Video: East Hartford Budget Meeting – Public Hearing
Public Hearing on 9.2% Tax Increase Wednesday, March 3rd @7PM
I hope to see you at the public hearing on Wednesday at 7PM at East Hartford Town Hall. If anything is going to get you out to a public hearing a 9.2% tax increase ought to do it.
Daley Court – Video and Documents
Finally I have processed the documents and video from the hearing last Tuesday. Video is below and the documents are at the bottom. You be the judge. I’ll be glad to answer questions through the comments section.
History shows that Mr. Horan reads this blog. Here is a challenge Mr. Horan, as Chairman of the Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee, show me the law that WAS followed in the council’s disposition of the property because I have listed the law that I believe wasn’t.
Council Calls Public Hearing To Order
[blip.tv ?posts_id=2271804&dest=-1]
Chair of Redevelopment Agency Speaks
[blip.tv ?posts_id=2271847&dest=-1]
Developers Bill & Dan Speak
[blip.tv ?posts_id=2271869&dest=-1]
Jon Searles (Me) Speaks
[blip.tv ?posts_id=2272018&dest=-1]
Mayor Currey Addresses Council
[blip.tv ?posts_id=2272025&dest=-1]
Council Debates and Passes Transfer and Sale Motions
[blip.tv ?posts_id=2272154&dest=-1]
** If any of the below documents give you an error please update your adobe reader to 6.1 or better or let me know about the problem so I can down convert the document for compatibility.**
Town Fact Sheet
State Response to EHRA Eminent Domain 06-18-2001
State Refusal to Authorize Property Sale – 2000
Sheldon Oak Central Windfall Profit
RFP 08-043
Redevelopment Minutes 02-27-03
Property Card 2009
Property Card 2003
Koteen Offer 12-02-2002
Karno Letter Pushing Koteen 06-21-2002
HUD H 08-08
Hud 202 Guidebook
Hovanec EHHA appraisal 09-08-2000
GIS Property Card 2009
EHHA to EHRA update on deal 12-05-2000
EHHA to EHRA on expedition of emminent domain 07-02-2002
EHHA EHRA Solicitation 03-22-2000
East Hartford Town Ordinances Chapter 10 – Finance & Taxation
CGS 8-137
CGS 8-24
Certificate of Taking – Eminent Domain – 08-13-2002
Sheldon Oak 2007 990
New Samaritan 2007 990
EHRDA vs Beatman Emminent Domain 06-14-1999
EHRDA vs Karabetsos Emminent Domain 04-20-2000
ToEH vs EHHA Emminent Domain 07-19-2002
Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee FOI Appeal
Town Council Agendas Page 1
Town Council Agendas Page 2
Town Council Minutes
Town Council Subcommittees
Town Council Minutes 05-14
East Hartford Notices 04-15 to 05-11
East Hartford Notices 05-11 to 05-20
Public Hearing Flyer – Get em out!
As previously mentioned the East Hartford Town Council will be holding another public hearing on Tuesday June 16th to hear what the public thinks about their transferring a property which the town appraised during reval at 2.2 million dollars for 50 thousand dollars to a group of non-profit developers who intend to develop senior housing which will cost the tax payers greater than twice in subsidies what the property tax levy brings in.
Here is a flyer to distribute in your neighborhood.
A Tour of Daley Court
Follow me on a journey through Daley Court, AKA 582 Burnside Ave., AKA 590 Burnside Ave. I will show you that Daley Court is not some falling down slum development but instead a structurally sound, if in need of modernization, development. Our town officials are lying to us and it’s going to cost the taxpayers of East Hartford millions.
This past Tuesday the town council held a public hearing at which point it became apparent that the council and development department had not done their homework. In response they have scheduled a second hearing for June 16th at 7PM in the town council chambers. Please come and voice your opposition to selling a 2.2 million viable commercial residential development to a non-profit developer of subsidized housing projects for a mere $50,000. Tell them you aren’t willing to give up millions on this property so they can have an election issue. It will take a minimum of 10 years for the new development to offset the loss on the property alone that this deal would create.
Shame on the East Hartford development department and shame on East Hartford Mayor Melody Currey for recommending this transfer to the Town Council.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PwtgP7v9uU]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kc2SBABneG8]
Video: August 20th Special Permit Hearing
Finally I have the special permit video up. I had all kinds of trouble with google video. I must have uploaded the video 5 times and it wouldn’t convert properly on their end. I tried blip.tv as well, but their system seems to have a problem as well in that it only shows about 1 frame/second. Google finally decided to process my video though.
I also received word that channel 5 will be replaying the hearing on Monday.
Here’s a time line breakout so you can jump around to what you want to see.
00:00:50 – Mike Dayton, town planner
00:07:00 – Thomas Gerard, town legal counsel
00:14:50 – 1st Public Comment
00:22:50 – 2nd Public Comment, Susan Skowronek
00:34:40 – 3rd Public Comment, Susan Kniep
01:00:45 – 4th Public Comment
01:03:00 – 5th Public Comment
01:11:20 – 6th Public Comment
01:23:50 – 7th Public Comment
01:28:50 – 8th Public Comment
01:32:30 – 9th Public Comment
01:33:30 – 10th Public Comment
01:40:25 – 11th Public Comment
01:44:45 – 12th Public Comment, Jon Searles (Me) Roberts St Plan
02:01:30 – 13th Public Comment
02:04:25 – 14th Public Comment
02:08:50 – 15th Public Comment, Kim Coleman legal counsel for Masters Club LLC
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7854567128234263013&hl=en]
Adult Entertainment – My Final and Comprehensive Recommendation
I’ve done a fair amount of research through all this adult mess and I think I’ve finally come to a conclusion on just what is the best plan for East Hartford in my estimation.
Granted I’m no adult entertainment mitigation professional, but then neither are our Mayor, Town Planner, Council Members, Development Director or P&Z members. You’d think that the town’s attorneys would be the ones with the knowledge to make up for that fact, but as it turns out the word on the street is that the best constitutional/adult entertainment attorneys are representing the town’s opposition, Masters Club LLC ( Kim Coleman, Norman Pattis constitutional lawyers) and Pitkin Street Entertainment LLC (Dan Silver 35 years representing adult businesses). Given those facts I suppose I may be equally as qualified to present a plan as anyone else so take this for what it’s worth.
Before I go into it we need to analyze the problems that faced us at the beginning of this, what problems face us now, and what problems may face us after tonight.
East Hartford’s adult zoning regulations have been unconstitutional for years and as of this moment are still unconstitutional. These are the particular reasons.
- Zoning regulations can not be so restrictive that no, or an insufficiently small, area of opportunity exists for adult businesses to open. Multiple court cases have held that 4.5-5% of a towns land available for business use being available for adult businesses is sufficient to pass this test.
- A special permit requirement is considered a prior restraint on free speech. Any special permit requirement for adult businesses cannot grant unbridled discretion to the decision making body. Unbridled discretion occurs when the particular requirements for approval or denial are not specifically defined in the special permit regulation or the terms used are ambiguous.
- Any regulation of adult business must be on the merits of secondary effects. Any regulation which can be shown to be against the content of the speech, for example a regulation to ban strippers, is unconstitutional. A regulation based on reasonable expectations of secondary effects to ensure strippers don’t cause or participate in illegal activities, such as a distance requirement from patrons, is perfectly acceptable.
Clearly the town understands this at least partially. To date the town has lifted most zoning requirements for adult businesses alleviating some of the problem from number 1.
Next the town applied for the establishment of two adult zones which would have had no special permit requirements alleviating 1 and 2 above in the North Meadows and Prestige Park area of town. This application was denied after the residents of town pointed out the absurdity of “regulating for secondary effects”, which is the only way the town can regulate in this case, by placing these businesses in known residential areas.
Now the town has applied to lift the special permit requirements on adult businesses as allowed in I-3 zones which would, when combined with the lifting of regulations already completed, alleviate 1 and 2 above. This application also has the same fault of placing the permitted areas in known residential areas betraying the declared intention of mitigating secondary effects.
Unfortunately both plans on their face appear to be more directed towards complying with 1 and 2 above to win a particular lawsuit rather than complying with 1 and 2 above in an attempt to mitigate secondary effects.
Here is my plan and why it works.
- Establish I-2A and B-3A zones which replace the current B-3 and I-2 zones on Roberts Street whose rules are identical to the existing zones with the addition of adult businesses as a special use. Remove adult businesses as a special use from I-3 zones.
- Re-write section 503.3 special permit rules for adult businesses such that they define specific requirements which may be in addition to the requirements already imposed in the I-2A/B-3A zones such as minimum distances from schools and residential zoned properties in unambiguous terms.
That’s it. This plan manages to satisfy all the constitutional requirements of regulating adult businesses. It provides an alternative location of sufficient size (5.5% of East Hartford’s business use properties according to the 2003 plan of development) which is about as removed from neighboring residential areas as possible in East Hartford and whose location promotes interstate 84 as the natural travel route to and from any businesses as opposed to residential streets in the heart of town. It removes unbridled discretion from the special permitting process and most important of all it does not contradict itself in the claim of regulating for secondary effects.
Why do I think I’m right on this? That’s the easy one. First, it’s logical. Second I researched and this is what I found:
Mendon, Mass: This city has never had adult regulation until very recently. A neighboring town’s battle and success in repelling a club based on clear zoning regulations inspired them to pass regulations. What Mendon has done is demonstrated three important parts of regulating adult businesses. In their regulations they established a strict zone for adult businesses to locate. They implemented a special permit requirement which has clearly defined requirements for approval. Most importantly they are proof that the moment you pass a regulation defining an adult zone you will get adult businesses. Mendon has had two applications covered by their new rules. The first was denied because it was just down the street from the defined adult zone. The second application is for a location inside the new adult zone which means if all the requirements are met by the applicant there will be a club there.
TJS of New York, Inc. v. Town of Smithtown: In this 2008 case the decision clarified for me somewhat what is needed in creating an adult zone.
Zoning ordinances may limit adult entertainment businesses to particular locations provided that “reasonable alternative avenues of communication” remain for adult oriented businesses” [case citations left out] Reasonableness requires an assessment of available alternatives and whether these alternatives afford a reasonable opportunity to locate and operate such a business.
The decision goes on to reference other decisions establishing guidelines to pass a test of “reasonable alternative avenues of communication”. In short past decisions give guidance that around 5% of the total land available for business use, regardless of current use, availability or economic feasability must be available to adult businesses. The Roberts zone meets this test at 5.5% of the total land for business use.
New York State Office Of General Counsel: This legal memorandum expresses the importance and exclusivity of regulating adult businesses only for their secondary effects and surviving related legal challenges.
Blue Moon Entertainment, LLC, v. City of Bates City: The court was only overturning a previous decision here. Their findings in doing so are what interested me. They support my understanding that special permits are perfectly ok so long as they have a clearly defined set of conditions.
First Amendment
activities generally may be restricted by a zoning ordinance that contains “contentneutral”
regulations governing the time, place, and manner of expression, so long as
the ordinance is designed to serve a substantial governmental interest and does not
unreasonably limit alternative avenues of communication. City of Renton v. Playtime
Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41, 47 (1986). If, however, the ordinance requires that an
individual obtain a license or permit prior to engaging in the protected activity, then
the licensing scheme is analyzed as a “prior restraint” on the activity.A licensing scheme generally
must provide narrow, objective, and definite standards to guide the licensing
authority, Shuttlesworth, 394 U.S. at 151, may only impose a restraint for a specified
and reasonable period, and must provide for prompt judicial review. Freedman, 380
U.S. at 58-59; FW/PBS, 493 U.S. at 228. It must not vest unbridled discretion in the
hands of a government official. FW/PBS, Inc., 493 U.S. at 225-26.
Last Chance, speak now or forever hold your peace…
Tonight is the continuation of the public hearing for the zone change to remove special permits for adult businesses in I-3 Zones.
The hearing starts at 7:30 according to the agenda, but get there are 7:00 just in case. The hearing will be in the town council chambers at the town hall.
This especially pertains to you if you live within about 1/2 mile of an I-3 Zone (North Side of East Hartford).
As Bill Doak says, so I do…
Bill Doak, editor of the East Hartford Gazette, once wrote an editorial in the EH Gazette which said, in other words of course, if all we bloggers do is tear things down without offering an idea of how to build things up then we can go to hell because we are useless. You know Bill, you are right. In recognition of this I offer the following to the readers.
I’ve been thinking about the public hearing coming up on the 20th which will be a continued opportunity for residents to speak on the proposed changes to section 503.3 Special Permits which would make Adult Businesses a permitted use for all 177 I-3 zoned properties in town.
What I’ve been thinking is how does this I-3 concept compare to a Roberts Street zone. Conveniently at the last hearing the counsel for the P&Z had not calculated the maximum club density, despite the fact that they had done so for the N. Meadows/Prestige plan. What I found in figuring it out myself is that the current proposed I-3 plan can support up to an estimated 25 new adult businesses based solely on the 1000′ between businesses requirement.
Here is a slightly more zoomed in map of the I-3 zones for more clarity.
I-3 Zones – Large
Now for your viewing pleasure here is the GIS map I threw together to represent a Roberts Street zone.
Roberts St Adult Zone
I’ll guide you through my Roberts St map. First you’ll notice the blue outline, these are 39 I-2/B-3 zoned parcels on Roberts St. Notice that the Masters Club property is not highlighted, though I have labeled it, this is because the GIS information is incorrect and lumps it together with a Church Street parcel. The total size of this adult zone would be 104 acres give or take a bit. You’ll also notice I’ve put labels on some parcels. The labeled parcels are the parcels that an adult business would be required to purchase to achieve the maximum density of 4 clubs. I labeled these parcels based on their current ownership.
Moving left from the Masters Club parcel the first properties that comply with the 1000′ buffer are labeled with their current owner CL&P. I don’t foresee CL&P selling the properties to an adult business.
The labeled property to the far left is the first property that meets the 1000′ requirement from the CL&P cluster. That property is owned by the State of CT. I can’t see the State selling to an adult business either.
To the far right we see two parcels labeled vacant land. These are the first parcels to the right of the existing Masters Club property which meet the 1000′ requirement. I doubt either are buildable for the purpose of an adult business being less than an acre each.
The result is that we’ve allocated 39 parcels of land comprised of 104 acres as permitted use, but due to the location of Masters Club, which is beyond the towns doing, maximum density could likely never be reached.
If we were to combine this zone with the deal that Mr. Chu has referred to previously we could potentially end up with both lawsuits dropped, the adult club use for both the Venus Lounge and Kahoots property being abandoned ending their grandfathering, and no club on Pitkin Street. This may or may not be feasible, but it ought to be investigated.
Well there you go Bill. I provided some nails and hopefully someone else can provide the hammer.
Video: Public Hearing – Adult Business Ordinances
The video from the ordinance hearing is below. I missed the first few minutes of the introduction to the ordinances by Chairman Rich Kehoe. The exchange between Kehoe and former Mayor Susan Kniep is marginally entertaining.
Here are the proposed ordinances being discussed.
Proposed Adult Business Ordinances
Some things that are unanswered for me are:
1. In Section 8-61 Definitions the following items are vague and undefined.
(13)
“sexually oriented business” means any enterprise where a substantial or significant amount of the business or activity is associated with the performance, depiction, display or exhibition of a semi nude body, sexual activity or sexual anatomical areas and shall include sexually oriented retail stores or theaters and sexually oriented cabarets or live semi-nude entertainment;
(16)
“sexually oriented retail store or theater” means any enterprise which has a substantial or significant amount of its inventory or floor space for, or of its income from, (A) media or novelty items, gag gifts, toys and paraphernalia that depict sexual activity, semi-nude bodies, or sexual anatomical areas or (B) novelty items, gag gifts, toys and paraphernalia that are designed or marketed for stimulating human genital organs, sexual arousal or sadomasochistic use except for medical films or publications or art or photograph publications that devote at least twenty-five percent of the lineage of each issue to articles and advertisements dealing with subjects of art or photography;
Just what constitutes a substantial or significant amount and who makes that decision. It sure seems as though the town may have to incur significant legal expenses the first time these questions are decided in court and then they may end up toothless.
2. While the license laws seem on their face to be a good idea there are a few things that rub me the wrong way. The license applications for both owners/managers and employees would in my understanding be public documents. According to the application requirements every single piece of information needed to perpetrate identity theft/fraud on these people would be public information.
Further, there is no legal requirement that a person have either a drivers license or social security card. It may be secret knowledge to many, but the social security program is entirely opt-in at birth, or any time thereafter, so certain person may not have a number. The requirements for either of those in order to apply/receive a license would appear to be discriminatory. Finally, any time the government makes it standard practice to archive biometric data under any guise it’s bogus. Fingerprints aren’t necessary and are just one more privacy invasion.
3. Why is section 8-69 there?
Sec. 8-69. Location.
The provisions of section 503.3 of the town zoning regulations, as may be amended from time to time, are hereby incorporated by reference, and any violation of such regulations shall be deemed a violation of the provisions of section 8-61 through section 8-79, inclusive.
Section 503.3 of the zoning regulations refers only to special permit requirements. Am I missing something? The administration’s ill thought and rushed plan before the P&Z will strip any remaining Adult Business references from section 503.3 if passed long before these ordinances are even voted on. What is going to happen now is when the P&Z acts, whether on the existing proposal or some other one (hopefully some other one) the council is going to have to change these ordinances to make section 8-69 relevant.
[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8913036254642424665&hl=en]
