Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/03/1995

Home

Page 2-- September 15, 1995 Z.B. , Adult Entertainment -- Town Tries to Shut Down Cabaret Based on New Ordinance Town of Hu~tif~gton v. Pierce Arrow Realty Cot)5., 627 N. ZS.2d 787 (New York) 1995 From t981, Pierce Arrow Realty Corp. owned and operated a cabaret in the town of Huntington, N.Y. In 1991, the town enacted a zoning ordinance that allowed premises with an "adult use" to operate only in specific areas. Apparently, the ordinance did not provide reasonable alternative locations for adult use establishments. Before enacting the ordinance, the town did not con- duct or review any studies about the effects of adult businesses on the quality of life in the business community. Pierce Arrow's cabaret was considered an "adult entertainment" establish- ment under the new ordinance. The town asked a court to permanently stop Pierce Arrow from operating the cabaret. At the beginning of the lawsuit, the town asked for a court order to tempo- rarily, but immediately, stop Pierce Arrow's operations. To get the temporary order, local law required the town to show only that it would likely get the permanent order and that fairness required the temporary order. The court granted the town's request for the temporary order. Pierce appealed, claiming the zoning ordinance was unconstitutional. DECISION: Reversed. The lower court improperly granted the temporary order, so the order was reversed. The town produced no evidence that the ordinance complied with federal and state constitutional requirements, so it failed to show it would likely suc- ceed in closing the cabaret permanently. The town did not show the ordinance was reasonably limited to establishments that had secondarY detrimental effects on the community -- it did not even conduct or review any studies about that issue. Also, in its request, the town never discussed Pierce Arrow's right to some reasonable amortization period to compensate it for its 10 years of pre- existing cabaret use. Special Use -- Residents Don't Want Offices "Creeping" Into Residential Area City of Reno v. Harris, 895 E2d 663 (Nevada) 1995 In 1978, the Reno (Nev.) City Council unanimously approved a special use permit to allow property (Hawkins House) in a residential zone to operate as a public art museum. The permit was granted in accordance with a zoning amend- ment that placed the property in a "historic or landmark overlay district." Hawkins House was used as an art museum for almost 12 years and then lay vacant until 1992. The city's original master plan allowed single family and multifamily resi- dences in Hawkins House's area. Residents of that area were concerned that multifamily or professional office uses were "creeping" into traditionally single- family residential areas. In 1988, the city council responded by adopting the