Adult business regulations tightened

            Mooresville commissioners have amended an ordinance meant to manage adult entertainment establishments.

The town board on Monday opted to support the planning board’s recommendation for a more restrictive proximity requirement, or “separation distance,” despite suggestions from planning staff that the tougher restriction might open the town to a legal challenge.

            Last month, members of the Mooresville Planning Board voted to support changes to the town’s ordinance regarding adult businesses. Those changes, proposed by the town’s professional staff, were suggested as a way to more closely align language in portions of the town’s existing ordinance with language that appears in state statutes.

For instance, a list of possible adult businesses that would be managed by the town’s ordinance was stricken in favor of a similar but more inclusive list that appears in state statutes.

            That change “actually creates a larger umbrella of uses,” Senior Planner Craig Culberson told commissioners Monday night.  By making the ordinance’s list more inclusive, commissioners ensure that the town will be able to apply the ordinance to a wider array of adult-themed businesses.

            Adding a better definition of the businesses that are considered adult entertainment establishments was one goal of the changes suggested by planning staff. Also, the staff’s proposed changes were aimed at more clearly outlining the kinds of locations in town where those businesses might be appropriate.

            However, during November’s planning board meeting, board members also proposed a tougher proximity restriction for adult businesses, a suggestion that was not a part of the staff’s initial recommendation.

            During discussion before their vote, planning board members suggested doubling the minimum separation distance from 500 feet to 1,000 feet. A separation distance is a restriction that prevents the operators of adult businesses from locating too closely to many uses, including homes, religious institutions, schools and day care centers, because adult businesses are “recognized as having certain objectionable operational characteristics,” according to language included in the town’s ordinance.

            Eventually, the planning board voted for the staff’s proposed text amendments, along with the more restrictive separation distance. As a part of their vote, planning board members agreed to allow staff to review the board’s final recommendation and ensure that the tighter proximity limit would still leave some areas of the town open to adult businesses.

            Monday evening, Culberson reviewed the text amendments for town commissioners and addressed separation distances. He said planning staff members had reviewed the planning board’s proposal and decided that the increased limits “could reduce the available land area to the point that the town could be subject to a legal challenge.” As a result, town staff recommends keeping the 500-foot limit, he said.

            Also, Culberson outlined an additional use from which adult businesses must be separated, a use which commissioners requested last week during their Friday morning agenda meeting. Previously, the list of uses included religious institutions, schools and daycare centers. Now, the list also includes “any facility, structure, or property whose primary purpose is to provide services, recreation, or entertainment, with or without fee, to any person under 18 (eighteen) years of age.”

            Earlier in the meeting, Town Attorney Stephen Gambill told commissioners that the town has had an ordinance to manage adult businesses since March 2002, adding that the proposal considered by commissioners is not a new ordinance but instead consisted of text amendments to the existing ordinance. Gambill reminded commissioners that courts have upheld the rights of the operators of adult businesses, often on First Amendment grounds. As a result, local governments cannot enact rules or ordinances that effectively make it impossible to open an adult business in a community.

            Commissioner Mac Herring asked if another separation distance, other than 1,000 feet, might be more suitable. “So, what if we compromise with the planning board and say, ‘800 feet’?” Herring asked.

            “That’s certainly within your purview,” Culberson responded.

            Commissioner Miles Atkins questioned the effectiveness of the current ordinance. “Are we doing everything we can, within the law, to minimize adult establishments?” he asked.

            Gambill, in response to Atkins’ comments, said he believed the town’s existing ordinance, with the amendments suggested by staff, represented a “reasonable and balanced approach.” For now, there are no adult businesses operating within the town limits of Mooresville.

            Moments later, Commissioner Chris Carney offered a motion to support the staff’s proposed amendments and the planning board’s suggestion for a 1,000-foot separation distance between adult businesses and conflicting uses. “We’re simply trying to make better an ordinance that’s already on the books,” he said.

            With a second from Herring, commissioners then voted their unanimous approval.