T.M. Haugh and L.S. Haugh v. PA LCB, 1985 C.D. 2016

Background

Oxford Township petitioned the PA Liquor Control Board under 47 P.S. § 4-493.1(b) to exempt an identifiable area (including Scozzaro’s Old Mill Inn) from the Code’s amplified-music prohibition so the township’s noise ordinance could apply instead.
The Board held a hearing; testimony showed Scozzaro’s holds outdoor music events ~500–700 feet from the Haughs’ home, Township and regional police historically investigated complaints, and few citations were issued.
The Board granted a one-year exemption (limited due to neighbors’ concerns); the hearing examiner had recommended denial.
The Haughs (neighbors) appealed the July 20, 2016 Order to the Adams County Court of Common Pleas, which transferred the matter to the Commonwealth Court.
The Board moved to dismiss the appeal as moot because the one-year exemption expired and a subsequent five-year exemption for the same area was later issued after a new hearing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction — proper forum for appeal	Haughs: Common pleas had jurisdiction under the Liquor Code (citing §404 and general appealability).	Board: Appeal lies to Commonwealth Court under Administrative Agency Law §702; §493.1 appeals are governed by §464 (limits who may appeal to common pleas).	Held: Commonwealth Court has jurisdiction under §702; Haughs cannot appeal to common pleas under §493.1(b)/§464.
Standing/aggrievement standard	Haughs: They are aggrieved neighbors and thus entitled to appeal.	Board: Agreed Haughs are aggrieved for §702 purposes but not within §464 categories for common-pleas appeals.	Held: Haughs meet aggrievement for §702 appeal to Commonwealth Court but not for §464 common-pleas appeal.
Mootness — whether appeal remains justiciable	Haughs: Not moot because (1) issue capable of repetition/evading review, (2) issues of great public importance, or (3) they would suffer significant detriment; also argued the subsequent five-year exemption shouldn’t force a new appeal.	Board: Appeal is moot because the challenged one-year exemption expired and the subsequent five-year order (from a new hearing) is a separate proceeding/record.	Held: Appeal is moot; no exception to mootness applies (case capable of repetition but not likely to evade review; public-importance exception not met; detriment insufficient).
Merits — whether Board abused discretion in granting exemption	Haughs: Board erred by allowing a less-restrictive local ordinance to supplant the Code and by disregarding their testimony and the hearing examiner’s recommendation.	Board: Exercised discretion under §493.1 to approve with conditions (limited duration) based on record that Township/enforcement were capable of addressing complaints.	Held: Court did not reach merits because appeal is moot.

Key Cases Cited

Fisher v. Pa. Liquor Control Bd., 500 A.2d 218 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (standing/appealability under Liquor Code discussed)
Application of Gismondi, 186 A.2d 448 (Pa. Super. 1962) (appealability under Liquor Code context)
Burns v. Rebels, Inc., 779 A.2d 1245 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (aggrievement standard for §702 appeals)
William Penn Parking Garage, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 346 A.2d 269 (Pa. 1975) (immediacy/causal relation for aggrievement)
Sal-Mar Amusements, Inc., 630 A.2d 1269 (Pa. Super. 1993) (mootness exception where expired order continued to cause licensee harm)
Wilkes-Barre Area Educ. Ass'n v. Wilkes-Barre Area Sch. Dist., 523 A.2d 1183 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (example of repetition-evading-review mootness context)
Mifflin County Sch. Dist. v. Stewart, 503 A.2d 1012 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (same)
Jersey Shore Area Sch. Dist. v. Jersey Shore Educ. Ass'n, 548 A.2d 1202 (Pa. 1988) (public-importance exception to mootness)