04-03-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

This section first describes some of the legal considerations which communities must keep in mind in drafting zoning ordinances for sexually oriented businesses. • Then, some suggestions are provided, based on evidence reviewed by the Working Group, of types of zoning which can be enacted to reduce the secondary effects of sexually oriented businesses. 1. Documentation to Support Zoning Ordinances Sexually oriented speech which is not obscene cannot be restricted on the basis of its content without running afoul of the First Amendment. The justification for regulating sexually oriented businesses is based on proof that the zoning is needed to reduce secondary effects of the businesses on the community. Since Renton, a number of adult entertainment zoning ordinances have been invalidated for failure of the enacting body to document the need for zoning regulations. Thus, one court invalidated a zoning ordinance because there was "very little, if any, evidence of the secondary effects of adult bookstores . . . before the City Council . . . ." • (Footnote 10 Continued from Previous Page) ` evidence suggesting neighborhood decline would result); Tollis, Inc. v. San Bernadine County, 827 F.2d 1329 (9th Cir. 1987) (no evidence presented to legislative body of secondary harmful effects); Ebel v. Corona, 767 F.2d 635 (9th Cir. 1985) (lack of effective alternative locations); 11126 Baitimore Boulevard, Inc. v. Prince George's County of Maryland, 684 F. Supp. 884 (D. Md. 1988) (insufficient evidence of secondary effects presented to legislative body; special exception provisions grant excessive discretionary authority to zoning officials); and Peoples Tags.Inc. v.-Jackson- County Legislature, 636 F. Supp. 1345 (W.D. Mo. 1986) (improper legislative purpose to prevent continued operation of adult- entertainment establishment). Zoning ordinances were upheld in SDJ. Inc. v. City • of Houston, 837 F.2d 1258 (5th Cir. 1988); FW/PBS. Inc. v. City of Dallas, 837 F.2d 1298 (5th Cir. 1988); and S & G News. Inc. v. City of Southcate, 638 F.Supp. 1060 (E.D. Mich. 1986), aff'd wimcut cublisned ooinion, 819 F.20 1142 (6th Cir. 1987). Remands were ordered in Christy v. City of Ann Arbor, 824 F.2d 489 (6th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, U.S. 108 S. Ct. 1013 (1988)(remand for determination of excessive restrictios); International Food & Beverage Systems v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 794 F.2d 1520 (11th Cir. 1986) (remand for reconsideration in lignt of Renton, supra; nude bar ordinance), and Walnut Properties. Inc. v. City of Whittier, 8082d 1331 (9th Cir. 1986) (remand, in par, for determination of land ` availability). s ! -36-