Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/06/1995

Home

Page 6. May 1995 Z.B. . grant an "approval not required" endorSement. The board appealed. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the trial court. ' A trial was needed to decide whether Jaxtimer was entitled to the endorsement. The board had to grant an "approval not required" endorse- ment if Jaxtimer's plan did not show a subdivision. Under Massachusetts law, divided land was not considered a subdivision if every lot within the divided tract had frontage on a way shown on an approved plan. To be excluded from the subdivision control law, however, there had to be an actual street with adequate access for emergency vehicles. Although Lot A, once divided, had enough frontage on a way shown on an approved plan, it was unclear whether Tristram Avenue provided adequate access to emergency vehicles. The case was returned to the Land Court to resolve the issue. Shea v. Board of Appeals of Lexington, 622 N.E.2d 1382 (I993). Perry v. Planning Board of Nantucket, 444 N.E. 2d 389 (1983). Adult Entertainment Adult Bookstore Claims Relocation Will Drain Profits Grand Brittain Inc. v. City of Amarillo, 27 E3d 1068 (Texas) 1994 The city of Amarillo, Texas, adopted several ordinances regarding adult businesses. One ordinance banned adult businesses from operating within 1,000 feet of residences, churches, and parks. Another required them to get licenses from the police chief. ' "~ ~' Grand Brittain Inc. operated an adult bookstore within 1,000 feet of residential property. According to the ordinances, it had to move its business to an industrial zone by 1993. Much of the available property within the industrial zone did not h'ave electricity 6r the required ~ater and sewer extensions, but it could be.developed.... Grand Brittain sued the city, arguing the ordinance violated its First Amendment right to freedom of expression. Grand Brittain claimed the ordinance deprived it of all economic use of its property because there was nowhere else in the cityit could profitably run an adult bookstore. The court upheld much of the ordinance, noting several suitable areas where Grand Brittain might relocate. Grand Brittain appealed. DECISION: Affirmed in part, and returned to lower court. The ordinance was a valid regulation of speech because it provided a reasonable opportunity for Grand Brittain to continue its business in a new location. However, the city could not yet apply the regulations to Grand Brittain on other grounds, and the case was sent back to the lower court for an order to that effect. The ordinance did not violate Grand Brittain's constitutional right to free speech because it did not harm its ability to communicate. While the ordi-