My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-18-1999 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1999
>
10-18-1999 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/5/2023 11:15:11 AM
Creation date
4/5/2023 11:08:31 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
380
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
secondary effects of SOBs. Secondary effects can include, among other things. <br />Increased crime, decreased property values, traffic congestion, noise, litter, and <br />vagrancy. <br />2. Substantial Government Interest <br />The regulations must be narrowly tailored to advance a substantial governrnent <br />interest The prevention or elimination of undesirable secondary effects of <br />SOBS on citizens and neighborhoods is a substantial 90vernment interest. <br />Before adopting an ordinance, a city does not need to show that SO s a <br />caused or will cause such secondary effects within its own boundaries <br />Instead, a city may rely on the evidence and experience of o^er 'f ^ <br />evidence is reasonably believed to be relevant to its commumty. In addition, <br />a city does not need to prove that a particular type of SOB would have the <br />same adverse effects as the SOBs in the studies on which the city relied. <br />So long as [the adult business ordinance! affects only categories <br />of businesses reasonably believed to produce at least some of the <br />unwanted secondary effects, [the cityl must be ® <br />reasonable opportunity to experiment with solutions to admittedly <br />serious problems.® <br />3. Alternative Avenues of Communication <br />The regulations must allow reasonable alternative avenues of <br />A city cannot foreclose all opportunity for an SOB “ “"IXce which <br />boundaries The United States Supreme Court upheld an ordinance which <br />allowed SOBs to locate within 5% of the total area in a city. <br />decisions have used two different measurements for determin.ng that there <br />sufficient area available for SOBs: <br />a. the number of discrete sites available, often measured against the <br />number of SOBs existing in the city, and <br />b. the percentage of commercially-zoned land, rather than the entire <br />city, on which an SOB could locate. <br />A city does not have to show that the property is <br />available for sale or rent, nor does the city have to <br />location can be found in the market. Property will not be considered avartable. <br />hoover! i? physical characteristics make it inaccessable or “ndevetopable or <br />if legal restrictions such as zoning requirements or restrictive covenants make <br />it unusable."
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.