2015. As a result of the hearing,
appellant denied the August 29, 2015 charge alleging nudity but stipulated to the facts
contained in agent Ceseratto's report. The commission dismissed the second charge of
"sexual activity" arising from the August 29, 2015 investigation. The commission also
dismissed the two charges arising out of the February 7, 2015 investigation.
       {¶ 5} On August 25, 2016, the commission issued an order finding that appellant
committed one violation of Rule 52 and imposing the following penalty:
                It is the order of this Commission that the Permit Holder has
                the option tostate of nudity." Though the commission found appellant guilty of only one violation,
the unrefuted information contained in Cesaratto's investigation report establishes that
additional conduct occurred on appellant's premises that arguably supported a finding of
further Rule 52 violations. For example, Cesaratto's investigation report establishes that
appellant's dancer engaged in the following conduct: repeatedly "straddled his legs, sat on
[his] groin and rubbed back and forth simulating a sexual act"; "started gyrating her hips
in a circular motion * * * simulating a sexual act"; rubbed her exposed nipple on his lips;
rubbed her finger on her clothed anus and vagina; went to her knees in front of Cesaratto
and proceeded to rub her lips over his clothed penis while "humming to make a vibrating
sensation"; and rubbed her head on his clothed penis. (Sept. 1, 2015