Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/05/2004

Home

.Z.B. i January 10, 2004 -- Page 7 direCted stated he would prefer a lower density, he recommended approval since the plan met the technical requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. [ When the town planning board met to discuss the proposed development, it expressed concern a subdivision with 6,000 square foot lot sizes was incon- sisteOt with a new surrounding development with 20,000 square foot lots. Also, the ~oard questioned whether the rural open space provided was consistent with{the local zoning ordinance. ~e board decided ultimately deny request. to the ~rewster sued, and the court ruled in favor of the board. , B~rewster appealed. DEOISION: Reversed. 7~he board's decision was arbitrary and capricious. 7~e subdivision ordinance required consistency of a subdivision with the m0sti recently adopted' public plans and pohcies for the area. Public plans and policies were final planning documents on file in the town offices. 2~here were no adopted public plans or policies within 1.2 miles of the prop0sal2 Although the lot sizes were much small and the proposed density was higher than in the surrounding areas, without adopted public plans and pohc~es for these areas, denial of the subdivision for lack of consistency was not b, ased~ on competent, material, and substantial evidence. 27he neighboring subdivision was only in the pret/minary stages of devet- opm'gnt. Although the board also claimed the new subdivision would overgopulate and violate the historical and rural character of the area, the board prov!ded no evidence to support this conclusion. Citat~ion: William Brewster Company Inc. v. The Town of H~mtersville, Court of A~peals of North Carolina, No. COA02-]264 (2003). see also: SBA Inc. v. City of Asheville City Council, 539 S.E. 2d 18 (2000). see a~so.. Whiteco Outdoor AdverriSing v. Johnston County Board of Adjusrment, 513 $.E. 2d 70 (1999). Adult Entertainment -- Dancers object to pasties and G-strings Ask for injunction on enforcing ordinance UTAh,' (11/04/03) -- The South Salt Lake City Council enacted an ordinance prohibiting nudity with sexually-oriented businesses. Before enacting the ordinance, the city gathered police reports and studies from around the country regarding the connection between sexually~oriented ' [ . comgn, erclal businesses and negative secondary effects, such as crime, prostitu- tion,'~and lowered property values. A~ fter reviewing the studies, the city decided to disallow nude dancing, but to allow dancers to perform wearing G-strings and pasties. Several nude dancers sued, arguing the new ordinance violated their free- domlof expression rights. The court ruled in the city's favor.