Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/02/2013

Home

March 25, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 6 Zoning Bulletin requirement for only events held within the Town) did not render moot Good News' lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Sign Code. onconforming Uses —City refuses to issue permit allowing nude dancing at nightclub Nightclub claims nude dancing is a grandfathered, legal nonconforming use Citation: 600 Marshall Entertainment Concepts, LLC v. City of Memphis, 2013 WL 379784 (6th Cir. 2013) The Sixth Circuit has jurisdiction over Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. SIXTH CIRCUIT (TENNESSEE) (02/1/13)—This case addressed the is- sue of whether nude dancing at a nightclub was entitled to grandfathering. The Background/Facts: 600 Marshall Entertainment Concepts, LLC ("600 Marshall") was a nightclub in Memphis, Tennessee (the "City"). It was lo- cated within a Central Business District ("CBD") zoning district. The CBD was created by City ordinance in 1981. Adult entertainment was permitted in the CBD from 1981 to 1993. "Adult entertainment" was defined in the zoning title of the City Code of Ordinances to encompass things such as adult book stores, adult movie theaters, and live performances involving nudity or sexual acts. In 1993, the City and Shelby County issued Joint Ordinance No. 4209 (the "1993 Ordinance"), which eliminated adult entertainment as one of the permitted uses within the CBD. While the zoning ordinances defined and prohibited adult entertainment, the presentation of "compensated dancers" —whether or not they were engaged in nude dancing —was regulated by the Dance Hall Ordinance. A substantially similar version of the Dance Hall Ordinance was enacted in 1971. The current version required any establishment wishing to present compensated dancers to first obtain a dance peiunit and pay a $500 fee. Various entities operated at the 600 Marshall location as a bar, club, or other similar facility since at least the 1970s. From the 1970s until the early 2000s, operators at the location occasionally presented or allowed various types of adult entertainment. At least through the late 1990s, that adult entertainment included nude dancing. However, no dance permit had been is- sued for the businesses at the 600 Marshall location since at least 1991. In 2005, 600 Marshall was purchased by a new owner. That owner wanted to operate an adult nightclub featuring compensated nude dancers. He applied for a dance permit under the Dance Hall Ordinance Eventually, 600 Marshall received a dance permit with a nudity restriction; 600 Marshall could present compensated dance on its premises, so long as the dance did not involve adult entertainment and it maintained an up-to-date dance peuuuit. It could also pres- 6 © 2013 Thomson Reuters