(A) Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter to regulate sexually oriented businesses in order to promote the health, safety, moral and general welfare of the citizens of the town, and to establish reasonable and uniform regulations to prevent the deleterious secondary effects of sexually oriented businesses within the town. 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, including sexually oriented materials. Similarly, it is neither the intent nor effect of this chapter to restrict or deny access by adults to sexually oriented materials protected by the First Amendment, or to deny access by the distributors and exhibitors of sexually oriented entertainment to their intended market. Neither is it the intent nor effect of this chapter to condone or legitimize the distribution of obscene material
(B) Findings and rationale. Based on evidence of the adverse secondary effects of adult uses presented in hearings and in reports made available to the Town Council, 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 AM v. City of Erie, 529 U.S. 277 (2000); City of Kenton 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); and Schultz v. City of Cumberland, 26 F. Supp.2d 1128 (W.D. Wise. 1998), affd in part, rev’d in part, 228 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. 2000); Blue Canary Corp. v. City of Milwaukee, 270 F.3d 1156 (7th Cir. 2001); Matney v. County of Kenosha, 86 F.3d 692 (7th Cir. 1996); Berg v. Health & Hospital Corp., 865 F.2d 797 (1989); DiMa Corp. v. Town of Halite, 185 F.3d 823 (1999); Graff v. City of Chicago, 9 F.3d 1309 (1993); North Avenue Novelties, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 88 F.3d 441 (1996); Chulchian v. City of Indianapolis, 633 F.2d 27 (7th Cir. 1980); Bigg Wolf Discount Video v. Montgomery County, 256 F. Supp. 2d 385 (D. Md. 2003); County of Cook v. Renaissance Arcade and Bookstore, 122 Dl. 2d 123 (1988) (including cases cited therein); 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); People ex rel Deters v. Effingham Retail 27, Inc., No. 04-CH-26 (4th Judicial Circuit, Effingham County, 111., June 13,2005); Annex Books, Inc. v. City of Indianapolis, No. 1:03-CV-918, Summary Judgment Order, Aug. 27, 2004 and Order Denying Motion to Alter or Amend, Mar. 31, 2005 (S.D. Ind.); Andy’s Lounge et al. v. City of Gary, No. 2:01-CV-327, Order Granting Summary Judgment, Mar. 31, 2005 (N.D. Ind.); LLEH, Inc. v. Wichita County, 289 F3d 358 (5th Cir. 2002); 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); Abilene Retail #30, Inc. v. Board of Commissioners, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30491 (D. Kan., Dec. 1, 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; 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; 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 Town Council 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 foregoing negative secondary effects constitutes a harm which the town has a substantial government interest in preventing and/or abating. This substantial government interest in preventing secondary effects, which is the town’s rationale for this chapter, exists independent of any comparative analysis between sexually oriented and non-sexually oriented businesses. Additionally, the town’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 town. The town finds that the cases and documentation relied on in this chapter are reasonably believed to be relevant to said secondary effects; and
(4) The following reports:
(a) Madison Wisconsin Planning and Zoning Commission Report 02-14-2011 Concerning sexually oriented businesses and sub-reports mentioned therein;
(b) Adult entertainment businesses in Indianapolis 1984 an analysis and appendixes;
(c) Crime-related secondary effects of sexually oriented business report to the City Attorney City of Los Angles May 6, 2007; and
(d) Greenville Comprehensive Land Use Map for 2011-TO-019 hereby are incorporated by reference and part of this chapter (2011 -TO-019).
(Ord. 2011-TO-019, passed 7-18-2011)