Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/02/1995

Home

Page 6. April 15, 1995 Z.B. The town asked the court for judgment without a trial. DECISION: Judgment for the town. Donegan did not have a "clear entitlement" to have the town approve the resubdivision application. Without such an entitlement, Donegan had no feder- ally protected property right at stake. There was no strong likelihood Donegan's application would be granted, because the planning commission had discretion over whether to approve it. The town's subdivision regulations provided conditions'Donegan had to meet for approval of on-site sewage disposal facilities. Neighbors presented evi- dence that Donegan could not meet these conditions. It did not matter that the planning commission did not rely on this evidence, and instead rejected the application on a faulty basis. The commission had the power to deny the appli- cation when it was filed. Kelley Property Development Inc. v. Town of Lebanon, 627 A.2d 909 (1993). RRI Realty Corp. v. Incorporated Village of Southampton, 870 F.2d 911 (1989). Adult Entertainment --'Adult-Oriented Business Sues Legislators for Enacting Zoning Ordinance Eldorado Drive v. City of Mesquite, 863 F. Supp. 1252 (Nevada) 1994 Eldorado Drive was a corporation that had a store in Mesquite, Nev., which sold sexually oriented materials. In October 1993, Eldorado Drive submitted plans to the city's building official in connection with the company's plan to build a video arcade and stage inside its store. The existing store was already approved as a retail commercial building for occupancy purposes, but the building~official believed video arcade booths would require approval as a place of assembly. The plans were submitted to an engineering firm as new building plans. The firm cited several deficiencies, including defects in the already-approved existing structure. In November 1993, the city enacted an ordinance regulating adult busi- nesses. Eldorado Drive's plans had not yet been approved, and were then re- jected because the new ordinance prohibited multiple adult businesses on the premises. Eldorado Drive sued the city, the mayor, the city council, and the building officials. The company asked the' court to declare the ordinance unconstitu- tional, and to prohibit the City from enforcing it. Eldorado Drive also asked the court for damages arising from the enactment of the ordinance, bad faith de. lay in issuing building permits, and refusal to issue building permits. The city officials asked the court for judgment without a trial on the company's damages claims. DECISION: Judgment granted to city officials on company's damages claims. The mayor and council members were immune from liability for enacting the ordinance. As legislators, they could not be held liable for acts that were