Case Title: Kerr v. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS OF CO. OF DOUGLAS

Citation: 460 P.2d 235

Docket Number: 

State: colorado

Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Date: 1969-11-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
460 P.2d 235 (1969) Ramon O'Neil KERR, Plaintiff in Error, v. The BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF the COUNTY OF DOUGLAS in the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. No. 23068. Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. November 3, 1969. *236 Simon, Kelley, Hoyt & Malone, Englewood, for plaintiff in error. William L. Osthoff, Jr., Douglas County Attorney, Castle Rock, for defendant in error. DAY, Justice. This writ of error is directed to the judgment of the district court upholding the Board of County Commissioners of Douglas County in their denial of Kerr's application for a license to dispense fermented malt beverage (commonly known as 3.2 beer) by the drink. The Board in denying the application made the following findings: The district court in an action in the nature of certiorari to review the Board's action upheld the decision of the Board. We reverse. It is to be noted that all of the outlets referred to in the findings are for the sale of 3.2% beer in grocery stores and other establishments selling only by the "package"not by the drink. Not one of the places provide a restaurant facility or recreation of any kind. The applicant contends, and we agree, that in denying his application the Board *237 acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and without good cause. It is argued that the Commissioners: (a) failed to exercise the discretion conferred upon them by the pertinent statute when they gave no consideration to the facts and circumstances shown by the application and the signers of the petition and the evidentiary matters in support thereof; (b) did not consider the application on its merits alone; (c) did not base its decision on matters peculiar to the applicant and the location; and (d) assumed to exercise their discretion based on evidence that was and is incompetent and irrelevant. In this latter connection the Board considered the testimony of the sheriff concerning his problems in policing the widespread county. In exercising its authority, the Board should be guided by the applicable statutory provisions and by the principles enunciated in Colorado case law. "* * * [T]hree principles pervade all of our pertinent decisions: (1) the licensing authorities are vested with a wide discretion; (2) all reasonable doubts as to the correctness of the Board's rulings are to be resolved in favor of the Board; (3) the determination of the Board will not be disturbed by the courts unless it appears that the Board has `abused its discretion.'" Board of County Commissioners of Fremont County v. Salardino, 138 Colo. 66, 329 P.2d 629. The statute in question, C.R.S.1963, 75-1-5, contains the following provisions: The application and the evidence adduced at the hearing clearly showed that the applicant was qualified as to provisions (b) and (c) of the statute. Regarding (d), the undisputed evidence was that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood are not now being met by any existing outlets for sale of 3.2 beer by the drink. All existing outlets serving the area are "package" stores. The evidence before the Board with reference to the desires of the inhabitants was the testimony of the applicant and a petition requesting the approval of the application signed by 51 residents of the immediate vicinity. No objections to or remonstrances against the granting of the license were presented at the hearing. We have said that the Board may commit an arbitrary or capricious abuse of discretion by In our view such an abuse of discretion occurred in the case at bar. It is clear from the Board's findings that in considering the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood it arbitrarily refused to take cognizance of the distinction between outlets dispensing 3.2 beer by the package and a proposed outlet which would offer 3.2 beer by the drink. The evidence showed that there is no such establishment for the serving of 3.2 beer by the drink in Douglas County. The Board *238 attempts to justify such action by advancing an argument herein that it is not necessary to make distinction between the two types of outlets because the statute does not indicate that such a distinction is to be made in considering the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood. Common lay knowledge recognizes that an entirely different function is served by a club for 18-year-olds and older where food is served and various types of recreation such as dancing are offered than by a "package" store which merely sells 3.2 beer. The distinction was commented upon by this court in a reverse situation in Board of County Commissioners of Adams County v. National Tea Company, 149 Colo. 80, 367 P.2d 909, wherein we refused to uphold the denial of a license to sell 3.2 beer by the package, commenting that there was no other license to sell packaged beer in the neighborhood, although there was one existing license to sell 3.2 beer by the drink. Because the proposed restaurant and club operation is in a sparsely settled area, but on Santa Fe, a widely-traveled highway, the Board concluded that the prospective customers would be drawn county-wide. A similar expansion of the issues beyond the question of the needs of the neighborhood and desires of the inhabitants thereof was disapproved by us in Bolton v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of Delta, 164 Colo. 112, 432 P.2d 761, wherein application was made for a license to sell malt, vinous and spirituous liquors at a remote mountain lodge on the Grand Mesa in Delta County. The license was denied, though the Board of County Commissioners found that the nearest license of the kind sought by the applicant was located thirty-five miles from the lodge, and that the nearest package store was twenty miles away. Little or no opposition was offered by persons who resided within a reasonable distance from the lodge. This court stated: The judgment of the district court is reversed and remanded to the district court to remand to the Board of County Commissioners with directions to issue the license.