." The stated purpose for the ordinance's distance requirement also suggested the worship space was not a church -- the ordinance sought to prevent sexually oriented businesses from having a dehumanizing effect on people attending the family-oriented activities offered by churches. The correctional center's services were not family oriented; in fact, family members were not allowed to participate. No city officials involved with Hooters' license even knew the services were offered, and the police chief did not find out a'bout them until three days before revoking the license. The inmates who participated in worship services were incarcerated, so they were not subjected to Hooters' "dehumanizing influence." Even if Hooters failed to prove there was no church in the correctional center, it might successfully claim at trial that the city's conduct prevented it from revoking the license. Hooters' president paid a nonrefundable applica- tion fee, and the city issued her a license. Hooters then spent almost $100,000 remodeling the space. When the business was about to open, the police chief decided to revoke the license. Coe v. City of Dallas, 266 S. W. 2d 181 (1953). RosenthaI v. City of Dallas, 211 S.W. 2d 279 (1948). Nonconforming Use-- Neighbors Challenge Conversion From Two-Family Home to Battered Women's Shelter Neighbors Together Homeowners & Tenants Association v. Neufeld, 631 N.Y.S. 2d 428 (New York) 1995 A two-family house in the village of Mamaroneck, N.Y., was a noncon- forming use. My Sisters' Place Inc. wanted to convert the house into a shelter for battered women and their children, and applied to. the village building inspector for permission to do so. The inspector denied the application. My Sisters' Place appealed to the village's Zoning Board of Appeals. Under the village zoning code, the board could grant the application if there was evidence the new use would be less nonconforming than the old. After hold- ing a public hearing and considering many documents supporting and oppos- ing the plan, the board found the shelter would be less of a nonconforming use and more in harmony with the area. The Neighbors Together Homeowners & Tenants Association asked a court to review the board's decision. The court dismissed the association's case. The association appealed.