Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/02/1997

Home

# Page 4 - October 25, 1997 Z.B. . " .. Although the county didn't have a comprehensive zoning plan, it could pass ordinances regulating land use according to a comprehensive zoning plan or its police powers. The county's police powers allowed it to regulate or prohibit conditions that were detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of its citizens. The ordinance regulated the location of adult businesses - it did not prohibit them. It was designed to promote "the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the citizenry of Onslow County." . The ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Maynor's business. Although the ordinance could conceivably prohibit many otherwise legal actions, this was irrelevant. Maynor admitted that the ordinance applied to her, so any vagueness did not affect her. Moreover, because the ordinance didn't violate the First Amendment, Maynor had no right to challenge it. The ordinance regulated only the place and manner of adult entertainment, but didn't prohibit it. see also: Summey Outdoor Advertising v. Henderson County 386 S.E.2d 439 (1989). Young v. American Mini Theatres Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 96 S.Ct. 2440, 49 L.Ed.2d 310 (1976). Conditional Use - Developer says city should defer to zoning officer's ruling High Ridge Hinkle Joint Venture v. City of Albuquerque, 940 P.2d 1189 (New Mexico) 1997 High Ridge Hinkle Joint Venture (developer) owned a large tract of land zoned commercial in Albuquerque, N.M. It wanted to build a miniature golf course and arcade, and an amusement facility with go-carts and bumper boats. The developer asked the city zoning enforcement officer for a letter stating the proposed miniature golf course and arcade was a permitted use under the city zoning ordinance, and that go-carts and bumper boats were conditional uses in the district. The zoning ordinance allowed as a conditional use "outside storage or activity." The zoning officer agreed with the developer and issued a ruling that the miniature golf course and arcade was a permitted use, and that go-carts and bumper boats were conditional uses. In the past, the zoning officer had allowed as conditional uses outside activities other than storage. The city council had never before addressed the issue. The city council reversed the zoning officer's decision, finding that go- carts and bumper boats were not included in "outside storage or activity." The developer appealed to court. The court affirmed the city council's decision, and the developer appealed again. The appeals court reversed, finding the meaning of "outside activity" was ambiguous. It returned the matter to the city council for a new hearing concerning the proper interpretation and meaning of "outside storage or activity." The city council again declined to follow the zoning officer's decision. It 33