Legal Opinion · Dissent

MAJ Entertainment, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 2, 2008No. 1949 C.D. 2006Published

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

  1. Petrosky v. ZON. BD., UPPER CHICHESTER TP.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  2. Southco, Inc. v. Concord TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  3. Marzo v. Zoning Hearing BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  4. Beers v. ZONING HEARING BD. OF TOWAMENSINGCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  5. Valley Forge Plaza Associates v. Upper Merion Township Zoning Hearing BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1991

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API