Based on evidence of the adverse secondary effects of adult uses
presented in hearings and in reports made available to the Township,
and on findings, interpretations, and narrowing constructions incorporated
in the cases of City of Littleton v. Z.J. Gifts D-4, L.L.C., 541 U.S.
774 (2004); City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., 535 U.S. 425
(2002); City of Erie v. Pap's A.M., 529 U.S. 277 (2000); City of Renton
v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986); Young v. American
Mini Theatres, 427 U.S. 50 (1976); Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501
U.S. 560 (1991); California v. LaRue, 409 U.S. 109 (1972); N.Y. State
Liquor Authority v. Bellanca, 452 U.S. 714 (1981); and Sensations,
Inc. v. City of Grand Rapids, 526 F.3d 291 (6th Cir. 2008); Deja Vu
of Nashville, Inc. v. Metropolitan Gov't of Nashville and Davidson
County, 466 F.3d 391 (6th Cir. 2006); Deja Vu of Cincinnati, L.L.C.
v. Union Township Bd. Of Trustees, 411 F.3d 777 (6th Cir. 2005) (en
banc); Fantasy Ranch, Inc. v. City of Arlington, 459 F.3d 546 (5th
Cir. 2006); City of Chicago v. Pooh Bah Enterprises, Inc., 865 N.E.2d
133 (III. 2006); Andy's Restaurant and Lounge, Inc. v. City of Gary,
466 F.3d 550 (7th Cir. 2006); 181 South, Inc. v. Fischer, 454 F.3d
228 (3rd Cir. 2006); Bronco's Entertainment, Ltd. v. Charter Twp.
of Van Buren, 421 F.3d 440 (6th Cir. 2005); Charter Twp. of Van Buren
v. Garter Belt, Inc., 258 Mich. App. 594 (2003); Jott, Inc. v. Clinton
Twp., 224 Mich. App. 513 (1997); Michigan ex rel. Wayne County Prosecutor
v. Dizzy Duck, 449 Mich. 353 (1995); Z.J. Gifts D-2, L.L.C. v. City
of Aurora, 136 F.3d 683 (10th Cir. 1998); ILQ Investments, Inc. v.
City of Rochester, 25 F.3d 1413 (8th Cir. 1994); Little Mack Entm't
II, Inc. v. Twp. of Marengo, 2008 WL 2783252 (W.D. Mich. July 17,
2008); Kentucky Restaurant Concepts, Inc. v. City of Louisville, 209
F. Supp. 2d 672 (W.D. Ky. 2002); Restaurant Ventures v. Lexington-Fayette
Urban County Gov't, 60 S.W.3d 572 (Ky. Ct. App. 2001); Deja Vu of
Nashville, Inc., et al. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and
Davidson County, 274 F.3d 377 (6th Cir. 2001); Ctr. for Fair Public
Policy v. Maricopa County, 336 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2003); Bigg Wolf
Discount Video Sales, Inc. v. Montgomery County, 256 F. Supp. 2d 385
(D. Md. 2003); DLS, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga, 107 F.3d 403 (6th
Cir. 1997); Brandywine, Inc. v. City of Richmond, 359 F.3d 830 (6th
Cir. 2004); Currence v. City of Cincinnati, 28 Fed. Appx. 438 (6th
Cir. Jan. 24, 2002); Broadway Books v. Roberts, 642 F. Supp. 486 (E.D.
Tenn. 1986); Bright Lights, Inc. v. City of Newport, 830 F. Supp.
378 (E.D. Ky. 1993); Bamon Corp. v. City of Dayton, 923 F.2d 470 (6th
Cir. 1991); Triplett Grille, Inc. v. City of Akron, 40 F.3d 129 (6th
Cir. 1994); O'Connor v. City and County of Denver, 894 F.2d 1210 (10th
Cir. 1990); Threesome Entertainment v. Strittmather, 4 F. Supp. 2d
710 (N.D. Ohio 1998); Lady J. Lingerie, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville,
176 F.3d 1358 (11th Cir. 1999); In re Tennessee Public Indecency Statute,
172 F.3d 873 (6th Cir. Jan. 13 1999)(table); World Wide Video of Washington,
Inc. v. City of Spokane, 368 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2004); 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);
Williams v. Morgan, 478 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2007); H&A Land Corp.
v. City of Kennedale, 480 F.3d 336 (5th Cir. 2007); Illinois One News,
Inc. v. City of Marshall, 477 F.3d 461 (7th Cir. 2007); G.M. Enterprises,
Inc. v. Town of St. Joseph, 350 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2003); Richland
Bookmart, Inc. v. Nichols, 137 F.3d 435 (6th Cir. 1998); Spokane Arcade,
Inc. v. City of Spokane, 75 F.3d 663 (9th Cir. 1996); Gammoh v. City
of La Habra, 395 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2005); People ex rel. Deters
v. The Lion's Den, Inc., Case No. 04-CH-26, Modified Permanent Injunction
Order (III. Fourth Judicial Circuit, Effingham County, July 13, 2005);
Reliable Consultants, Inc. v. City of Kennedale, No. 4:05-CV-166-A,
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (N.D. Tex. May 26, 2005);
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; Los Angeles, California
- 1977; Whittier, California - 1978; Spokane, Washington - 2001; St.
Cloud, Minnesota - 1994; Littleton, Colorado - 2004; Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma - 1986; Dallas, Texas - 1997; Ft. Worth, Texas - 2004; Kennedale,
Texas - 2005; Greensboro, North Carolina - 2003; Amarillo, Texas -
1977; McCleary Report - 2006; New York, New York Times Square - 1994;
Jackson County, Missouri - 2008; Warren, Michigan - 2005; and the
Report of the Attorney General's Working Group On The Regulation Of
Sexually Oriented Businesses, (June 6, 1989, State of Minnesota),
the Township finds as follows:
(a) 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.
(b) 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.
(c) Each of the foregoing 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 chapter,
exists independent of any comparative analysis between sexually oriented
businesses 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 set forth above and
relied on by the Township are reasonably believed to be relevant to
said secondary effects.