Opinion ID: 2740909
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mendon's rural aesthetics

Text: The October 7, 2008, amendments to Mendon's bylaws stated that size and height restrictions were intended to protect Mendon's rural, small-town aesthetic. Showtime suggests that this claim is clearly pretextual, given that the bylaws apply only within the Adult-Entertainment Overlay District, a heavily commercialized zone. In fact, it is uncontested that the character of the AdultEntertainment Overlay District is far from rural in nature. It currently houses multiple large or multi-story commercial structures, including a 6,900-square-foot self-storage facility, a drive-in movie theater with an estimated capacity of 700 vehicles, and a 10,152-square-foot nightclub. At the time Showtime applied for an adult-entertainment license, the lot it owned was occupied by a 2,595-square-foot, 1.9 story landscaping supply store. Even after the bylaws' passage, none of these businesses are subject to size or height restrictions. It is thus unclear, and Mendon does not clarify, what particular negative effect the size and height of an adultentertainment business would have on rural aesthetics that is not shared by all other large, commercial structures (including those already operating in the Adult-Entertainment Overlay District). -21- This shortcoming was made particularly clear during the following exchange at oral argument: THE COURT: There's a warehouse in that same block, isn't there? MENDON: On the Showtime lot there's a landscaping supply business. There is a self- storage facility in the zone as well. THE COURT: Yes, and how big is that? MENDON: It is larger than 2,000 square feet. I think it's six or seven [thousand square feet.] . . . . THE COURT: Does the warehouse impact what the town is trying to achieve? MENDON: The warehouse does not. . . . . THE COURT: It's not the size of the building, it's what may be perceived inside the building? MENDON: It's, it's a combination of factors, I think it is the size of the building, but it's also what's in the building . . . . This exchange concisely illustrates the flaw in Mendon's reliance on aesthetics: a large adult-entertainment business has no secondary effect distinct from a large building of another sort, at least not without reference to what goes on in the building. Cf. Discovery Network, 507 U.S. at 425 (The city has asserted an interest in esthetics, but respondent publisher's newsracks are no greater an eyesore than the newsracks permitted to remain on [city] sidewalks.). If size does matter, but matters only in the context of what type of business a building houses, this belies any notion that Mendon's size and height requirements are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech. Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989) (quoting Clark, 468 U.S. -22- at 293). Mendon thus appears to have differentiated between speakers for reasons unrelated to the legitimate interests that prompted the regulation, a fact that flies in the face of Mendon's claim that the bylaws in fact further a substantial, contentneutral, interest in rural aesthetics. Nat'l Amusements, 43 F.3d at 738 (emphasis omitted). Given the unchallenged regulations on building appearance and advertisement, we see no cognizable difference in aesthetic impact between a large building hosting adult-entertainment activities and a large building hosting a bridge club or a bible study within the Adult-Entertainment Overlay District.8 Cf. Ward, 491 U.S. at 793 (Any governmental attempt to serve purely esthetic goals by imposing subjective standards . . . would raise serious First Amendment concerns.). The effect that the size and height of any one of these buildings would have on Mendon's cityscape, small town feel, and rural aesthetics is identical to the effect of any other. Moreover, this is a fact which Mendon seems to acknowledge, for it offers no argument -- beyond its problematic concession at oral argument -- that adult-entertainment businesses 8 Showtime has not challenged the regulations and licensing restrictions forbidding it from placing signs or advertisements for its adult-entertainment business on the building's exterior. It has also not challenged the portion of section 5.01 requiring that [a]ppearance of buildings for adult entertainment shall be consistent with the appearance of buildings in similar (but not specifically 'adult') use in Mendon, not employing unusual color or building design, which would attract attention to the premises. Town of Mendon Zoning By-Laws, § 5.01(f)(vi). -23- have a distinct effect on purely aesthetic concerns. We therefore find that the underinclusive nature of this size and height restriction defeats Mendon's assertion that the bylaws truly serve a substantial interest in maintaining rural aesthetics. See, e.g., Auburn Police Union, 8 F.3d at 897 & n.15. Before moving on, we note that Mendon attempts on appeal to subtly change the contours of its stated interest, arguing that [b]light, decreased property values, and deteriorated neighborhoods (interests that are more closely related to monetary value and quality of life than to a rural aesthetic) may spread beyond the four-plot Adult Entertainment Overlay District. Therefore, it suggests that our review must also extend beyond the Adult Entertainment Overlay District -- a clearly commercialized area bordering a state highway, which boasts of little by way of rural aesthetic -- and take into consideration Mendon's rural nature as a whole. We refuse to do so, for the simple reason that this suggestion runs contrary to the multitude of studies Mendon itself entered into the record. These studies exhibit a common theme regarding the effect of adult-entertainment businesses on property values and quality of life in residential neighborhoods: these effects have a limited radius. The studies caution that any negative effects caused by adult-entertainment businesses on the surrounding area extend, on average, a few city blocks in -24- distance.9 Therefore, even if Mendon could recraft its stated interest in aesthetics to encompass these issues, it has presented to our court a wealth of evidence suggesting that its size and height requirements would not in fact further the avoidance of such negative effects throughout the city. See Nat'l Amusements, 43 F.3d at 741 ([A] governmental interest woven exclusively out of the gossamer threads of speculation and surmise cannot be termed substantial.).