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.

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

Here is a flyer to distribute in your neighborhood.

Public Hearing Flyer

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]

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]

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

1. 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.
2. 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.

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).

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.

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]

The full public hearing video from Thursday night is now available at the bottom of this post, have a look.

I have long thought there was something fishy floating around this whole strip club thing. This whole thing seemed way too political which just doesn’t mesh with a multi-million dollar business deal. Politicians and businessmen do not think alike. My suspicions were confirmed recently when an unnamed (until they decide to come forward officially) person from the strip club side of the aisle filled me in on a bit of the history. Here is the gist of what was conveyed.

It seems that this whole lawsuit issue came about when Masters Club LLC originally sought to follow the proper procedure to get approvals during the purchasing process of the Roberts Street location while the property was under contract. According to the source Masters Club spoke with persons of top authority in town who overstepped their proper role and jurisdiction by unequivocally telling Masters Club that there was no way their type of business could open and a permit could not even be filed.

Masters Club decided that the particular location, whose features are unmatchable in this area, was too valuable to give up on and decided to fight for their right to apply for a permit. They filed a lawsuit and here we are.

Now, this is where things begin to get bad for us as residents. The Mayor was quick to come out in the media with assurances that our zoning and ordinances were both legal and enforceable in court. To this day her public stance is that our ordinances and zoning will win in court. At the same time the ordinances were stripped from the town code and plans were made for rezoning. If our current regulations were enforceable why strip them? If our zoning was fine, why change it?

It’s important to realize that this whole process has been going on since about last October and according to this person multiple olive branches have been extended to resolve the issue in a win/win manner. One such branch came in the form of a letter (which prompted a meeting in which the deal was denied by the Mayor) to the Mayor which was CC’d for the P&Z and Council. It appears that this letter, which included an offer that seems too good to refuse, was withheld from the P&Z members until recently and it’s not known for sure if all council members have seen it even today. This letter, to my knowledge, despite being weeks old has not been received through the town clerk yet.

What was the offer? In exchange for allowing Masters Club to locate on Roberts Street Pitkin Street Entertainment (Kahoots) would cease to exist through a private deal between Pitkin St and Masters Club. The letter clearly said that if accepted Masters Club would be the ONLY club in town. There were no details on the plight of the Venus, though I’m sure it was discussed in the private meeting.

To date we have a moratorium that is expiring in October, no ordinances to protect our neighborhoods, a zoning plan that is guaranteed to lose in court next month and rushed and poorly thought out zoning proposals that will deny Masters Club their location at the expense of our neighborhoods.

It seemed pretty clear why the North Meadows/Prestige Park zones were a bad idea. They would totally alter the atmosphere and quality of life of the neighborhoods targeted. That plan was shot down, and I’m grateful.

Now the plan before the P&Z would do the same exact thing as the last plan but it’s being given a less dangerous sounding description, removal of special permit requirements. Well, the fact is that removal of the special permit requirements with only a 1000′ buffer between adult establishment requirement would open much more of the town to adult businesses than the last plan would. Consider this GIS map which I posted previously.

I understand the logic behind these zoning choices. It’s true that these zone changes may in fact not allow a location that Masters Club or Pitkin St wants, but the danger is that they may create many locations that another Venus Lounge would gladly accept. It makes no sense whatever to block one or two clubs by legislating an invitation for seedier joints to come to town.

As I see it there a handful of certainties that face us.

1. Mr. Gerard is right, if we do nothing we lose anyway.

2. The choices that have been put before us are not the best choices possible.

3. Politics are obscuring the most obvious and beneficial resolution to this problem.

4. The majority of people polled think Roberts Street is the best place for a strip club in town.

5. Despite direction from the Mayor to officials to keep the public informed she herself has not been straight forward and citizens have been excluded at every step through executive mid-day meetings and secret deal sessions. I fail to see the need for executive joint P&Z/Council sessions to discuss zoning and ordinance strategy which according to Mr. Dayton at the last hearing is not being done directly for either lawsuit. At every step we hear one thing only to find the story is belied by their official actions.

To sum up my thoughts, when dealing with businessmen you must act like a businessman. When listening to politicians, remember that’s what they are.

[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1879378848442215125&hl=en]

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]

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.

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.