When strip clubs won't back down
Masters Club has filed an appeal of the Planning and Zoning Commission’s July 31st decision which removed removed the special permit requirements for adult businesses and allowed them permitted use in all I-3 zones. The appeal makes the following claims:
Commission’s decision and administrative findings, inferences, conclusions and decisions relating thereto are:
a. in violation of constitutional, statutory and/or agency regulatory provisions;
b. in excess of the statutory authority of the agency;
c. made upon unlawful procedure;
d. affected by other errors of law;
e. clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence of the whole record; and
f. arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.
In short the appeal contends that the text of the amendment was changed substantially enough so as to change the meaning and effect of the application as originally filed prior to the second public hearing. Basically the first application text was typed out incorrectly and had the effect of modifying the special permit rules. The second application text removed the special permit rules entirely as they relate to adult business. It is Masters Club’s claim that the application’s effect can not be modified so severely without a new application being filed, which didn’t happen because of time constraints.
According to the documents the P&Z is being summoned October 7th for a court appearance in Hartford Superior Court which means this action, if successful would not invalidate the change prior to the preliminary injunction hearing September 16,17,18.
The text of the appeal is here.
Masters Club Zoning Appeal
Also, it appears that Masters Club has filed suit against the East Hartford and Hartford Elks. The claim here is that the East Hartford Lodge intentionally misrepresented a lease agreement (which I presume is for the cell tower) by not being forthcoming about an amendment to the lease which they had entered into reducing the lessee’s rent. The complaint further alleges that the East Hartford Elks after the sale transferred half a million dollars to the Hartford Elks out of the sale proceeds of the property making that 500K that the Hartford Elks now possess available for payment of any judgement.
You can read the complaint here. You’ll have to forgive the quality. The Hartford Superior Court clerk charges $1.00 per page to copy (ridiculous) so I snapped pictures with my cell phone of the document and assembled them together.
Masters Club v. Elks
Masters Club is gearing up for trial. I was informed today that I may be subpoenaed, though I can’t imagine why anything I say would matter in court. Update 09/11/08 – It sounds like I won’t have to make a court appearance. Lucky me.
How did that get there? A history according to Mark Chu
As I returned from asking councilors Pitkin and Horan what exactly the definition of substantial is supposed to be in Section 8-61 definitions 13 and 16 (no answer BTW) I discovered 1 more stack of paper on my seat than I had left there. It appears Mark Chu left me a present and in turn I’m giving it to you. There isn’t anything ground breaking here but this packet does do a decent job of demonstrating the duplicity that has defined this whole adult establishment situation.
You didn't think I made this stuff up did you?
I happened on a copy of the letter from Mr. Chu to the Mayor, which was Cc’d but not timely delivered or in some cases not delivered at all to commissioners and councilmen, where he references the deal he made to the Mayor.
Notice that this letter does not bear a stamp from the Town Clerk. Is it common practice for official correspondence to NOT be stamped and recorded?
As the person from the strip club side explained Mr. Chu was unable to sign this letter before it was delivered to the Mayor, presumably by his counsel, because he was out of state on business. This is a confirmed correspondence.
Note, I have removed Mr. Chu’s phone number for obvious reasons.
While this letter may not appear to say a whole lot I’m informed the letter for legal reasons could not contain details and Mayor Currey was let in on it’s secret details. Word has it that this deal has a very short shelf life. Once either the Masters Club or Pitkin Street start their active court battle (September) the mutual benefit derived from their coming together as businessmen and settling will no longer exist.
Something that has bugged me since the last hearing was the suggestion, though I don’t recall of the top of my head if it was Dayton or Gerard who said it, that commissioners must follow the rules for ex parte communication and could not discuss the zoning application with anyone until the public hearing resumes next week. That struck me as a gag order and bad government so I looked up our ex parte ordinance.
From Section 15-13 of the ordinances:
An official, officer, or employee shall not consider any ex parte or private communications from any person, which he or she knows is or reasonably may be intended to influence unlawfully the decision on the merits of any matter where a determination is required by law to be made on the record after opportunity for hearing to interested parties.
It seems clear from the above that a communication in itself regarding the application is not a violation of the ex parte rules. In fact it seems the ex parte rules don’t preclude the commissioners from talking to anyone about the application unless they know they may be about to receive a bribe, extortion attempt, threat or some similar form of unlawful influence.
P&Z says NO to adult zones as the TC reviews new adult rules.
The P&Z commission has finally made their decision on the proposed new B-3A and I-3A zones which would have allowed up to 6 new adult establishments to come to town.
According to the Hartford Courant:
Saying they felt obligated to listen to the voices of the people, members of the planning and zoning commission voted 4-3 Wednesday night to shoot down proposed new regulations that would have allowed strip clubs to operate in two largely residential neighborhoods.
Commission members decided to maintain the town’s current regulations, which allow for such establishments in various industrial pockets throughout town. The vote was met with applause from several residents in the audience at town hall, including a group of residents who live in one of the neighborhoods where the new rules would have allowed adult-entertainment establishments.
As expected Kim Coleman, legal counsel for Mark Chu and Masters Club LLC, intends to refile a lawsuit challenging the existing regulations according to the Courant.
The town council through the ordinance committee is simultaneously working to reform the adult establishment regulations. The committee met on the 19th to review draft ordinances governing adult establishments. Among these according to the meeting minutes are licensing of employees which would involve a criminal background check, fingerprinting and recording of social security and drivers license information. Also the club would have to maintain a monthly list of employees and information on management. I expect that such a list, being submitted to the town, would be public information meaning anybody could see just who in a given month is working at an adult establishment.
I guess that means no more stripping your way through college on the sly.
Government on Demand – April 30th P&Z Public Hearing
In an attempt to improve the viewing experience (at the expense of post length) I have broken up the video into many individual segments. Any segment can be downloaded by clicking on the video to go to google video and clicking the download video for Ipod link on the right.
Now for the video…
Feel free to comment if I didn’t get a name right or I have no name for you.
Start of the public hearing
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8783132151741655230&hl=en]
Mike Dayton’s Testimony
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5481561988366872831&hl=en]
Hugo Benettieri’s Testimony
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7168885925202950493&hl=en]
Phil Michalowski’s Testimony
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1116742656490555714&hl=en]
Mike Dayton’s Testimony 2
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3104869214782383952&hl=en]
Public Testimony
Patrick Sanzo
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7410122125864069805&hl=en]
Reginald (?)
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=204646853598248022&hl=en]
Catherine Stevens
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6230271538889375564&hl=en]
Barbara Austin
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-777909045368453571&hl=en]
Susan Kniep
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4826426773938044965&hl=en]
Michael Sylvestor
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3241042285851883611&hl=en]
Susan Kniep 2
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3377900106958277293&hl=en]
Irene (?)
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4295272501323942452&hl=en]
George Franek
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5534731641515391930&hl=en]
Peter Santoro
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6441809549551636232&hl=en]
Jonathan Keller
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1147219206541810618&hl=en]
Mike DeGregario
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4368769788736833410&hl=en]
Kim Coleman
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8158289272832326139&hl=en]
Kathy Lombardo
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8506726968021155175&hl=en]
Janet Rice
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=591673795680000163&hl=en]
Greg Foran
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3174224560640911351&hl=en]
Unknown
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4068385231981160109&hl=en]
Karen Howe
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7901084634896906148&hl=en]
Unknown
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2372174106279897271&hl=en]
Michael Sylvestor Jr.
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1418919514888430617&hl=en]
Steve Livingston
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5908961909187717257&hl=en]
Salvatore Ingallinero
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9070715958164534125&hl=en]
Clara Pierceton
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7953983522359120584&hl=en]
Unknown
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3752488304026996785&hl=en]
Anita Morrison
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5793757251265910872&hl=en]
Peter Santoro 2
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8863953660385219123&hl=en]
Greg Foran 2
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8737490786104865995&hl=en]
Susan Kniep 3
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3433246283750096253&hl=en]
Patrick Sanzo 2
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1293747739701479833&hl=en]
Don Pitkin
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4017878779288567697&hl=en]
Kim Coleman 2
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8728496470612585029&hl=en]
Reginald ? 2
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8122080886508593396&hl=en]
Marc Weinberg
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3570124340051417617&hl=en]
End of hearing and P&Z action
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8906421080912648961&hl=en]
P&Z postpones action on rezone.
The public hearing is over and the P&Z has decided to postpone action on the proposed zoning changes for adult establishments until their next regular meeting at earliest to allow for further research.
Many people turned out and all told I have about 3 hours of video to sort through so more will come later.
The message was clear tonight. Not in my town. Not in my backyard. The P&Z will continue investigating alternatives but it looks like it will be our town and our back yards.
Reminder! Strip club hearing is tonight!
Agenda is HERE.
If you live in North Meadows or the Prestige Park area you need to be there.
The topic of discussion will be the zoning changes to allow strip clubs in the North Meadows and Prestige Park sections of town.
Government On Demand – Joint Council P&Z Meeting
If you weren’t aware the Town Council and P&Z Commission met in a joint meeting last night at 6:30 to discuss needed regulatory and zoning changes to bring the city into compliance with constitutional tests the courts are likely to apply regarding the restrictions of first amendment rights applied to adult establishments.
The town retained the firm Harrall-Michalowski Associates Inc. to do a study of our current zoning and regulations concerning adult establishments and the zoning and regulations of other areas that have faced this issue previously. They presented some suggested regulatory changes to the council and zoning changes to the P&Z. Changes suggested include allowing adult establishments in the areas known as Prestige Park and the Meadows.
The topic of the night was secondary effects. Secondary effects are important, as explained by Kim Coleman (legal council for Masters Club LLC.), because a way the town can restrict the free speech rights of an adult establishment (or any other group) is by demonstrating secondary effects sufficiently harmful to warrant a restriction.
For his part Mr. Dayton, the town planner, presented a considerable compilation of police reports and incidents to councilors and commissioners demonstrating the secondary effects of the existing adult establishments. Was it enough to make the case? Kim Coleman says no.
In my discussion with Coleman after the meeting she conveyed that although secondary effects can be a valid reason for limiting free speech rights the argument doesn’t work here because the town has made a mistake in the areas they chose to recommend for adult establishment use because as the maps distributed by the town’s consultant show the two designated areas have a considerably greater residential concentration and therefore greater likelihood of secondary effects than the currently disputed site on Robert’s Street.
In reviewing the maps I can’t help but to agree with her on that point. While Prestige Park has a benefit in that the club would be somewhat cordoned off inside the industrial park it has a large negative in that it’s positioning provides for no direct highway access and worse it’s central location in proximity to surrounding highways guarantees that visitors would come from every direction and would have to use residential neighborhoods and streets throughout town as their route to the club which would likely translate into a lot more intoxicated persons driving in the surrounding residential areas day and night.
While the Meadows location does have some of the benefits that the Roberts Street location has, such as almost direct highway access from Rt 2, I-84 and I-91 as well as relative isolation, it’s a very mixed area with about a quarter of the properties being residential. The location of the residential properties makes it unlikely that any of them would be able to escape exposure to adult establishments located in that area.
To add insult to injury the largest vacant lots to be developed are located directly adjacent to residential properties.
With the shortcomings of these areas in mind it must be considered that more than just Masters Club LLC is on the table here. The town is required to make it possible for future developers to have the opportunity to come to town and this isn’t a town with a lot of real estate to consider which wouldn’t have a close proximity to undesirable properties such as houses, schools and churches. In that thread these areas may not be better than the Robert’s Street location but they may be the best we can get and still allow for future development as required.
So what happens now? Well have to wait and see. The lawsuit filed by Masters Club is at least temporarily halted in trade for the town paying their legal fees to date totaling over $13,000 and as my conversation with Coleman suggests temporarily is the key word so long as the town fails to provide a zone with ample development potential which would suffer less secondary effects than the Robert’s Street location.
On Wednesday the 30th at 7PM there will be a public hearing on the proposed zoning changes at town hall in the council chamber. I strongly encourage anyone who can to attend and bring talking points. Especially if you live around prestige park or in or around the meadows area.
Video and documents are below.
Video of Joint Meeting of Town Council and P&Z
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5783303058047656075&hl=en]
Video of Interview with Kim Coleman
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1159489258476165436&hl=en]
Adult regulations from other communities.
Adult Establishment Regulations – Seattle, Washington
Adult Establishment Regulations – Freetown, Massachusetts
Adult Establishment Regulations – Burlington, Iowa
Adult Establishment Regulations – Delaware County, Ohio
Maps of recommended adult zones.
Adult Establishment Map
School and Church Location Map
Proposed Prestige Park Zone
Prestige Park Land Use Map
Proposed North Meadows Zone
North Meadows Land Use Map
Masters Club Update
I received an update email from Kim Coleman who is the legal counsel for Masters Club LLC.
Hi Jon-
Just a quick update as to what has occurred in the lawsuit.
The Town of East Hartford is again amending their zoning regulations. They are changing several zones. A portion of North Meadows (including water) is being converted from B-3 to B-3A. A portion of Prestige Park is being converted from I-3 to I-3A. Both will allow adult entertainment establishments.
On April 23, 2008 there is a joint meeting between the Town Council & P&Z.
The P&Z meeting to adopt the zone changes is on April 30, 2008.
We came to a temporary resolution with the town recently. The paid for my client’s attorney fees and we agreed to no press forward on the suit until after the zoning changes are in effect.
Our concerns regarding these changes are that they are still in residential areas and no parking is required; what will the impact be on traffic in these residential areas; lack of notice to the residents and business owners in the areas.
Kim Coleman
Law Offices of Norman A. Pattis, LLC
I had a feeling this was the case when I saw that the council voted to pay the attorney fees. I take it this means the town has finally come to terms that a new strip club is coming to town (potentially more than one) and and has decided to move towards managing it rather than preventing it.
Does Kim Coleman have a point on club location?
Kim’s interview got me thinking a bit. I decided to make up a quick google interactive map to test Kim’s assertion that a prestige park site would likely generate considerably more residential secondary effects than a Roberts street location. I know she showed a map as large as a whale at the P&Z but unfortunately I didn’t get a clear look at it.
Red lines mark the likely routes out of towners would take to a prestige park club. Yellow marks the route to a Roberts street club. Both club sites are marked blue with a 2000FT cyan radius to let you easily see residential neighborhoods that are well within “secondary effects” range.
Based on this map if I had to choose between the I-2 zoned Roberts street location and the I-3 zoned prestige park location I’d want it in the I-2 Roberts street location. How about you?
