Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cameron County in case of In Re: Application for Restaurant Liquor License and Amusement Permit of Joseph A. Studer and Virginia M. Studer, Trading as Neon Lion, No. 38 of 1974.
Richard W. Mutzabaugh, with him Mutzabaugh & Mutzabaugh, for appellants.
J. Leonard Langan, Assistant Attorney General, with him Harry Bowytz, Chief Counsel, and Israel Packel, Attorney General, for appellee.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Wilkinson, Jr., and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.
[ 20 Pa. Commw. Page 495]
The sole issue before us in the present appeal is whether the lower court erred in finding lack of necessity in the issue of a restaurant liquor license and amusement permit pursuant to The Liquor Code, Act of April 12, 1951, P.L. 90, as amended, 47 P.S. § 1-101 et seq.
[ 20 Pa. Commw. Page 496]
This case is controlled by the standards relating to necessity enunciated in Springdale District Sportsmen's Page 496} Association v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 20 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 479, 342 A.2d 448 (1975), wherein we stated:
1. The circumstances of the Applicant should be viewed with relation to the need of persons making use of the facility.
2. Actual necessity is the need of the area for the additional license. To this end, inquiry should be directed to 1) the number and types of establishments already operating in the area; 2) the clientele served by the existing licenses, and 3) the clientele intended to be served by the Applicant.
3. Recognize the distinction between the need of club licenses or club catering licenses in a resort area, for the purposes of its individual members and the needs which qualify the issue of other licenses.
4. Necessity is a legal issue which demands competent evidence in support thereof.
Appellant cites the following facts from the record in support of ...