2005/06/15 Council Agenda Packet

i In addition, adult uses would be subject to distance, concentration, sigm n and aortization restrictions, as follows: No adult use could be located within 500 feet of a residence district • In C4 Districts, no new adult use could be established where, within a 1,000 foot radius, two or more adult uses existed. In C6-4 through C6-9 Districts, no new adult use could be established where, within a 1,000 foot radius, three or more adult uses existed. Each adult use within a single establishment would be considered a separate primary use. • No sign for any adult use could display or describe a specified sexual activity or a specified sexual area. No adult use could have more than one accessory business sign, except. that an adult motion picture theater could, in .addition, have a marquee. No advertising signs would be permitted for an adult use. No adult use sign could be .aluminated or exttrid beyond the street line, except for adult motion picture theater marquees. • Amortization provisions dictated that adult uses that failed to meet the proposed location and distance requirements would be required to terminate within one year. Where existing establishments within districts in which adult uses would be Permitted exceeded the proposed concentration provisions, the adult uses closest to a residential district would generally be amortized first. The proposal would have allowed the Board of Standards and Appeals to exempt existing adult uses, located in districts in which such uses would continue to be Permitted, from the concentrati on and amortization provisions of the new regulations. Similarly, the City Planning Commission would have been authorized to allow a new adult use notwithstanding the proposed concentration provisions. In each case, the BSA or CPC, as applicable, would be required to make findings to ensure that any adverse impacts from the adult establishment were minimized. According to Norman Marcus, who at the time was counsel to the City Planning Commission, "This safety valve procedure was felt essential to withstand a challenge to the reasonableness of the regulation."" Numerous speakers appeared at the public hearing, both in favor of and in opposition to the proposed zoning regulations. In general, business and civic groups from Manhattan were supportive of the plan. Those in opposition included representatives of boroughs outside Manhattan, religious institutions, and civil libertarians. 53 "Zoning Obscenity: Or, The Moral Politics of Porn," Norman Marcus, Buffalo Law Review, Vol. 27 1978. 8 33 EVER00132