MAJ Entertainment, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
1Dissent
DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge FRIEDMAN.
I respectfully dissent. The majority holds that: (1) under the zoning code of the City of Philadelphia (City), a first-floor restaurant may not provide, as an accessory use, a second-floor location for patrons to engage in, or view, consensual, noncommercial, adult sexual activity; and (2) MAJ Entertainment, Inc. (MAJ) does not have a vested right in the permit issued to MAJ in 2000 (2000 Permit), which allowed MAJ to operate a restaurant with accessory live entertainment and dancing by patrons, provided such accessory use does not fall within any…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Petrosky v. ZON. BD., UPPER CHICHESTER TP.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
- Southco, Inc. v. Concord TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
- Marzo v. Zoning Hearing BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- Beers v. ZONING HEARING BD. OF TOWAMENSINGCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
- Valley Forge Plaza Associates v. Upper Merion Township Zoning Hearing BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991