Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/07/2013

Home

October 10, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 19 Zoning Bulletin dressed the issue of whether city ordinances that prohibited any and all business and commercial uses within the city violated the First Amend- ment to the United States Constitution. The Background/Facts: The City of Florence ("Florence") is lo- cated within Lyon County, Minnesota. It has a population of 39 and is approximately .2 square miles. Florence contains 16 single-family residences, a small shop used to store Florence's equipment, an unheated metal building operating as Florence's office, and a park. In 2008, Florence adopted Ordinance No.2008-02, which defined three zoning classifications: (1) "R-1 Single -Family Residential District"; (2) "B-1 Business District"; and (3) "C-2 Commercial District." The ordinance also zoned all areas within Florence as "R-1." In 2011, Florence adopted Ordinance No. 2011-09, which states, in relevant part, that Florence "desires to maintain [itself] solely as a resi- dential community" due to its "limited infrastructure, staff, and re- sources," which could not support business and commercial uses. Flor- ence also enacted Ordinance No. 2011-02, which repealed the sections of Ordinance No.2008-02 that established the "B-1" and "C-2" zoning classifications. Accordingly, Florence's zoning ordinances prohibited any and all business and commercial uses within the city. In December 2010, Dale Peterson opened The Juice Bar, LLC, an adult entertainment establishment, in Florence. The Juice Bar featured live, nude dancers. After opening, law enforcement cited Peterson for violations of the Ordinance. Peterson filed suit against Florence. He alleged that Florence's zon- ing scheme violated the First and 14th Amendments, namely his constitutional rights relating to the operation of his adult entertainment business. "Freedom of speech . . . [is] protected by the First Amendment from infringement by Congress, [and is] among the fundamental personal rights and liberties which are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by state action.. . . The First Amendment generally prevents government from proscribing speech or even expressive conduct because of disapproval of the ideas expressed." A content - based regulation restricts speech because of its expressive content, while a content -neutral regulation is "justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech." "A regulation that serves purposes unrelated to the content of expression is deemed neutral, even if it has an incidental effect on some speakers or messages but not others." A content -based regulation must satisfy strict scrutiny, and is presump- tively invalid. A content -neutral regulation is subject to intermediate scrutiny. Finding there were no material issues of fact in dispute, and deciding 6 © 2013 Thomson Reuters