Court Opinion

ID: 9700324
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:20:35.973198+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:07.192078
License: Public Domain

McGINLEY, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the principal use of the subject premises has changed from a restaurant/bar to an entertainment facility.1 The subject premises has always been licensed by the PLCB with an amusement permit. Although the type of entertainment changed when Philm reopened the premises on October 1, 1992, I believe the entertainment still remains merely incidental to the principal restaurant/bar use of the premises. As a result, absent specific local zoning legislation regulating entertainment, Philm need only comply with PLCB regulations.
I would reverse.

. The majority also notes that cosmetic interior renovations were made to the premises. However, the issue before the trial court was whether the present use of the premises requires a variance and not whether the construction alterations violated the Township's Zoning Ordinance.