Myles Development Company, LLC v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board

No. 23 C.D. 2019 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania 2020) · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · January 16, 2020 · No. No. 23 C.D. 2019

Summary

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court affirmed the Chester County Court of Common Pleas order directing the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board to issue Myles Development Company, LLC an Economic Development Restaurant Liquor License. The court held that the applicant had exhausted reasonable means of obtaining a quota-system license and that the proposed premises' proximity to another licensed establishment did not require denial of the application.

Court
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Writing for the Court
Mary Hannah Leavitt, President Judge; Christine Fizzano Cannon, Judge; Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter, Senior Judge
Jurisdiction
Pennsylvania
Decision date
January 16, 2020
Docket number
No. 23 C.D. 2019
Procedural posture
The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board appealed the Chester County Court of Common Pleas' de novo order reversing the Board's denial of Myles Development Company's application for an Economic Development Restaurant Liquor License and ordering the Board to issue the license.
Standard of review
When a trial court hears a liquor-license matter de novo, the Commonwealth Court reviews whether the trial court's findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the trial court committed an error of law or abused its discretion. The trial court may hear new evidence, make independent findings, and reverse the Board based on its own supported findings even when the evidence is substantially the same as that presented to the Board.
Precedential value
Published opinion of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Parties
Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. Myles Development Company, LLC
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

administrative lawjudicial review of agency actionstatutory interpretationappellate procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

administrative lawliquor licensingappellate procedurestatutory interpretation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding that the applicant exhausted reasonable means to obtain a suitable liquor license within Chester County's quota system.
  2. Whether the presence of another licensed establishment within 200 feet of the proposed premises automatically authorized denial of the Economic Development Restaurant Liquor License application or otherwise required denial when the trial court conducted de novo review.

Holdings

  1. The applicant satisfied the requirement to exhaust reasonable means for obtaining a suitable license because it contacted the relevant licensees, including licensees with licenses in safekeeping, and was not required to make futile offers to purchase licenses that were unavailable as standalone commodities or to purchase an entire business and additional real estate.
  2. The presence of another licensed establishment within 200 feet did not automatically disqualify the application. On de novo review, the trial court had discretion under the Liquor Code to determine whether the proximity warranted denial, and it properly exercised that discretion by affirming the application where the record contained no evidence of harm to the community.

Key quotations

Applying Section 3.105(e)(2) as suggested by the PLCB would lead to the absurd result of requiring an applicant to offer to purchase a license in safekeeping that is not available as a standalone commodity. (12)
In concluding that the presence of another licensed premises within 200 feet of Applicant's premises was not a basis for denying its application, the trial court exercised the discretion afforded to it under a de novo standard of review. (17)

Factual background

Myles Development Company sought an Economic Development Restaurant Liquor License for a proposed fine-dining restaurant in West Chester Borough, where the county quota for liquor licenses had been exceeded. The applicant contacted all restaurant liquor licensees in Chester County, including licensees whose licenses were in safekeeping, but the responding licensees would sell their licenses only with the associated businesses and, in some cases, real estate. The applicant also investigated license auctions but did not pursue licenses outside West Chester because evidence showed that the Borough generally refused intermunicipal transfers. The proposed premises were approximately 60 feet from another licensed establishment, Barnaby's, but there was no evidence that the additional license would harm the neighborhood, and the Borough Council approved the application for local economic development.

Procedural history

Myles Development Company applied to the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board for an Economic Development Restaurant Liquor License. The Board denied the application, finding that the applicant had not exhausted reasonable means of obtaining a license within the county quota system and also relying on the proposed premises' proximity to another licensed establishment. The Chester County Court of Common Pleas conducted a de novo hearing, reversed the Board's denial, and ordered issuance of the license. The Commonwealth Court affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…