Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin June 10, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 11 <br />diminishing the quantity of land "available." The First Circuit court <br />disagreed. It said that it could look only at the restrictions imposed by the <br />ordinances, not to the market effects of other people's commerce or the <br />economics of site clearance. Whether it would make sense for Lund to <br />finance a costly redevelopment or to pay what current tenants would <br />demand to break their leases were simply private business considerations; <br />not facts subject to constitutional analysis. In other words, the fact that <br />Lund had to fend for himself in the real estate market, on an equal footing <br />with other prospective purchasers and lessees, did not give rise to a First <br />Amendment violation, said the court. <br />The court concluded that, although only 0.24% of the City's develop- <br />able acres, on eight separate sites, remained a possible option for Lund's <br />adult entertainment business, those options provided Lund with a "reason- <br />able means of commercial adult activity as an alternative to [the zoning or- <br />dinances'] restrictions." Accordingly, the court concluded that the ordi- <br />nances did not violate the First Amendment. <br />See also: City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41, 106 S. <br />Ct. 925, 89 L. Ed. 2d 29, 12 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1721 (1986). <br />See also: D.H.L. Associates, Inc. v. O'Gorman, 199 F.3d 50 (lst Cir. <br />1999). <br />Case Note: <br />In evaluating the percentage of available land in the City for adult entertainment <br />businesses, the district court had "rested on explicit consideration of the City's <br />urban nature, and the City's larger land mass." <br />Signs —Resort's sign on one lot <br />gives directions to resort <br />registration office on different lot <br />Town Selectboard contends sign violates <br />ordinance prohibiting off -premises signs <br />Citation: Town of Bartlett Bd. of Selectmen v. Town of Bartlett Zoning <br />Bd. ofAdjustment, 2013 WL 1497323 (N.H. 2013) <br />NEW HAMPSHIRE (04/12/13)—This case addressed the issue of <br />whether a resort's sign on one lot giving directions to a registration office <br />located on a different lot -with both lots geographically located at the <br />resort's place of business —was permitted under a town's zoning ordinance <br />prohibiting off -premise signs. <br />The Background/Facts: River Run Company, Inc. ("River Run") <br />© 2013 Thomson Reuters 9 <br />