A.
Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter to regulate dance halls, cabarets and similar commercial establishments in order to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the Village and the patrons of such establishments and to establish reasonable and uniform regulations to prevent the deleterious secondary effects of such establishments within the Village. The provisions of this chapter have neither the purpose nor effect of imposing a limitation or restriction on the content or reasonable access to any communicative materials or any form of expression. Similarly, it is neither the intent nor effect of this chapter to restrict or deny access by adults to materials protected by the First Amendment or to deny access by the distributors and exhibitors of entertainment to their intended market.
B.
Findings and rationale. Based on evidence of the adverse secondary effects of dance halls, cabarets and similar commercial establishments, including certain kinds of adult entertainment establishments, presented in hearings and in reports made available to the Village Board of Trustees, and on findings, interpretations and narrowing constructions incorporated in the cases of Dallas v. Stanglin, 490 U.S. 19 (1989); Festa v. New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs, 820 N.Y.S.2d 452 (N.Y. Sup. 2006), aff'd with modification, 830 N.Y.S.2d 133, 37 A.D.3d 343 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007), appeal dismissed by, 872 N.E.2d 870 (N.Y. 2007); Inc. Village of Babylon v. John Anthony's Water Cafe, Inc., 137 A.D.2d 792, 525 N.Y.S.2d 337 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988); Cemco Rest., Inc. v. Ten Park Ave. Tenants Corp., 135 A.D.2d 461, 552 N.Y.S.2d 151 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987); Lyn v. Inc. Village of Hempstead, No. 03-CV-5041, 2007 WL 1876502 (E.D.N.Y. June 28, 2007); Willis v. Town of Marshall, 426 F.3d 251 (4th Cir. 2005); City of Littleton v. Z.J. Gifts D-4, L.L.C., 541 U.S. 774 (2004); City of Erie v. Pap's A.M., 529 U.S. 277 (2000); Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991); Buzzetti v. City of New York, 140 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 1998); Gold Diggers, LLC v. Town of Berlin, 469 F. Supp. 2d 43 (D. Conn. 2007); Ben's Bar, Inc. v. Village of Somerset, 316 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2003); Daytona Grand, Inc. v. City of Daytona Beach, 490 F.3d 860 (11th Cir. 2007); Sensations, Inc. v. City of Grand Rapids, 526 F.3d 291 (6th Cir. 2008); Richland Bookmart, Inc. v. Nichols, 137 F.3d 435 (6th Cir. 1998); and Gammoh v. City of La Habra, 395 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2005), the Board of Trustees finds:
(1)
Dance halls and cabarets, 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, noise and traffic congestion, prostitution, potential spread of disease, lewdness, public indecency, illicit drug use and drug trafficking and negative impacts on surrounding properties.
(2)
Each of the foregoing negative secondary effects constitutes a harm which the Village has a substantial government interest in preventing and/or abating. This substantial government interest in preventing secondary effects, which is the Village's rationale for this chapter, exists independent of any comparative analysis between subcategories of commercial entertainment establishments. Additionally, the Village's interest in regulating dance halls and cabarets extends to preventing future secondary effects of either current or future businesses that may locate in the Village. The Village finds that the cases and documentation relied on in this chapter are reasonably believed to be relevant to said secondary effects.
C.
The Village hereby adopts and incorporates herein its stated findings and legislative record related to the adverse secondary effects of dance halls and cabarets, including the judicial opinions and reports related to such secondary effects.