Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/06/2003

Home

Page 4 -- September 25, 2003 110 to be based on substantial evidence. Here, the record did not provide substan- tial ex, idence that the additional four boat slips would have been inconsistent with the residential zone district. The objections raised pertained to the use of the slips by non-owners of the slips, and not the number of slips. The concern about the use of the slips was a zoning enforcement issue, not a question of whether the permit should be granted. Both the board and the neighbors had other remedies to pursue, The lower court properly upheld the owner's appeal. Citation: Oakbridge/Rogers Avenue Realty LLC v. Planning and Zoning Board of the City. of Milford, Appellate Cou~ of Connecticut, IVo. AC23345 (2003.). see also: Municipal Funding LLC v. Zoning Board of'Appeal& 810 A.2d 312 (2002). Adult Entertainment -- Adult cabaret challenges ordinance Was there a substantial government interest to limit the business? TEXAS (8/7/03) -- Camelot operated an adult cabaret with/n the city. The relevant statute provided the owner of a cabaret was required to obtain a cense from the city. To qualify for a license, an owner had to demonstrate the business was being conducted in a permissible location referred to as a "specified zoning district" and that the establishment was not i) within 500 feet of a church, school, daycare center, or public park; 2) within 300 feet of a boundary of a residential distr/ct or property line of a residential use; or 3) wittzin 1,000 feet of another license. Since Camelot was determined to be situated within 300 feet of a residen- tial district, the application was den/ed. The city did allow Camelot to conduct its business as a "sexually orientated business" (SOB) for a per/od of three years in order to permit the amortization of the investment in its business. As the end of the three-year per/od approached, Camelot applied for a one- year exemption from the zoning regulation. The application was denied, but Camelot continued its business without a license. The city issued more than 20 citations. Camelot finally sued, claiming it was not an adult entertainment establish- ment and the ordinance was unconstitutional. The lower court ganted judgment to the city, and Camelot appe~ed. Camelot claimed the statute violated the First and 14th ?m~endments. Camelot also con- tended the ordinance was an unconstitutional pr/or restraint. DECISION: Affirmed. The ordinance was constitutional. The purpose of the ordinance was not to infringe on sexually oriented speech. Rather, it was enacted to establish regulations to control the secondaw effects associated with SOBs. These would "promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the citizens of the City."