Marty's Adult World of Enfield, Inc. G & S Realty, Inc. v. The Town of Enfield, Connecticut Wayne Bickley, Individually and as Zoning Enforcement Officer for the Town of Enfield the Town of Enfield Planning & Zoning Commission
Docket: 1141
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; March 27, 1994; Federal Appellate Court
Marty's Adult World of Enfield, Inc. and G. S Realty, Inc. appeal a District of Connecticut ruling that denied their motion for a preliminary injunction regarding a declaratory judgment action. The court found that the appellants failed to show probable success on the merits or raise serious questions about the merits of their claim that the Town of Enfield's zoning regulations violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The appellants argue that Enfield's special use permit requirement constitutes an unconstitutional licensing scheme and that the zoning regulations are vague.
Marty's operates an adult bookstore and added video booths without obtaining a required special use permit, which led to citations for zoning violations after a competitor complained. The Planning and Zoning Commission ordered Marty's to discontinue the booths and later denied G. S's application for a special use permit due to insufficient parking. G. S's appeal to the Connecticut Superior Court was unsuccessful, prompting the appellants to seek a preliminary injunction in federal court against the enforcement of the zoning regulations. The court ultimately denied their motion, reinforcing the lack of a strong legal basis for their claims.
Appellants argue on appeal that Enfield's special use permit requirement constitutes an unconstitutional licensing scheme and that the zoning regulations are void for vagueness. To obtain a preliminary injunction, a party must show possible irreparable injury and either probable success on the merits or serious questions that merit litigation, with a favorable balance of hardships. The district court found that appellants failed to demonstrate either of these criteria and denied the preliminary injunction, a decision subject to de novo review.
Appellants contend that the court incorrectly applied a deferential standard of review rather than the strict scrutiny standard for licensing schemes. They assert that requiring a special use permit for retail businesses conducting commercial recreation is unconstitutional due to lack of narrow tailoring to a compelling government interest and inadequate procedural safeguards. The court, however, classified the permit requirement as a content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation, which is permissible since it does not prohibit the activity entirely and allows for operation elsewhere in Enfield.
Furthermore, appellants challenge the court's finding that Marty's could operate its viewing booth business in the Business Regional District without a special use permit, pointing out that all uses require review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The court maintained that the zoning code permits such businesses in this district, and thus, appellants cannot be denied approval solely based on their desire to operate a viewing booth business unless they violate other zoning requirements. The Commission's review process does not negate the availability of the Business Regional District as a venue for this business.
Enfield's special use permit requirement is classified as a content-neutral regulation rather than a licensing scheme, thus it is not subject to strict scrutiny or the procedural safeguards outlined in Freedman v. Maryland. Instead, it must meet the criteria for content-neutral time, place, and manner regulations, which necessitate serving a substantial government interest and not unreasonably limiting alternative avenues of communication.
Enfield has a significant interest in ensuring adequate parking for businesses and overseeing new construction or changes in use within the Business Local District, which is essential for preserving urban quality of life. The court found that the permit requirement meets the first prong of the Schad test by balancing business needs with residential concerns.
Regarding the second prong, the permit requirement does not unreasonably restrict alternative communication methods since businesses in the Business Regional District can operate viewing booths without a special use permit. The court affirmed that zoning regulations which allow certain activities in some areas while restricting them in others do not constitute unreasonable limitations.
Additionally, the appellants claimed that Enfield's zoning regulations were void for vagueness. However, the court determined that the regulations provide adequate notice of prohibitions, as evidenced by the rejection of a special use permit application due to insufficient parking at Marty's.
Ultimately, the court upheld the analysis of Enfield's permit requirement under the appropriate standard and found the zoning regulations not unconstitutionally vague. As a result, the court concluded that the appellants could not show probable success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions to warrant further litigation. The decision was affirmed.
