Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/08/2005

Home

Page 4 --July 10, 2005 The definition was unconstitutional. Although, by its express language, the definition of "sexually-oriented adult use" in the development code focused only on an establishment's business purpose in offering sexually explicit material, the county in reality focused instead on the nature of the other, non-sexually explicit materials offered by the establishment to determine whether it qualified as a sexually oriented use. According to the planning director, convenience stores that sold sexually explicit material did not come within the clef'tuition because such material was not . part of a convenience store's regular business; likewise, the county's attorney explained the definition would not include a gas station merely because it offered a rack of sexually explicit material because "a gas station is a gas station." In this case, even though the other items available at the business did not fall within the category of sexually explicit materials regulated by the county, the county nevertheless used the adult theme of this other material, particularly the fact that these items catered to the sexual interests or activities of adults, as the means to establish Floyd Road's substantial business purpose in offering the regulated material. Under the county's application of its development code, a gas station of comparable size offering the same amount of sexually explicit materials as Floyd Road would not come within the development code's definition because it was a gas station, whereas Floyd Road, because it was an "adult" shop, could come within the definition even ff it altered its inventory to include only one sexually explicit item. The court determined the vague definition created an impermissi- bly- vague standard. see also: Pleasureland Museum Inc. v. Beutter, 288 F. 3d 988 (2002). ' see also: Doctor John's Inc. v, City of Roy, 333' F. Supp.2d 1168 (2004). Certificate of Occupancy-- Building official makes error in area calculation Neighboring property owner claims new building must be torn down Citation: Kulak v. Charlestown Zoning Board of Review, Superior Court of 'Rhode Island, Washington, No. 03-6649 (2005) RHODE ISLAND (05/16/05) -- Campbell filed for a dimensional zoning variance and special-use permit to. build a home. The Charlestown Zoning Board of Review granted the variance and special-use permit. Campbell provided plans to the Charlestown Building Official. The building official verified the plans were in conformity with the relief granted by the board. Campbell then received a building permit for his planned home. Upon completion, Campbell requested a certificate of occupancy. At that time, a new building 'official recalculated the lot coverage based on the earlier plans, and his calculation was' 250 square feet greater than the lot coverage variance allowed by the board. The discrepancy was apparently caused by a 214 © 2005 Ouinlan Publishing Group. Any repreduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048.