Laserfiche WebLink
20 Planning February 1999 <br />N I N G <br />nnr E <br />( <br />I <br />has tightened legulntions on <br />adult businesses and the mili­ <br />tary’ has put a few of them off <br />limits, allowing time and at­ <br />trition to whittle down their <br />number. The city further tight- <br />-:ned its regulations last year <br />oy creating a adult use over- <br />ay district, “not to concen ­ <br />trate [these uses) but to con ­ <br />tain them," says Payne. <br />This has been a fairly work-* <br />ble solution, he says. “The <br />• roprietors of the adult busi- <br />.aesses don't want trouble and <br />they expend a lot of money on <br />:ecurity,“ says Payne. “In fact, <br />*>ur police chief says that an <br />average bar generates a lot more <br />trouble than an adult club." <br />Preempting tlie problem <br />Some regions have decided to <br />avoid conflict —and potentially <br />expensive lawsuits—by devis­ <br />ing regulations that fit with <br />the pattern of established court <br />decisions and satisfy local needs <br />as well. <br />Fairfield, California [pop. <br />90.0001. located halfway be­ <br />tween San Francisco and Sac­ <br />ramento, has only one adult- <br />oriented business —and until <br />recently had only one small <br />district where adult uses were <br />allowed. Under its old zoning <br />ordinance, Fairfield reasoned <br />that setback requirements for <br />existing adult businesses ef­ <br />fectively precluded similar busi­ <br />nesses from locating in the <br />citv.s <br />After considerable study last <br />year, the city in December <br />adopted regulations that ex­ <br />panded the number of areas <br />where adult businesses could <br />locate. Fairfield now requires <br />that adult businesses be at least <br />1 .000 feet from other such busi­ <br />nesses and 750 feet from high ­ <br />ways, churches, residential <br />areas, parks, and schools. <br />Many cities have opted for <br />carefully defining where adult <br />establishments can locate and <br />then permitting those uses as- <br />of-right in order to avoid ran ­ <br />corous and politically volatile <br />hearings. “People who would <br />never consider going to a city <br />council meeting suddenly show <br />up by the bus load “ says Tina <br />Tam, a planner formerly with <br />Fairfield who now works for <br />the city of San Jose. <br />In Oklahoma City (pop. <br />470.0001. adult establishments <br />Resources <br />Court cases. Ixmd Use Law & Zoning Digest (Au­ <br />gust 1998) explains the NeW^Yqrk Court of Appeals <br />decision upholding New York ^City's regulation of <br />adult uses. Other court .cases are explained in the <br />publication's January, March, April, May, June, and <br />October 1998 issues. I <br />Newsletters. Articles in APA's Zoning News in­ <br />clude 'Adult Uses Neither Die nor Fade Away' <br />(^tember 1995) and 'Massaging the Regulations' <br />(Wtober 1997). <br />are conditional uses requiring <br />a city permit—but no public <br />hearings. Fewer than 20 such <br />businesses exist there, and they <br />are scattered th»'Ough several <br />commercial districts in the cit>’. <br />Finally, local governments <br />seeking to regulate adult busi­ <br />nesses are facing a challenge <br />from an unexpected source: <br />takings laws. Legislation aimed <br />at compelling governments to <br />compensate property owners <br />for the alleged taking of prop­ <br />erty passed by referendum in <br />Texas and Florida in 1997. <br />In the Orlando area, propri­ <br />etors of adult businesses have <br />sued Seminole County to com­ <br />pensate for losses they claim <br />are caused by land-use regula ­ <br />tions that prevent them from <br />running their type of opera­ <br />tion. <br />Despite the court cases, one <br />conclusion seems clear: Adult <br />businesses are here_lo stay. <br />and so, too, are fhP <br />to contain them Both efforts <br />are evolving. <br />John Gilmore is a writer in New <br />York Citv.