Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Chadds Ford Tavern, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board
Citations: 736 A.2d 70; 1999 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 628
Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania; August 11, 1999; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court
Chadds Ford Tavern petitions for review of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board's (PLCB) decision to grant a new restaurant liquor license to Chadds Ford Hospitality Group under the resort exception to the liquor license quota. The Hospitality Group's proposed establishment at 95-D Baltimore Pike is within 200 feet of the Tavern at 95-A Baltimore Pike, which holds an existing restaurant liquor license and opposes the new license. The PLCB held a hearing to address several objections, including the township's statutory quota of one liquor license, already exceeded by six restaurant licenses and two hotel licenses. The Board evaluated the necessity for an additional license, noting twelve licensed establishments within a 5-mile radius and eight within the township. Testimony presented by the Hospitality Group highlighted the unique Caribbean-style cuisine and breakfast offerings not available at other local establishments. The Board concluded there was a demonstrated need for the new license, citing the lack of similar cuisine nearby and the area's tourist traffic. On appeal, the Tavern contends that the PLCB erred by not sufficiently proving the need for an additional license, the extent of tourism, and the ability of existing establishments to meet tourist needs. The Tavern also argues the license should not have been granted solely because of its proximity to the Tavern. The PLCB, under Section 461(b) of the Liquor Code, has the authority to increase licenses in municipalities deemed to be in a resort area. An applicant for a liquor license under the resort area exception must demonstrate two critical elements: (1) their premises are situated within a designated resort area, and (2) there exists a substantial need for an additional license in that area. In establishing the first element, the applicant must show a seasonal influx of transients that existing licensed establishments cannot sufficiently accommodate, indicating that the new licensee would primarily serve tourists rather than local residents. The evaluation of actual need considers: (1) the demand from potential users of the facility, (2) the current number and types of establishments, and (3) whether the clientele targeted by the new establishment differs from that served by existing licensees. The term 'actual need' is interpreted broadly to reflect a substantial requirement in terms of convenience and welfare for potential users, particularly where the new establishment offers unique services not provided by current licensees. In this case, since Chadds Ford Township had already been recognized as a resort area, the Hospitality Group only needed to demonstrate actual need for a new license. The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB) found sufficient evidence that the Hospitality Group established a substantial need based on the restaurant's unique offerings, its promotional efforts directed at tourists, and its non-competitive stance with local establishments. The PLCB is empowered to grant licenses even if they are within 200 feet of an existing licensed establishment, and its discretion in this matter cannot be challenged on appeal. The order of the PLCB was affirmed based on substantial evidence supporting its findings regarding the unique characteristics of the Hospitality Group's restaurant and the overall demand for its services in the resort area.