Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/04/2004

Home

September 25, 2004 -- Page 5 In fact, it was uncertain whether the ordinance would actually apply to the project. Delta did not state whether its levees Would be constructed for maxi- mum storage higher than four feet above mean sea level, ff the levees were built for storage above four feet, the state would have jurisdiction and the ordinance by its terms would not apply. The county passed the ordinance not out of desire.to frustrate the project, but. because of le~timate land use concerns. These concerns Lncluded the loss of %mgcul- rural lands, damage to adjacent roads, and mitigation of such losses. Ultimately, there was no expressed desire to halt the project altogether for arbitrary reasons. see also: Great Western Shows v. County of Los Aageles, 27 Cal. 4th 853 (2002). see ~,~lso: BreakZone Billiards v. City of Torrance, $] Cal. A£p.4th ]205 (2000). Appeal -- New ordinance doesn't supply administrative appeal Denial of permits jbr sexualJy-oriented businesses must be appealed in court Citation: Fantasy Ranch [nc. v. City of Arlington, U.S. District Court for the Northern District ~f Texas, Dallas Div., No. G~.'$:O$-Cx/:O089-R (2004) TEXAS (08/09/04) -- In an effort to regulate the sexually-oriented businesses operating within its limits, the city of Arlington enacted a sexually-oriented business ordinance. The new ordinance provided a framework of zoning and location restric- tions, licensing requirements, and cfiminal taws. The city's building official would issue all necessary permits within $0 days ~fter a business s~.lbmitred an application and would begin all necessary in- spections wirlxin five days. A permit apphcation was deemed approved unless expressly approved or denied within;the 30-day period. Businesses could ap- peal the decision of the building official by filing suit in county court. Fan.tasy Ranch Inc., a sexually-oriented business, sued, arguing it was en- titled to administrative review of any permit denial and the new application process violated [ts due process fights. DECISION: Dismissed. The permit application did not violate Fantasy's due process The city's scheme allowed sexually-oriented businesses to appeal the build- ing official's decision by tiling suit in any county court witbg,'n 30 days of notice or' the decision or expiration of established deadlines. The filing of a lawsuit automatically stayed the permit denial and a provi- ~i,.mal permit was granted that remained e~ective until the court's judgment. Santas',/ cited no case law supporting its claim the city was required to i~p~ement :~n adrmnistradve appeals process..Thus, the cit,~.'s oerrmrtin~ scheme ,,vas comoie[e[v :appropriate. o~ ~ou.rron. 352 ~ ' -~ '~; 2C0¢-~ 2ui¢,la¢ ?u21iso, mg _S~cuo..zny :eproducdon .s 9ronibiieo. For more ;nformauon 9~easa sail (61;') ~a2-,30,.tS. 137