Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/01/1997

Home

.. Z.B. June 25, 1997 - Page 3 effects of the entertainment and not directly attack the activity itself. The three owners appealed, asking the court to declare the ordinance unconstitutional. They argued the ordinance deprived them of their rights to free speech and of their vested rights in having licenses renewed. Tudor claimed the amendment was not content neutral, arguing the mayor and several council members wanted to eliminate nude dancing in Marietta, rather than just curtail its secondary effects. DECISION: Affirmed. The three owners were not entitled to renewed licenses, and the ordinance didn't violate their constitutional rights. The amendment was content neutral. Before enacting an ordinance to address an activity's secondary effects, a legislative body had to consider specific evidence concerning those effects. The city council did that, examining studies done in other cities and hearing testimony from citizens and the police. Based on these efforts, the council demonstrated its main purpose was to combat the secondary effects of adult entertainment establishments, not eliminate the businesses entirely. As for the constitutionality issue, the three owners couldn't prove the city abused its police power in amending the ordinance. The city was trying to promote an important government interest - reducing crime and improving the quality of life - that was completely unrelated to the suppression of speech. The city wasn't trying to quash the owners' right to free speech - it merely wanted to address the secondary effects that resulted from the combination of alcohol and adult entertainment. Finally, the owners did have a vested right in their licenses. Once a license was granted, it couldn't be revoked unless in extreme, usually criminal, circumstances. However, the owners didn't have a vested right in the renewal of the licenses. The owners had to apply each year for renewal, so there was no guarantee they would get the licenses from year to year. Rejection of renewal was a risk the owners faced annually; they couldn't claim they had a vested right in something that wasn't guaranteed. Variance - Housing authority says it can't build on property without variances Housing Authority of the City of St. Charles v. The Board of Adjustment of the City of St. Charles, 941 S. W2d 725 (Missouri) 1997 The St. Charles, Mo., housing authority owned a vacant corner lot that was located in a two-family residential district. The housing authority wanted to build a duplex on the property, but the property did not meet ordinance requirements. Because of the lot's small size, the housing authority sought variances from the city's board of adjustment. The housing authority requested four nonuse variances. It requested a lot- size variance for the 7,500-square-foot lot because the ordinance required a minimum of 9,000 square feet. It requested a width variance because the lot. left