NAP- Neighborhood Alliance of Pawtucket

on 12-02-2009 02:30

By DONNA KENNY KIRWAN

PAWTUCKET — Is the denial of a request to open the Center for Sexual Pleasure and Health downtown based on preconceived notions on the part of city officials that infringe upon the owner's First Amendment rights? Or is it a matter of a business not fitting in with a narrowly defined zoning stipulation that goes with the building where it will be housed?

Those seem to be the main issues that are at the heart of the controversy surrounding the non-profit sex center that Megan Andelloux wants to operate in The Grant Building located at 250 Main St. At a public hearing on Monday night, the Zoning Board of Review heard over three hours of testimony related to Andelloux's challenge of city Zoning Director Ronald Travers' decision to deny her a certificate of zoning compliance and from opening on September 26 as she had planned. The  board is expected to make a ruling on the matter at its next meeting on Monday night.
Travers, who is the director of zoning and code enforcement, has said that he made his decision based on Andelloux's portrayal of her business as being primarily “educational”  in two written documents that she had submitted to his office. The Grant building is zoned by a special permit for mixed residential/commercial use. Under that zoning, personal service, business service, office uses, entertainment, amusement and recreation are listed as allowable uses, but education is not, Travers said.
Under intense questioning from Andelloux's lawyer, Michael Horan, Travers continued to maintain that the primary focus of The Center for Sexual Pleasure and Health is education, which is therefore not an allowable use at The Grant.
Horan maintained that the center fits more than that narrow definition and said that it is more in the line of “personal service” and a “resource center”.
Horan asked how the Flying Shuttles, a studio run by the ARC of Blackstone Valley, and a chess academy located in The Grant have been allowed to operate as educational facilities. Travers replied that since the sex center issue has been reported in the newspapers, he investigated  both operations and subsequently issued each a citation for operating as educational facilities without a certificate of zoning compliance. He said that since then, Flying Shuttles has filed to operate as primarily a retail use and the chess club is also saying its primary focus is retail and is scheduled for a hearing on Dec. 18.
Horan attempted to show that city officials had been unduly influenced by an e-mail sent by a woman named  Donna Hughes who had warned them of the sex center's arrival as well as a “grand opening” advertisement for the sex center on Andelloux's website which boasted of a “burlesque peep show” and a raffle of  “sex toys”. Both Police Major Bruce Moreau and Deputy City Clerk Michelle Hardy testified that they had been involved in discussions with Andelloux regarding obtaining permits and special licensing for the raffles and the burlesque show.
Horan also began to lay out a case that city officials, by denying Andelloux's operation, had infringed upon her freedom of speech and other First Amendment rights. However, several Zoning Board members, with the backing of assistant City Solicitor Frank Milos, objected to this line of questioning, saying that Constitutional considerations are not within the jurisdiction of the Zoning Board of Review. Milos suggested that Horan was welcome to take up this argument in Superior Court, where it could be considered on an appeal.
Andelloux, who described herself as a board certified sexologist and sexuality educator, said she intends for the center to be a place where adults can have access to books, pamphlets and other information regarding sexuality issues. She also said that she plans to hold small classes and workshops for adults on various topics related to sexuality.
Under questioning from the Zoning Board, she admitted that she had portrayed the purpose of the business as being educational in her written communications to Travers. However, she said she had  felt compelled to try and counteract all of the rumors and negative connotations that seemed to be swirling around the sex center.
As the hours wore on to 11 p.m., several Zoning Board members appeared to grow weary of the lengthy debate and indicated that they intended to stay only on the matter of whether the sex center, as a place of education, should be an allowed use in The Grant.
No one spoke in opposition to the sex center, although the audience had thinned by the time public comment was allowed. About a half dozen people spoke in support of Andelloux's business going forward, although several were asked by board members to shorten their planned comments.
Lisa Bruneault, of Woonsocket, said she had known Andelloux for several years and found her to be “a professional in her field.” She criticized the Zoning Board for looking at the business only in terms of education, saying that “pigeon-holing it like this is really unfair.”
Nancy Rafi, executive director of the Rhode Island Crisis Assistance Center, said that Andelloux had  provided valuable counseling and other resources to her organization. “To “pigeon-hole it as just education does her and her clients a great disservice,” Rafi said.
Marc Doughty, of Pawtucket, said that he had canvassed the Main Street business area with Andelloux and found no one to be in opposition to her sex center. He argued that if the Zoning Board was going to use the zoning ordinance as a tool, it would have to shut other businesses down as well.

Steven Brown, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, was at the meeting, but had left prior to its end. The ACLU had previously issued a statement alleging that it was “the city's intent to suppress the speech that would occur at the Center,” and that “such content-based discrimination raises serious constitutional concerns.”

Horan said later that he hoped the Zoning Board will rule in Andelloux's favor. He said that while her case is a zoning issue, it is not a cut and dry “use” issue in the way that it had been portrayed that night. He said there is a “bigger picture” that must be considered that will end up being important to the city's long-range plans to draw small businesses and artists in live/work types of spaces.
 
Travers told the TIMES the next morning that the matter should have been “a minor case” and that Andelloux could have gone a different route by applying for a variance from the Zoning Board.