Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/04/2003

Home

Z.B. November 10, 2003 -- Page 5 provisions, such as allowing dancers to expose certain parts of their bodies, allowing dancers to erotically touch customers and themselves, allowing ac- mai and simulated' sexual conduct, allowing dancers to perform closer than four feet from members of the public, and allowing dancers to directly accept tips. In addition, Heesan allowed prostitution and drug activity. None of the above curtailed activities arose from protected expressions. Consequently, the ordinance was not overbroad. Citation: Heesan Corporation v. City of Lakewood, Court of Appeals of Washington, Div. 2, No. 28171-6-11 (2003). see also: Arcara v. Cloud Books [nc., 478 U.S. 697 (1986). see also: State v. Plalstien, 829 P. 2d 1145 (I992). Variance -- Board provides no information as to why it granted variance Neighboring businesses think paintbalI game will cause problems Pd-IODE ISLAND (09/05/03) -- Cormier owned a legal nonconforming, build-' Lng in an Lndustr~al zone. The building accommodated an industrial printing business, but Cormier wanted to change to a nonconforming laser tag and game room entertainment use. Cormier petitioned the Cranston Zoning Board of Review for a variance. Duxing a hearing on the issue, neighboring business owners opposed the peti- tion. They testified the proposed use would adversely affect industries located in the industrial park. They believed the proposed use would attract unsuper- vised teenagers that might threaten the security, of neighboring businesses, most of which would not be in operation during Cormier's planned hours of operation. The board voted in favor of Cormier. In its decision, it gave no indication of its reasoning. Neighboring business owners sued, arguing the board granted the variance using insufficient evidence. DtgCISION: Board's decision reversed. . Comfier was not entitled to the variance. Under state law, a municipal board had to set forth in its decision findings of fact and reasons for the action taken. In a conclusory fashion, the board stated "the granting of this application will not prove detrimental to the neigh- borhood.'' However, the board failed to make any independent findings of fact with respect to the application. It simply restated the facts as found by the site plan review committee, and failed to show how it applied the law to the spe- cific facts in this case. There was no way to tell from the board's decision why it. granted th~ re- quested zoning relief. The board did not make any findings regarding whether a total deprivation of the property's legally beneficial use would result if the variance was not g-ranted. Since Cormier had a full and fair opportunity to present evidence and failed