Findings and rationale. Based on evidence of
the adverse secondary effects of adult uses presented in hearings
and in reports made available to the Board of Supervisors, and on
findings, interpretations, and narrowing constructions incorporated
in the cases of City of Littleton v. Z.J. Gifts D-4, L.L.C. , 124
S.Ct. 2219 (June 7, 2004); City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc.,
535 U.S. 425 (2002); Pap’s A.M. v. City of Erie, 529 U.S. 277
(2000); City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986),
Young v. American Mini Theatres, 426 U.S. 50 (1976), Barnes v. Glen
Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991); California v. LaRue, 409 U.S.
109 (1972); World Wide Video of Washington, Inc. v. City of Spokane,
368 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2004); Ben’s Var, Inc. v. Village of
Somerset, 316 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2003); 181 South, Inc. v. Fischer,
454 F.3d 228 (3rd Cir. 2006); United States v. Antico, 275 F.3d 245
(3d Cir. 2001); Phillips v. Borough of Keyport, 107 F.3d 164 (3d Cir.
1997); Mitchell v. Comm’n on Adult Entertainment Establishments,
10 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 1993); Ben Rich Trading Co., v. City of Vineland,
126 F.3d 155 (3d Cir. 1997); and based upon reports concerning secondary
effects occurring in and around sexually oriented businesses, including,
but not limited to, Austin, Texas - 1986; Indianapolis, Indiana -
1984; Garden Grove, California - 1991; Houston, Texas - 1983, 1997;
Phoenix, Arizona - 1979, 1995-98; Chattanooga, Tennessee - 1999-2003;
Minneapolis, Minnesota - 1980; Los Angeles, California - 1977; Whittier,
California - 1978; Spokane, Washington - 2001; St. Cloud, Minnesota
- 1994; Littleton, Colorado - 2004; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma - 1986;
Dallas, Texas - 1997, 2004; Greensboro, North Carolina - 2003; Amarillo,
Texas - 1977;; New York, New York Times Square - 1994; and the Report
of the Attorney General’s Working Group On The Regulation Of
Sexually Oriented Businesses, (June 6, 1989, State of Minnesota),
the Board of Supervisors finds:
[1]
Sexually oriented businesses, as a category
of commercial uses, are associated with a wide variety of adverse
secondary effects including, but not limited to, personal and property
crimes, prostitution, potential spread of disease, lewdness, public
indecency, obscenity, illicit drug use and drug trafficking, negative
impacts on surrounding properties, urban blight, litter, and sexual
assault and exploitation.
[2]
Sexually oriented businesses should be separated
from sensitive land uses to minimize the impact of their secondary
effects upon such uses, and should be separated from other sexually
oriented businesses, to minimize the secondary effects associated
with such uses and to prevent an unnecessary concentration of sexually
oriented businesses in one area.
[3]
Each of the following negative secondary effects constitutes a harm which the Township has a substantial government interest in preventing and/or abating. This substantial government interest in preventing secondary effects, which is the Township’s rationale for this Subsection
D(5), exists independent of any comparative analysis between sexually oriented and nonsexually oriented businesses. Additionally, the Township’s interest in regulating sexually oriented businesses extends to preventing future secondary effects of either current or future sexually oriented businesses that may locate in the Township. The Township finds that the cases and documentation relied on in this article are reasonably believed to be relevant to said secondary effects.