Commonwealth v. Gulch

487 A.2d 472, 87 Pa. Commw. 395, 1985 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 822
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedFebruary 6, 1985
DocketAppeal, No. 969 C.D. 1983
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 487 A.2d 472 (Commonwealth v. Gulch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Commonwealth v. Gulch, 487 A.2d 472, 87 Pa. Commw. 395, 1985 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 822 (Pa. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinions

Opinion by

President Judge Crumlish, Jr.,

The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board appeals a Lancaster County Common Pleas Court order reversing the Board’s decision and granting Spring Gulch, Inc.’s application for a new liquor license. We affirm.

Spring Gulch, Inc., operates a restaurant, Spring Gulch Inn, on its campground in Salisbury Township. Salisbury Township has filled its quota of three licenses for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages1 under Section 461(a) of the Liquor Code (Code).2

Spring Gulch, Inc., filed an application for a new restaurant liquor license, amusement permit and issuance of a provisional Sunday sales permit under the [397]*397“resort area” exception, Section 461(b) of the Code,3 which provides that the “board shall have the power to increase the number of licenses in any such municipality which in the opinion of the board is located within a resort area. ’ ’4 The Board denied the application, finding that the restaurant was not located within a resort area and that the necessity for an additional restaurant liquor license had not been established.

The common pleas court conducted a hearing,5 found that the Board had abused its discretion and directed the Board to grant the application.6

“Where, as here, the court below has taken additional evidence and made its own findings of fact, our scope of review is limited to determining whether or not there is substantial evidence in the record to support those findings and whether or not the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law.” Appeal of Daras, 65 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 456, 458-59, 442 A.2d 859, 861 (1982).

An applicant under Section 461(b) bears the burden of proving (1) that the premises sought to be licensed are located within a resort area and (2) that there is actual need for the additional license in the area. Appeal of Brandywine Valley Inn, Inc., 53 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 203, 417 A.2d 823 (1980).

With respect to the first prong of an applicant’s burden of proof, this Court has held:

[398]*398In order to be classified as a resort area, the municipality and its immediate environs must have a seasonal mflux of a large number of temporary inhabitants and suitable accommodations for this transient population. Penn State Faculty Club Liquor License Case, 33 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 320, 381 A.2d 1017 (1978); Bierman Liquor License Case, 188 Pa. Superior Ct. 200, 145 A.2d 876 (1958). Moreover, there must be specific evidence relating to the number and size of the recreational facilities in and around ■the municipality, their proximity to the applicant’s place of business, the seasons during which the facilities are used, and the number of people occupying them. Aiello Liquor License Case, 41 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 345, 399 A.2d 154 (1979).

Appeal of Birchwood Center, Inc., 43 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 517, 519, 403 A.2d 155, 156 (1979) (emphasis added).

In order to determine whether the municipality experiences a large seasonal influx of transients, this Court has required a specific finding that there was- a yearly increase of persons in the region at peak periods. Aiello, 41 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. at 349, 399 A. 2d at 155 (1979). A review of the record discloses tourist statistics which establish that Lancaster County, particularly the eastern region, experiences a large seasonal influx of tourists during the summer months. Spring Gulch, Inc. ’s records reflect a parallel increase in the number of tourists occupying its campsites during those months.7 We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that this correlation between the county’s [399]*399tourist statistics and Spring Gulch, Inc.’s records, as well as Salisbury Township’s location in the eastern region of the county, demonstrates that Salisbury Township itself experiences a seasonal influx , of tourists at peak periods.

When attempting to demonstrate that its premises are located within a resort area, the applicant no longer has the burden of proving that there are adequate overnight accommodations in the area. Application of East Course, Inc., 60 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 83, 430 A.2d 1029 (1981).8

However, the applicant must, as it did here, present the required specific evidence relating to the recreational facilities in and around the municipality. A review of the record reveals that Spring Gulch Resort Campground is located approximately twelve miles from the area known as the “golden triangle” and only about eight miles from Intercourse, Pennsylvania, both major tourist attractions doing their greatest business during the summer months. This Court has held that recreational facilities within four to seven miles of an applicant’s premises are close enough to be within the immediate as opposed to the general area of the premises. Brandywine, 53 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. at 208, [400]*400417 A.2d at 826. We hold that, in today’s mobile society, recreational facilities within eight miles of an applicant’s premises are not too remote to bear upon the resort nature of the area in which the premises are located.

A review of the record further discloses that Salisbury Township is an integral part of Lancaster County’s appeal to tourists, providing the scenic countryside and Amish farmlands which attract many tourists to the area. Spring Gulch Resort Campground itself hosted approximately 22,970 persons, primarily transients, from April through October, 1981. The campground offers seasonal diversions such as swimming, fishing and camping. Although not conclusive, these attractions contribute to a finding that the municipality is within a resort area. Aiello, 41 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. at 348, 399 A.2d at 155.

Having considered these requirements, we hold that the trial court correctly concluded that Salisbury Township is located within a resort area.

With respect to the .second prong of an applicant’s burden of proof, this Court has held that the term “¡actual necessity” in determining the need for a liquor license will be given a broad construction so as to mean substantial need in relation to the pleasure, convenience and general welfare of the persons who would make use of the facility. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. Bridgeport Young Men’s Club, 84 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 13, 478 A.2d 157 (1984).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wing Pointe Corp. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board
57 Pa. D. & C.4th 529 (Berks County Court of Common Pleas, 2002)
West Reading Tavern, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board
710 A.2d 648 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1998)
In re Asprey, Inc.
693 A.2d 257 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1997)
In re Roberts
534 A.2d 558 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1987)
Commonwealth v. Ripley
529 A.2d 39 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1987)
Commonwealth v. Klein
516 A.2d 1324 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1986)
Hanover Bowling Center, Inc. v. Commonwealth
516 A.2d 845 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1986)
Commonwealth v. Raneri
509 A.2d 939 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1986)
Fisher v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board
500 A.2d 218 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
487 A.2d 472, 87 Pa. Commw. 395, 1985 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-gulch-pacommwct-1985.