(A) Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter to regulate sexually oriented businesses in order to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the village and to establish reasonable and uniform regulations to prevent the deleterious secondary effects of sexually oriented businesses 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, 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 village, 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 (111. 2006); Andy’s Restaurant & 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. Term. 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-l 66-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; McCleaiy 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 village finds as follows:
(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; and
(3) Each of the foregoing negative secondary effects constitutes a harm which the village has a substantial governmental interest in preventing and/or abating. This substantial governmental interest in preventing secondary effects, which is the village’s rationale for this chapter, exists independent of any comparative analysis between sexually oriented businesses and non-sexually oriented businesses. Additionally, the village’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 village. The village finds that the cases and documentation set forth above and relied on by the village 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 sexually oriented businesses, including the judicial opinions and reports related to such secondary effects.
(Ord. 185, passed 11-11-2009)