PITTSTON TOWNSHIP, PA – A real estate group out of Hazelton, PA, called Ingot Real Estate Co. is seeking a conditional-use permit to build a “Bring-Your-Own-Bottle” (BYOB) club off Route 315 in Northeastern Pennsylvania.On its face, opening a BYOB club sounds like a simple enough a proposition – but for the fact that Ingot also wants the club to feature nude dancing.

Unlike a number of other Pennsylvania towns that have fought or are currently fighting the opening of exotic dance clubs, Pittston Township actually has an existing ordinance on its books prohibiting the operation of businesses for “lewd purposes,” specifically those that feature “dancing girls, go-go girls, and strippers.”

So now Pittston and Ingot will square off in a legal confrontation that is becoming all too familiar to owners of adult-oriented businesses across the country; the local law of the land vs. the Constitutional rights of business owners and their clientele.

Pittston Township Supervisor Anthony Attardo has said that the Township’s ordinance, passed in 1987, should prevent such a club from opening for business, adding that if the club owners were going to find a way around the law, “they better have good angles.”

One of those “angles” might be that many similar ordinances which outright forbid the operation of such clubs have not survived legal challenges from club owners.

Tunkhannock attorney Gerald C. Grimaud, who is president of the Wyoming/Sullivan Counties Bar Association, noted “what is lewd to one person is not necessarily lewd to another,” adding that “an ordinance can be ruled unconstitutional for being too vague.”

Attardo’s arguments against the opening of the club have a familiar ring, as well. Not only would the club be unacceptable under Pittston’s unwritten “community standards,” it would also produce significant negative secondary effects, according to Attardo and other opponents of the club.

“Certainly, it’s going to depreciate the (surrounding) properties,” Attardo asserted regarding the proposed club.

According to Attardo, a zoning hearing has been scheduled for March 1st to determine if the proposed club is an “appropriate” conditional use in an industrial zone. Attardo added that he didn’t know how far it was from the four acre parcel where the club would be located to the nearest residential area – generally a crucial consideration in such zoning battles.

Nearby Wilkes-Barre Township recently lost a two-year court battle in which the Township attempted to block the opening of “Club 10” (also referred to in public reports as “Gentlemen’s Club 10” and “Club 10 Plus”), and reacted by quickly passing strict restrictions to regulate behavior in the club.

After Luzerne County Judge Michael Conahan ordered Wilkes-Barre to issue a permit to Sal Scalzo, the owner of Club 10, in April of 2004, the township appealed the ruling but lost. Part of the problem was that the township had failed to schedule a hearing on Scalzo’s conditional-use application within the required 60 day period. Hence, the court ruled that Salzo’s application was “deemed approved” by default.

Even so, Wilkes-Barre officials say the township still intends to enforce restrictions, including one barring exotic dancing before 10pm and after 1am (giving the club a three-hour daily window for full operation), another barring lap dancing, and a third which would prohibit customers from tipping dancers.

The club’s attorney, Elaine Cook, advised Scalzo to delay the opening of Club 10 until after she filed an injunction to prevent enforcement of the restrictions, claiming the ordinances themselves are illegal.

“If a township hears about something that’s proposed and then the township hurries up to draft an ordinance that would make it illegal or to try to regulate it, that’s targeting that particular proposed business,” said Grimaud. “It doesn’t have to be a gentlemen’s club or a BYOB; it could be some other kind of business.”