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.
Time to speak up on strip clubs… again.
In case you haven’t been made aware by a friend, family or the town announcement system there will be a public hearing tonight before the Planning & Zoning Commission to discuss yet another zone change in favor of adult businesses.
We should all take the opportunity tonight to thank Planning & Zoning Commission members Paul Roczynski, John Ryan, John Grottole and Kathy Salemi for voting against the creation of new adult zones which would have permitted 6 or more adult businesses to infiltrate residential neighborhoods and for not changing their vote under pressure from the mayor. The people spoke clearly at the last hearing and at least these four were listening.
On tonight’s menu is a proposal to remove the special permit requirement for adult businesses in an I-3 zone making them a permitted use. In combination with our current ordinances that means an adult business can be located anywhere in an I-3 so long as it’s not within 1000 feet of another one.
From the agenda:
TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION: To allow adult-oriented establishments as a permitted use with special requirements in the existing Section 503 Industrial III (I-3) zone.
This is the entire substance of the agenda. The actual proposed text is not listed and the special requirements it will presumably include are not described.
The hearing will be tonight at 7PM in the town council chambers. Speak up, and don’t be afraid to offer an alternative.
On a side note I was just going through some of the older news stories on this issue. It appears that as far back as January and throughout this process the Mayor has told the media that there were multiple places in town Mr. Chu could have called home and that she was confident our zoning and ordinances would hold up in court. In fact, her story in each of these reports seems to be that she has confidence our zoning and ordinances will stand up in court.
Flash forward to today. We now know that in fact there was not a single place a strip club could have located under the then existing ordinances when Chu came to town (something the Mayor had to be aware of). Then the Town Council went and removed all the restrictions and implemented an 8 month moratorium, a de facto admission that the administration had zero confidence in the existing ordinances. It also seems odd that she captured the media opportunity to stand sword in hand to defend the residents of the 5 or so residential properties near the roberts street location but was then perfectly willing to sacrifice entire neighborhoods to the I-3A/B-3A zone changes when the cameras weren’t there. I can’t help but wonder if our Mayor is trying to play both sides on this issue.
Why must every action taken in regards to the new adult zoning and ordinances be discussed in executive session. We the people have a right to know what is going on here. As expressed at the last public hearing these new ordinances and zoning changes aren’t supposed to be directly targeted at Masters Club LLC. or Pitkin Street Entertainment, so why then is it proper for the administration to hide behind these two lawsuits in executive session when discussing the changes. It seems clear that someone is afraid of proving Kim Coleman’s assertion that that town is acting in bad faith to be true.
EDIT: Here are the areas in town which are zoned I-3 (according to GIS) making them potential strip club locations. Also, please note that it appears that Prestige Park would be targetted by this change (being the main I-3 zone). It seems tonight’s proposed change may just be a repeat of the last proposal sans North Meadows.
