PAC Club of Western PA v. PLCB
255 C.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jan 3, 2018Background
- PAC Club of Western PA (Club) sought a double transfer of Catering Club License CC-2293 to premises at 522 Rosedale St.; numerous neighbors and community groups protested.
- Club borrowed $18,000 from James Sparrow, who owns the proposed premises (landlord), became a Club member in Oct. 2014 and Club President by Jan. 2015; repayment terms were not finalized pending license approval.
- The Board denied the application, finding Club may not qualify as a statutory “club,” that the transfer could inure to Sparrow’s private benefit (unlawful pecuniary interest), required application materials were incomplete, and the transfer could harm the 500-foot neighborhood.
- On de novo review the Court of Common Pleas overturned the Board and ordered approval, concluding Sparrow would not have an unlawful pecuniary interest and no direct harm to the neighborhood was shown.
- The Commonwealth Court reversed common pleas: it held Club bore the burden to prove no unlawful pecuniary interest, Club failed to do so because repayment and control issues were unresolved and evidence showed Sparrow had some pecuniary ties (landlord/creditor, family officers).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sparrow would have an unlawful pecuniary interest in the license | Club: No evidence Sparrow will receive proceeds, control, or exceed regulatory thresholds; manager testified no individual will profit | Board: Sparrow is landlord, creditor, Club officer; repayment terms and lease unknown —could create proprietorship attributes | Held: Court reversed common pleas — Club failed to meet burden to show Sparrow would not have an unlawful pecuniary interest; denial upheld |
| Whether Club qualifies as a "club" under the Liquor Code | Club: Previously obtained a club license in 2010; thus qualifies | Board: Current evidence shows Club’s primary activity is obtaining liquor sales revenue; may not meet statutory club standards | Held: Court did not decide merits but noted each application is separately reviewed and Board may revisit club status |
| Whether approval would be detrimental to health, welfare, peace, and morals within 500 feet | Club: No direct, immediate harm shown; limited occupancy and management plans | Protestants/Board: Residential area, on-street parking, late hours, weekend DJs, and policing impacts | Held: Court did not resolve this issue on appeal (decision rested on pecuniary-interest ground) |
| Whether Board properly denied given incomplete application/documentation (e.g., repayment terms, lease, required filings) | Club: Manager testimony and absence of direct evidence should suffice; Board could have subpoenaed Sparrow | Board: Applicant bears burden to present full, satisfactory evidence; delaying repayment terms left the record incomplete | Held: Court relied on insufficiency of Club’s proof (incomplete financial terms) to affirm denial on pecuniary-interest basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Parks v. Liquor Control Board, 403 A.2d 628 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (Board cannot deny license on unsupported finding that a third party has a pecuniary interest)
- St. Rd. Bar & Grille, Inc. v. Pa. Liquor Control Bd., 876 A.2d 346 (Pa. 2005) (applicant bears burden to satisfy requirements for liquor license)
- West Reading Tavern, Inc. v. Pa. Liquor Control Bd., 710 A.2d 648 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (Board may reach a different conclusion on a subsequent application based on new evidence)
- Spencer v. City of Reading Charter Board, 97 A.3d 834 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (definition of substantial evidence: what a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient support)