Too restrictive?

[RJJ]

Zoning and Historic Districts need to be in place, but at the same time promote a balance that is pleasing and still allows for progress.

 

[peach]

Need to keep Historic Districts (glad I don't have any responsibility to make those decisions)... they are Historic for a reason... it comes down to signage and color scheme that doesn't impair the District.

 

[peach]

Need to keep Historic Districts (glad I don't have any responsibility to make those decisions)... they are Historic for a reason... it comes down to signage and color scheme that doesn't impair the District.

 

[peach]

Need to keep Historic Districts (glad I don't have any responsibility to make those decisions)... they are Historic for a reason... it comes down to signage and color scheme that doesn't impair the District.

 

[RJJ]

Peach: There is a little more to a Historic District then color and signage!

 

[Francis Vineyard]

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

​

Izzy Poco, LLC v. Town of Springdale,

​

Case 2:10-cv-00559CW, Bus. Franchise Guide (CCH) ¶ 14,715 (D. Utah Oct. 28,2011)

​

This case involves the interesting issue of the constitutionality of a town ordinance banning formula restaurants. A federal district court in Utah concluded that although such an ordinance might not be constitutional, the law governing this area was not so clearly established as to defeat the qualified immunity defense asserted by town employee defendants. The town of Springdale, Utah, near Zion National Park, passed an ordinance banning “formula restaurants,” which the ordinance defined as any business “which is required by contractualor other arrangement to provide any of the following: substantially identical named menu items, packaging, food preparation methods, employee uniforms, interior décor, signage,exterior design, or name as any other restaurant or delicatessen in any other location.” The town justified the ordinance by explaining that formula restaurants were incompatible with the town’s general plan because of the limited amount of private land available, the large size or scale of such restaurants, excessive noise, odor or light emissions, and other excessive use of resources. Plaintiff, a Subway franchisee, obtained a business license to operate a sandwich shop; but when town officials realized that the sandwich shop would be a Subway restaurant, they refused to perform services or renew the business license to allow that restaurant to open. The franchisee sued, challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance and seeking monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. All individual defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity, claiming that the franchisee could not prove that a reasonable official would have known that their specific conduct under the ordinance violated the franchisee’s rights under clearly established law. The court agreed and granted summary judgment to individual defendants.The court agreed with the franchisee that state governments may not significantly burden interstate commerce through discriminatory, protectionist legislation. The court explained, however, that the franchisee did not establish that “facially neutral laws prohibiting franchise restaurants have been clearly established as violating this constitutional principle. ”Although the court noted that one case from the Eleventh Circuit had “held that a local regulation banning franchise restaurants should be subject to a heightened level of scrutiny” under the commerce clause, there were no U.S.Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit cases on point. The court’s characterization of the ordinance as facially neutral is interesting because it was clearly targeted toward a particular type of restaurant rather than applying to all restaurants of a certain size or possessing other characteristics that the ordinance deemed undesirable. Finally, although individual defendants were dismissed, the franchisee was not left without any remedy because its challenge to the ordinance remained. However, the dismissal of individual defendants precluded the recovery of any damages.

ABA-Franchise-Law-Journal-Spring-2012.pdf

Francis



​

 

[MASSDRIVER]

You should see our Sonic...we don't ban chains, we make them jump through hoops...

Why?

Brent.

 

[lunatick]

I think if this is pressed to the Supreme Court it will ultimately fail.

Is one thing to limit number of say liquor stores. Restrict where bars are located within proximity of schools etc.

Or provide oridances which impact the architectural character of a community, zoning, etc.

But this is going beyond and infringing upon the right of commerce and interstate commerce imo.

At somepoint someone with enough gumption and money may take that battle on.

Until then....

 

[peach]

It took the Apple store 2 years to get zoning/historic approval to do their tenant build out in Georgetown. Most (but not all) of it was signage. Happens all the time.