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.