Petersen, dba Leather and Lace v. South Salt Lake City
Annotate this Casepublication in the Pacific Reporter.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH
----oo0oo----
Gayle S. Petersen
d/b/a Leather and Lace,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
South Salt Lake City,
a municipal corporation,
Defendant and Appellee.
No. 980109
F I L E D
September 24, 1999
1999 UT 93
---
District Court, Salt Lake County
The Honorable Tyrone E. Medley
Attorneys:
W. Andrew McCullough, Orem, for plaintiff
George D. Knapp, Salt Lake City, for
defendant
---
ZIMMERMAN, Justice:
¶1
The plaintiff, Gayle S. Petersen ("Petersen"),
owner of a properly licensed sexually oriented business, filed an action
to enjoin the defendant, South Salt Lake City ("the City"), from denying
her the right to change the physical location of her business without obtaining
a new license, and from denying her the right to locate in a building that
was more than 600 feet from the nearest sexually oriented business. The
City moved for summary judgment and Petersen cross-motioned. The trial
court granted summary judgment to the City. It reasoned that Petersen's
"business license is transferrable [sic] from one location to another."
However, it also concluded that at the new location, Petersen is subject
to "other requirements" of the sexually oriented business ordinance, specifically
the requirement that two such businesses may not be located within 600
feet of each other. While the ordinance failed to specify how the distance
is to be measured, the court found that the City was reasonable in measuring
the distance from property line to property line. This interpretation operated
to bar Petersen from her new location. Petersen appeals that decision and
argues that the appropriate standard for measuring 600 feet is from building
to building, rather than from property line to property line. We agree
and reverse.
¶2
We first address the standard of review.
On an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, we review the trial court's
legal conclusions for correctness and grant them no deference. SeeWorkman
v. Brighton Properties, Inc., 976 P.2d 1209, 1210 (Utah 1999) (quotations
omitted). We consider the facts in a light most favorable to the party
against whom the motion was made. See A.C. Fin., Inc. v. Salt
Lake County, 948 P.2d 771, 784 (Utah 1997).
¶3
Petersen has operated a sexually oriented
business, "Leather and Lace," in South Salt Lake City for approximately
ten years. In March of 1990, the City passed an ordinance regulating sexually
oriented businesses such as Petersen's. Among other things, the ordinance
required that each such business be licensed and that they "not be located
closer than 500 feet to each other; and not closer than 500 feet to residences,
churches or schools." South Salt Lake City, Ut., Ordinance No. 223, 3B-15-6
(Apr. 6, 1990). In December of 1993, the City's distance requirement was
increased from 500 feet to 600 feet. And in January of 1996, the ordinance
was amended to limit the number of sexually oriented business licenses
to one for each 6,000 residents of the City.
¶4
Before the enactment of the ordinance,
Petersen operated her business at 2480 South Main Street under a lease.
She held a business license from the City and was grandparented under the
new restrictive ordinance so as to be free of its limitations. In 1996,
the property was sold and Petersen's tenancy was terminated. She located
a building which was properly zoned for her business and which she believed
to be more than 600 feet from any other such business, residence, church,
or school. Petersen then notified the City of her plans to transfer her
sexually oriented business license to this new location. Shortly after
she moved her business, she was notified by the City's attorney that her
business license was not transferable and that the new location was not
suitable because there was another sexually oriented business within 600
feet.
¶5
Petersen then filed an action in Third
District court to enjoin the City from preventing her from operating her
business in its new location. The district court denied the injunction.
It held that the license was not transferable under the ordinance and the
property line of the new premises was less than 600 feet from the property
line of another sexually oriented business. The court upheld as reasonable
the City's construction of the ordinance that the 600-foot measurement
was to be from property line to property line, and not from building to
building. Petersen asks that we reverse the district court.
¶6
Petersen first contends that there
is no prohibition against her transferring her sexually oriented business
license from one place to another. She points out that as a matter of course,
she was required to obtain two distinct business licenses for operating
her business. She was required to maintain a general business license,
for which she paid a fee of fifty dollars per year, and a sexually oriented
business license. A general business license is required for all businesses
operating within the City of South Salt Lake, whereas the sexually oriented
business license is an additional licensing requirement for sexually oriented
businesses. The general business license requirement was governed by section
3A-1-6 of the City's general business licensing ordinance and the sexually
oriented business license was governed by section 3B-15-1 et seq.
at the time this conflict arose between Petersen and the City.(1)
Section 3B-15-1 et seq. was a separate and distinct ordinance specifically
addressing sexually oriented businesses. The sexually oriented business
license is the license which is at issue in this case. Petersen contends
that her sexually oriented business license does not prohibit the transfer
of her business from one location to another. The City disagrees.
¶7
Section 3B-15-7 of the sexually oriented
business ordinance, which was entitled "[b]usiness license required[,]"
provided that "[i]t is unlawful for any person to operate a sexually oriented
business . . . without first obtaining a sexually oriented business license."
South Salt Lake City, Ut., Ordinance No. 96-1, 3B-15-7 (Jan. 10, 1996).
Section 3B-15-14 of the ordinance, which is entitled "[t]ransfer of ownership
of business license prohibited[,]" provides that:
Sexually oriented business
licenses granted under this chapter shall not be transferable. It is
unlawful for a license held by an individual to be transferred. It is unlawful
for a license held by a corporation, partnership or other non-corporate
entity to transfer any part in excess of ten percent thereof, without filing
a new application and obtaining prior City approval. If any transfer of
the controlling interest in a business licensee occurs, the license is
immediately null and void, and a new license must be issued by the City
. . . .
Id. at 3B-15-14 (emphasis added).
¶8
Petersen argues that these provisions
do not prohibit her from transferring her sexually oriented business license
from one location to another. The City, on the other hand, argues that
the phrase "[s]exually oriented business licenses granted under this chapter
shall not be transferable" should be interpreted by this court to read
"[s]exually oriented business licenses granted under this chapter shall
not be transferable [from one location to another]." We decline to read
into the City's sexually oriented business ordinance what the drafters
failed to include in it. Section 3B-15-14, when read in its entirety, addresses
only the transferability of ownership of a license, not the transferability
of the location of the business. Our interpretation is supported by the
title of section 3B-15-14: "Transfer of ownership of business license
prohibited." (Emphasis added). Furthermore, the record contains an affidavit
from a former South Salt Lake City attorney who was primarily responsible
for drafting the ordinance at issue in this case and which states that
the transfer provision of the ordinance "was drafted to prohibit someone
. . . from transferring [a sexually oriented business] license to another
person; and it did not apply to the transfer from [one] place within the
city to another." The affidavit also states that the ordinance "was never
directed to preventing a licensed business from re-locating within the
City, provided that the re-location was to an appropriately zoned location."
And the record reveals that the City allowed a prior transfer for another
similarly situated sexually oriented business licensee in 1993. Therefore,
we decline to hold that the City's sexually oriented business ordinance
prevents Petersen from transferring her business license from one location
to another. If the City intended this section to be read to prevent the
transfer of a business license from one location to another, it should
have included that either in the title of the section or somewhere within
its body.(2)
¶9
The City further argues that section
3B-15-18(A), which provided that "[i]t is unlawful to conduct business
under a license issued pursuant to this chapter at any location other than
the licensed premises[,]" prevents Petersen from operating her business
at its new location without obtaining a new business license for that location.
South Salt Lake City, Ut., Ordinance No. 9601, 3B-15-18(A) (Jan. 10, 1996)
(emphasis added). This contention is groundless. This provision only bars
a holder of a license from conducting business at a non-licensed location.
It does not speak to the portability of a license.
¶10
Petersen next contends that her sexually
oriented business does not violate the distance requirement set forth by
the City's sexually oriented business ordinance because her building is
at least 600 feet from another building housing a sexually oriented business.
She contends that we should measure the distance from building to building.
She argues that this interpretation is consistent with the purpose of the
sexually oriented business ordinance, which focuses on the activities conducted
inside the building and not on any exterior aspects of the property which
might make the boundary lines of the premises relevant.
¶11
Section 3B-15-6 of the ordinance included
a provision that sexually oriented businesses "regulated by this ordinance
will not be located closer than 600 feet to each other and not closer than
600 feet to residences, churches, or schools." Id. at 3B-15-6. No
method for measuring the 600 feet is provided for in the ordinance. The
trial court held that the measurement could reasonably be made from property
line to property line. Petersen's property line is 554.9 feet from the
property line of the nearest sexually oriented business.
¶12
It is a "proper exercise of [a city's]
police power" to zone property for specific uses. Village of Euclid
v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 389-90 (1926). Similarly, a city
"may regulate adult [entertainment businesses] by dispersing them . . .
or by effectively concentrating them." City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres,
Inc., 475 U.S. 41, 52 (1986). Prohibiting the location of an adult
entertainment business "within [a certain number of] feet of any residential
zone, single- or multiple-family dwelling, church, park, or school" does
not in itself create any legal problems. Id. at 43. However, when
a city fails to set forth the standard for measuring the distance requirement,
a court must determine what method of measuring makes sense given "the
ends sought to be accomplished by [the ordinance]." Texas Nat'l Theatres,
Inc. v. City of Albuquerque, 639 P.2d 569, 572 (N.M. 1982) (citations
omitted). In so doing, the court "look[s] at the method employed by the
City . . . to determine its reasonableness and whether it has been consistently
used." Id. (citation omitted).
¶13
The City argues that Texas National
is directly on point and should control the disposition of this case. In
Texas National, the court upheld a trial court's ruling that the
City of Albuquerque was allowed to measure a 500-foot distance requirement
between an adult theater, which was identified as a nonconforming use,
and a residential zone by using property lines even though the standard
for measuring the distance was undefined in the city's zoning ordinance.
Id. at 573. The court upheld the trial court's finding that the
city was allowed to use property lines because that method of measuring
"was reasonable and was applied even-handedly and consistently in every
case." Id. To support its holding, the court looked to the city
zoning enforcement officer's method of measuring distances, which was "always
. . . from lot line to lot line." Id. The court also noted that
"provisions of the [city's] [c]ode [spoke] in terms of 'premises' or 'area,'
indicating that the regulation applie[d] to more than just the structure."
Id. (Emphasis added).
¶14
In the present case, there is no evidence
that the City has consistently measured its distance requirement using
property lines. Moreover, the ordinance at issue in Texas National
dealt with a special use zoning ordinance that addressed entire properties,
including "fences" that "could be moved in order to expand a special use"
and accordingly were considered "part of the theatre." Id. Texas
National therefore involved an entirely different zoning issue, one
much broader than the narrow ordinance involved in this case, which deals
only with the activities within the sexually oriented business. Because
the ordinance in this case governs only activities within the business
premises, or, in other words, within the building, we find that the reasonable
way to measure the distance set forth under the ordinance is from building
to building. Therefore, we hold that Petersen's business license is transferable
from its old location to its new location and the appropriate standard
for measuring the City's 600-foot distance requirement is from building
to building.
¶15
Reversed.
---
¶16
Associate Chief Justice Durham, Justice
Stewart and Justice Russon concur in Justice Zimmerman's opinion.
¶17
Chief Justice Howe concurs in the
result.
1. These sections are no longer found at 3A and 3B but are found under Title 5. We do not consider Title 5 because that version was enacted after this cause of action arose.
2. Apparently realizing this deficiency, the City revised its sexually oriented business ordinance as of May 19, 1998, to include the statement that "[i]t is unlawful to transfer or move the location of a sexually oriented business license." South Salt Lake City, Ut., Ordinance No. 98-3, 5.56.140 (Mar. 19, 1996).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.