Laserfiche WebLink
would be incompatible with sensitive land uses if the City were <br /> to repeal the moratorium prior to entry of the final order; <br /> U- On pages 35-37 of the Transcript of Proceedings of the Court' s <br /> Oral Decision of April 12, 1996, in Wallock v. Everett, Judge <br /> Farris identified sufficient parcels which could be available for <br /> adult use businesses if the City made the required changes to its <br /> Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan; and <br /> V- On May 7, 1996, the Planning Commission held a public hearing <br /> on the proposed revisions including the amendments to the Zoning <br /> Code and Comprehensive Plan <br /> SECTION 2: Based upon the findings in Section 1, the City <br /> Council does conclude: <br /> A- The City does have the authority to establish a moratorium and <br /> interim regulations; <br /> B- It was necessary to adopt the moratorium concerning the <br /> licensing and siting of adult use businesses in order to act as a <br /> stop-gap measure: (1) since the court' s decision in Wallock v.City <br /> of Everett invalidated the City' s adult use business zoning <br /> regulations; (b) to provide the City an opportunity to study its <br /> adult use zoning and licensing regulations and prepare <br /> appropriate revisions; (c) and to avoid applicants possibly <br /> claiming vested rights to locate in areas where they would be <br /> incompatible with the sensitive land uses which would be contrary <br /> to and inconsistent with the City' s revised regulatory scheme <br /> under consideration and preparation; <br /> C- The City must provide safety to certain sensitive land uses to <br /> protect them from the secondary adverse impacts of adult use <br /> businesses; <br /> D- An emergency did exist for the adoption of Ordinance No. 2138- <br /> 96; <br /> E- Further, an emergency continues to exist; <br /> F- It is necessary to adopt the revisions to the Zoning Code and <br /> Comprehensive Plan as interim regulations to act as a stop-gap <br /> measure while the State reviews the regulations per RCW <br /> 36. 70A. 106, to allow immediate implementation of the regulations <br /> in order to avoid added exposure from the plaintiffs in the <br /> litigation challenging the moratorium and to avoid the possible <br /> adverse consequences to the community from adult use businesses <br /> possibly claiming vested rights to locate in areas where they <br /> would be incompatible with the sensitive land uses and the City' s <br /> regulatory scheme; <br /> 4 <br />