Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, Page 2 - September 25, 2006 <br /> <br />Z.B ( <br />. <br /> <br />Adult Entertainment - Business owner claims constitutional violation <br />Argues board's disbelief of his testimony amounts to restriction of free speech <br />Citation: Chang Inc. v. Jackson Township, 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, <br />No. 05-3363 (2006) <br />The 6th U.S. Circuit has jurisdiction over Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee~ <br />OHIO (07/24/06) - Chang Inc. wanted to build and operate a nightclub within <br />Jackson Township on property within a zoning district that prohibited the <br />operation of any "sexually oriented business." Chang sought and was granted <br />a zoning certificate that would allow it to operate the adult business despite the <br />zoning restriction. However, after an appeal to the board of zoning appeals by <br />another property owner, the township rescinded its authorization. <br />At the board'hearing, one of the business owners had testified that female <br />dancers working at the location would, wear an article of clothing that did not <br />satisfy the township's zoning restrictions on nudity. After the board pointed out <br />the discrepancy, the owner changed his testimony and stated that any female <br />dancers would be clad in compliance with the township's nudity restrictions. <br />Chang asserted that the board rescinded the certificate because it did not <br />believe that the business owners intended to comply with the nudity ordi- <br />nance. Chang sued the township, arguing that rescinding the certificate based <br />on a distrust of the testimony amounted to a restriction on protected speech <br />before any violation had occurred. Importantly, Chang did not chalienge the <br />township's zoning designation of the 'property or the nudity prohibition. <br />The court ruled in favor of the township. Chang appealed, arguing that its <br />constitutional rights were violated by the township's ordinance because it did <br />, not contain judicial safeguards and time restrictions. <br />DECISION:Affinned. <br />There.was no constitutiO'nal violation. <br />Chang pointed to no evidence suggesting that: Ohio did not have judicial . <br />procedures in place to avoid delay; Ohio judges were insensitive to First Amend- <br />ment concerns; or the regulations were intended to amount to censorship. <br />Nothing required a municipality to place judicial safeguards in the zoning <br />ordinance. Also, Chang's argument that the zoning ordinance lacked specific <br />time limitations was unavailing. <br />Ultimately, this was not a case about free speech, but rather a case concern- <br />ing the enforcement of a valid zoning ordinance. <br /> <br />Signs - Restaurant owner wants to keep nonconforming sign <br />Claims sign is 'historical landmark' <br /> <br />Citation: The Brick Haus Inc. v. Amana Colonies Land Use District Board of <br />Adjustment, Court of Appeals of Iowa, No. 6-554/05-1637 (2006) <br /> <br />row A (08/09/06} - Schuerer built the Brick Haus Restaurant for his daughter <br /> <br />86 <br /> <br />@ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. <br /> <br />( <br />