My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/02/2017
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2017
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/02/2017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:29:10 AM
Creation date
12/28/2017 8:56:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
11/02/2017
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
208
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Zoning Bulletin July 25, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 14 <br />Case Note: <br />In its decision, the Court of Appeal, Sixth District, explicitly rejected the decision of the <br />Court of Appeal, Fourth District, on the same issue. In deBottari v.-City Council, 171 <br />Cal. App. 3d 1204, 217 Cal. Rptr. 790 (4th Dist. 1985), the Fourth District had held <br />that a similar referendum to the one faced by the Sixth District, "if successful, would <br />enact a clearly invalid zoning ordinance." The Sixth District found this reasoning to be <br />"flawed," noting that "a referendum cannot `enact' an ordinance." <br />Freedom of Speech/Sexually- <br />Oriented Businesses —City adopts <br />amendments to adult establishment <br />ban, setting new definition for <br />"adult establishment" <br />Businesses challenge amendments as violating First <br />Amendment free speech rights <br />Citation: For the People Theatres of N.Y. Inc. v. City of New York, 2017 WL <br />2427295 (N.Y 2017) <br />NEW YORK (06/06/17)—This case addressed the issue of what is the <br />burden of proof that a municipality must sustain. in order to prevail at the third <br />stage of a three-part burden -shifting framework for determining the First <br />Amendment constitutionality of adult use zoning -when the overall test as to <br />constitutionality of the zoning ordinance is intermediate scrutiny. The case <br />also addressed the issue of whether a city met its burden of demonstrating that <br />the establishments affected by its zoning amendments related to a ban on adult <br />establishments retained a predominant focus on. sexually explicit materials or <br />activities such that the amendments did not violate First Amendment rights, or <br />if there was no need for those amendments such that, on their face, they were a <br />violation of free speech provisions of the U.S. and State Constitutions. <br />The Background/Facts: In 1995, the City of New York (the "City") <br />adopted a zoning ordinance (the "1995 Zoning Ordinance") that barred adult <br />establishments from residential zones and most commercial and manufactur- <br />ing zones, and mandated that, where permitted, adult businesses had to be at <br />least 500 feet from houses of worship, school, day care centers, and other <br />adult businesses. Under the 1995 Zoning Ordinance, an "adult establishment" <br />was defined as a commercial establishment a "substantial portion" of which <br />was "an adult book store, adult eating or drinking establishment, adult theater, <br />or other adult commercial establishment, or any combination thereof." In turn, <br />an "adult book store" (a teiui meant to embrace stores selling or renting sexu- <br />ally explicit video material, as well as books and magazines) was defined as <br />© 2017 Thomson Reuters, 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.