In re Appeal of Improved Benevolent Protective Order of Elks of the World, Summit Lodge No. 115

374 A.2d 747, 30 Pa. Commw. 526, 1977 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 918
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJune 15, 1977
DocketAppeal, No. 409 C.D. 1976
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 374 A.2d 747 (In re Appeal of Improved Benevolent Protective Order of Elks of the World, Summit Lodge No. 115) 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
In re Appeal of Improved Benevolent Protective Order of Elks of the World, Summit Lodge No. 115, 374 A.2d 747, 30 Pa. Commw. 526, 1977 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 918 (Pa. Ct. App. 1977).

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Blatt,

This is an appeal by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (Board) from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Payette County which reversed a Board decision denying an application for a club liquor license.

Summit Lodge No. 115 of the Improved Benevolent Protective Order of Elks (Lodge) filed an application with the Board for a club liquor license for their premises located at 94 Feather Avenue, South Union Township, Uniontown. After a hearing at which the Lodge presented evidence, the Board refused to grant the license, finding inter alia that the premises proposed to be licensed were located within 300 feet of the Payette County Housing Authority (Authority) public playground. An appeal by the Lodge to the Court of Common Pleas was sustained, that court find[528]*528ing that the Authority had indicated that it had no objection to the granting of the license, even though the Lodge was located within 300 feet of the Authority’s public playground. This appeal followed.

Section 404 of the Liquor Code1, 47 P.S. §4-404, allows the Board in its discretion to refuse to grant a license “if such place proposed to be licensed is within three hundred feet of any church, hospital, charitable institution, school, or public playground(Emphasis added.) We have previously recognized that, by this section, the Legislature has given the Board discretion to approve or refuse license applications or applications to transfer licenses and that the function of the lower court on appeal is not to substitute its discretion for that of the Board, but merely to determine whether the Board abused its administrative discretion. Bilinsky v. Liquor Control Board, 7 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 312, 315, 298 A.2d 698, 699 (1972). In this case we believe that the lower court did substitute its discretion for that of the Board and that its order must therefore be reversed.

The lower court noted here, of course, that the Authority had no objection to the licensing, but this was a factor properly to be considered by the Board in exercising its discretion and we have previously held that the absence of objection does not control the Board’s decision in these matters. See Home Aid Association of John C. Tressler Post v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 25 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 271, 273, 360 A.2d 834, 835 (1976). It is uncontested here that the Authority’s playground is within 300 feet of the premises which the Lodge proposes to license, and the lower court described the playground here concerned as a public one in its findings. The Lodge [529]*529argues that the court was mistaken in so doing, but our review of the record establishes that the playground is owned by the Authority which is a public body and also that, although the playground is intended to be used by the tenants of the Authority’s nearby housing, the use of the playground by other persons is in no way restricted. Under these circumstances, we believe the lower court correctly described the playground as a public one. And, inasmuch as one of the recognized purposes of the Liquor Code is to discourage the existence of places where alcoholic beverages are dispensed in the vicinity of playgrounds2, the Board’s decision to deny the license application was not an abuse of its administrative discretion.

The decision of the court below is reversed and the order of the Board is reinstated.

Order

And, Now, this 15th day of June, 1977, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County dated February 26, 1976, is hereby reversed and the order of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board is hereby reinstated.

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

Related

Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. George Roscoe, Inc.
431 A.2d 1119 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1981)
Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. Picciotti
427 A.2d 270 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1981)
Prezioso Liquor License Case
36 Pa. Commw. 92 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1978)
In re Prezioso
387 A.2d 1308 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1978)
In re Appeal of Veterans of Foreign Wars Post No. 6347
387 A.2d 931 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1978)
In re Appeal of Rusch
379 A.2d 1375 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1977)
Rusch Liquor License Case
32 Pa. Commw. 578 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
374 A.2d 747, 30 Pa. Commw. 526, 1977 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-appeal-of-improved-benevolent-protective-order-of-elks-of-the-world-pacommwct-1977.