With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". $25, and a single gentleman, and they can only attend on Friday night, is $100 charge. (Board Hr’g Tr. at 17.) This pricing structure seems geared more toward maintaining a felicitous gender balance for the operation of a swingers’ club than to the operation of a restaurant. It is therefore highly questionable whether the Property’s use as a club was subordinate to its use as a restaurant. However, the use of the Property as a venue for its patrons to engage in sexual activity is certainly not customary and incidental to its use as a restaurant. MAJ bore the burden of proving that the use of the Property for patrons’ sexual activity was an accessory use to the Property’s use as a restaurant. See Smith v. Zoning Hearing Board of Conewago Township, 713 A.2d 1210, 1213-14 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998) (<HOLDING>). In attempting to meet this burden, MAJ tries

A: holding in response to a commerce clause challenge that a city that operated an airport was acting as a participant in the market for airport rental car services
B: holding plaintiffs principals failed to identify a sufficient market for their services which was an essential element for the success of their proposed business
C: holding that defendant failed to meet the burden of strict proof required to show abandonment
D: holding that owners of an airport failed to meet their burden of showing that their skydiving business was an accessory use to the airport
D.