Palmyra council records opposition to proposed Keystone Club 'amusement arcade' citing gambling, legal uncertainty

Palmyra Borough Council and residents told the borough’s zoning hearing board they oppose a special-exception application from Keystone Club Palmyra LLC to open an amusement arcade in the Beaumont Shopping Center. Speakers said the business appears to function as a mini-casino rather than a traditional arcade and raised concerns about underage gambling, addiction and local impacts.

A speaker who introduced the opposition said Keystone Club is based outside the immediate area and that the proposed operation would use “skill game” machines that, the speaker asserted, are not the type approved by PACE-O-Matic (a vendor referenced in the meeting). The speaker said PACE-O-Matic representatives told them that company would not supply machines to Keystone Club and that Keystone Club’s machines would therefore be unauthorized. “That means the Keystone Club intends to operate with unauthorized, likely illegal machines, no regulation, no oversight, no protection for players,” the speaker said.

The opposition statement cited Palmyra’s zoning language distinguishing traditional amusement devices (pinball, video games, skee ball) from gambling and said the application attempts to rebrand a gambling hall as an arcade to fit the ordinance. A council member noted that private clubs such as the American Legion and VFW operate legal skill games under rules that require charitable or community contributions; opponents said Keystone Club’s proposal was for a for‑profit operation and would not provide the same community benefit.

Council members asked the solicitor to clarify enforcement authority and whether the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (or other state regulators) would have jurisdiction. The solicitor was asked to review whether the borough has permitting or enforcement authority over the machines and to advise the zoning hearing board accordingly.

At the end of the discussion the council indicated consensus opposition to the application and directed the zoning hearing board and solicitor to note the borough’s position before the scheduled board hearing. There was no formal motion recorded in the council minutes; the record shows council consensus and a request for solicitor clarification on jurisdiction and enforcement.