Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/01/1996

Home

Even with Conforti's theater, in issuing the 1990 buLlding permit the city pointed out movie theaters were not allowed -- the only reason the renovations could be done was because of the buitding's nonconforming status. The lower court correctly found concerts were an expansion of a noncon- forming use. Concerts were substantially different from movies: They were significantly louder; they were live; and performers brought their own equip- ment. Although early silent movies may have included live performances in the theater, "talkies" caused such practices to fall by the wayside. Talkies took over the nation's movie screens long before the ordinance was enacted. Nash Family Inv. Prop. v. Town of Hudson, 660 A.2d 1202 (1995). New London Land Use Assoc. v. New London Zoning Board, 543 A.2d lS$5 Adult Entertainment -- Do city's regulations set aside enough space for adult uses? North Avenue Novelties Inc. v. City of Chicago, 88 F..3d 441 (Illinois) 1996 North Avenue Novelties Inc. was located in a planned-manufacturing dis- trict in Chicago. Such districts did not allow retail or commercial businesses. Novelties was a retail bookstore that sold sexually explicit materials. As such; the city's zoning ordinance classified i't as an "adult use." Adult uses were special uses that could exist in only commercial or manufacturing dis- tricts. They had to be at least 1,000 feet from any existing adult use, any exist- ing school or place of worship, and any district zoned for residential use. Nov- elties was only 825 feet from a residential district, and it was not in a commer- cial or manufacturing district. Novelties sued the city, asking the court to declare that the ordinance constitutionally limited the total amount of sexually explicit speech. The court found the ordinance was constitutional, and Novelties appealed. Novelties conceded that'it met neither of the ordinance's adult-use require- ments. It also conceded that even without the adult-use issue, it violated the ordinance because retail stores weren't allo'wed in planned-manufacturing dis- tricts. However, Novelties' challenge was against the ordinance in general, not as it applied to itself. It claimed the ordinance's overall scheme of limiting adult uses to specific areas was unconstitutional. Both Novelties and the city hired experts to evaluate the locations the ordi- nance made available for adult uses. One expert, using the most expansive definitions of "school" and "place of worship" possible, concluded that the ordinance left available about 270 acres for adult uses less than 1 percent of the city's land. The other expert found the available land ranged from 1 to 3 percent. Novelties said other cities (specifically, Renton, Wash., and Los An- geles) set aside proportionally more land than Chicago did for adult uses, so Chicago's ordinance was unconstitutional. Novelties' expert testified there were currently between 22 and 56 avail-