Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/06/2005

Home

Page 2 -- August 25, 2005 Z.B. Adult Entertainment-- Cabaret claims new regulations specifically target it Regulations' intent is to curb secondary effects Citation: Burcham v. Wilt, 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeats, No. 03~4199 (2005) The 6th U.S. Circuit has jurisdiction over Kenrucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. OHIO (07/11/05) -- The Fox Hole opened for business in December 1999. It provided adult entertainment. Soon after The Fox Hole's opening, the township passed two regulations on Feb. 14 and Oct. 9 regulating adult cabarets and their locations. The New Castle Township Board of Trustees then told The Fox Hole that it was in violation of the requirements in the Oct. 9 regulations, which prohibited 'an adult cabaret from being located within 500 feet of a church, park, or single- family dwelling. The Fox Hole sued, and the court ruled in favor of the township. The FoX Hole appealed, arguing the township had the specific intent to close The Fox Hole when it passed the regulations. DECISION: Affirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court has held consistently that an alleged illicit motive was not in itself sufficient to call into question the constitutionality of an ordinance regulating the secondary effects of an expressive activity. Whatever else might have motivated the township to promulgate the regu- lations, both the preamble to the Feb. 14 regulations and the preamble to the Oct. 9 regulations asserted the township wished to regulate the secondary effects of sexually oriented businesses. Ultimately, a finding that the township acted only with a specific intent to close The Fox Hole was insufficient to require judgment in Fox Hole's favor. see also: City ofErie v. ?ap 'sA.M., 529 U.S. 277, 120 S. Ct.' ~382, ]46 L.£d. 2d 265 (2000). see also: Buziashvili v. lnman, 106 F. 3d 709 (1997). Telecommunications Act ~ City finds 195-foot tower would diminish property values Bases decision on neighborhood belief Citation: Minnesota Towers Inc. v. City of Duluth, U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, No. 04-5068 (DWF/RLE) (2005) MLNNES OTA (07/01/05) ~ Minnesota Towers Inc. wanted to build a new tele- communications tower to serve the Piedmont Heights neighborhood of Duluth, an area that purportedly had many coverage gaps due to its hilly ter- rain. Minnesota Towers found a suitable location and applied for a special use permit to build a 195-foot monopole tower. In support of its plan, Minnesota Towers pointed to a 1996 study written by © 2005 *~uinian Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more informmion please call (617) 542-0048,' 196