Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, in case of La Cumbia Corporation v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, No. 2871 August Term, 1985.
Faith S. Diehl, Assistant Counsel, with her, Kenneth B. Skelly, Chief Counsel, for appellant.
Gary F. DiVito, Goldstein, Friedberg, Zaslow & DiVito, for appellee.
Judges MacPhail and Barry, and Senior Judge Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt.
[ 111 Pa. Commw. Page 11]
The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (Board) appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) which reversed the Board's denial of an application to transfer a liquor license to La Cumbia Corporation (appellee).
The appellee applied for the transfer of a liquor license to a premises located at 4615-17-19 and 4621 North Fifth Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Board, after holding a hearing on the matter,*fn1 denied the license transfer on the basis of the following findings:
1. The proposed licensed premises are located within 200 feet of other establishments licensed by this Board.
2. The applicant has failed to verify the sources of all funds required to renovate the proposed licensed premises.
[ 111 Pa. Commw. Page 123]
. The approval of this application would adversely affect the health, welfare, peace and morals of the neighborhood within a radius of 500 feet.
The trial court, on de novo review, accepted into evidence the notes of testimony of the Board hearing and the agreement of counsel that the location of the appellee's premises was within two hundred feet of two other licensed establishments. The trial court, however, granted the license transfer concluding that the character and type of the nearby establishments was completely different from that of the appellee's, that the appellee had supplied verification of the source of all funds required to renovate the premises, and that granting the transfer would not adversely affect the neighborhood within a radius of 500 feet. The Board appealed.
The Board contends that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the license transfer where it found that the appellee's location was within 200 feet of other licensed premises and when that was the precise reason for the Board's denial of approval for the transfer. The appellee counters by arguing: 1) that the trial court's finding that the appellee's establishment was of a different character than others located within 200 feet was a materially different finding so as to permit a reversal; 2) that the Board ...