The New Albany City Council will specify the districts where adult-oriented businesses can exist during its Thursday meeting.

The zoning — given a favorable recommendation by the plan commission on Tuesday — is based on studies and documented evidence that sexually-oriented businesses are inappropriate for certain locations.

Crime, blight, litter and other adverse impacts are given as reasons in the ordinance as to why adult businesses should be regulated to a specific district in New Albany.

“We have identified locations in the city of New Albany where they are permitted by right,” Chief Planner Scott Wood said.

Sexually-oriented businesses include adult bookstores, video stores, cabarets, theaters and device shops. The Rustic Frog — located at 1720 Old River Road — would not have to change locations, according to Wood. He added that the ordinance should provide the city a safety net for enforcement.

“I think I have the authority to regulate [adult businesses] under zoning right now, but what we’re doing is making sure that we’re explicit in our regulations both of adult book stores and similar types of businesses and live entertainment,” he said.

Earlier this month, the council unanimously passed an ordinance restricting the operational aspects of adult businesses. A full copy of where the adult districts are can be found in the city’s planning office.



Charlestown PUDD decision

The decisive second and third votes will be taken for a planned unit development district request for a piece of property along Charlestown Road near Lafayette Drive.

Gary McCartin proposed to develop a little more than an acre of land there for a Wendy’s restaurant. The council voted against the proposal by a 5-4 count on first reading.

McCartin said recently the decision didn’t make sense to him. He feels the state’s addition of traffic lanes along the Charlestown corridor is proof the area is meant for development.

“If it wasn’t warranted, why did the state put money into making Charlestown Road a five-lane highway? If it was just residential, there wouldn’t be a need for that,” he said.

Councilman Jeff Gahan — who voted against the development on first reading — doesn’t believe the use matches the definition of a PUDD.

“Generally, a PUDD is reserved for innovative land use for development, but I don’t see anything innovative about moving a fast-food restaurant six blocks down the road into a residentially zoned neighborhood,” he said.

This marks the fourth time the council has voted on a PUDD request for the property in 19 months. Planning rules call for a one-year moratorium on PUDD proposals that have been turned down unless they have been changed significantly.

Gahan doesn’t think the PUDD meets that criteria and wants the council to investigate why it’s back on its plate so soon.

“Most of the residents that I’ve talked to are feeling harassed,” Gahan said. “They’ve had to defend their homeowner rights four times in 19 months.”



So you know

• The council meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. Thursday in the third-floor Assembly Room of the City-County Building.