IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Joseph W. Troutman, Sr. :

:

v. : No. 1385 C.D. 2017

: Argued: September 12, 2018

Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, :

:

Appellant :

BEFORE: HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE WOJCIK FILED: January 24, 2019

The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB) appeals from the 

August 30, 2017 order of the Court of Common Pleas of McKean County (trial 

court), which, following a de novo hearing, sustained the appeal of Joseph W. 

Troutman (Licensee) and reversed the PLCB’s denial of the application for 

renewal of Hotel Liquor License No. H-6232 (LID No. 63618). In doing so, the 

trial court reviewed Licensee’s extensive history of violations but emphasized the 

PLCB’s decision to renew the license in 2015 despite that history. The trial court 

also emphasized that Licensee’s record after August 1, 2015, was greatly improved 

in comparison to that prior history. The PLCB maintains that the trial court erred 

and abused its discretion in failing to consider evidence of the citations and 

incidents that occurred prior to August 1, 2015, in sustaining Licensee’s appeal. 
2

Facts and Procedural History

Since 2013, Licensee’s history includes 9 adjudicated citations and 

about 25 reported disturbances. In May of 2014, during the two-year licensing 

period that began August 1, 2013, Licensee entered into a conditional licensing 

agreement (CLA). Thereafter, the PLCB conditionally granted the renewal of that 

liquor license for the two-year period beginning August 1, 2015, contingent upon 

the favorable outcome of two pending citations, which were adjudicated against 

Licensee. After an administrative hearing, the PLCB revoked its conditional 

approval. Licensee appealed to the trial court, which held a de novo hearing and 

reversed the PLCB’s decision and order. 

The trial court issued the following Findings of Fact: 

1.) Joseph W. Troutman operates an establishment 

known as the Hotel Holley located at 153 Main 

Street, Bradford, Pennsylvania. . . .

2.) The Hotel Holley is actually comprised of three (3) 

areas licensed to sell alcohol. One is the bar or 

“back bar” area of the Hotel Holley; the second is 

the Holley Express, which is licensed to sell “togo” alcoholic beverages but does contain a café 

area; and Joe’s Main Street Steakhouse, a fullservice restaurant that also sells alcoholic 

beverages. Collectively, these areas shall be 

referred to as the “Hotel Holley.” . . .

3.) The Hotel Holley is licensed to sell alcohol under 

Hotel Liquor License H-6232. Before the 

application of renewal that is the subject of this 

matter, the hotel liquor license was set to expire 

July 31, 2017.

4.) Renewal had been granted for the subject hotel 

liquor license for the period of August 1, 2015 to 

July 31, 2017.
3

5.) Renewal was conditioned upon a Conditional 

Licensing Agreement (“CLA”) that was 

executed May 29, 2014 by Troutman and May 

30, 2014 by the PLCB.

6.) The CLA was enacted as part of Troutman 

maintaining his hotel liquor license through the 

period of August 1, 2013 to July 31, 2015, but it 

remained in effect for additional renewals 

because it was never terminated. 

7.) The important terms of the CLA are quoted below 

in relevant part: 

* * *

a. Troutman shall remain compliant with the 

responsible alcohol management provisions of 

the Liquor Code[1]including, but not limited 

to: 

i. New employee orientation;

ii. Training for alcohol service personnel;

iii. Manager/owner training;

iv. Displaying of responsible alcohol service 

signage; and

v. Certification of compliance by the 

Board’s Bureau of Alcohol Education;

b. Troutman shall use a “transaction scan 

device,” as that term is defined in the Liquor 

Code, to scan the identification of all patrons 

entering the premises, notwithstanding the 

fact that the patron’s identification was 

scanned on a previous occasion. For purposes 

 

1 Act of April 12, 1951, P.L. 90, as amended, 47 P.S. §§1-101 – 10-1001.
4

of this section, “occasion” shall mean between 

7:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. of the following day.

c. Troutman must designate a responsible person 

(or persons), who must be present at the 

premises and oversee it if the board-approved 

manager is not present. This requirement 

shall apply between 6:00 p.m. and one-half 

(1/2) hour after the time when all patrons are 

required to vacate the premises. A record of 

the days and hours that the responsible 

person(s) is/are overseeing the operation of 

the establishment in the absence of the Boardapproved manager shall be maintained as a 

business record, subject to section 493(12) of 

the Liquor Code, and shall be available upon 

request to law enforcement officials, as well 

as Board employees and employees at the 

Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Liquor 

Control Enforcement....

* * *

e. One (1) or more violations of section 493(1) 

[of the Liquor Code, which states that it is 

unlawful for any licensee or any employee or 

agent of such licensee or any other person, to 

sell, furnish or give any liquor or malt or 

brewed beverages, or to permit any liquor or 

malt or brewed beverages to be sold, 

furnished or given, to any person visibly 

intoxicated, or to any minor], shall be a 

violation of this agreement].

f. Troutman shall employ at least two (2) 

security guards who will be present and 

working at the licensed premises on all 

Fridays and Saturdays that the licensed 

premises is opened from 8:00 p.m. until one 

half-hour after patrons are required to vacate 

the premises. Troutman shall also have at 
5

least two (2) security guards who will be 

present and working at the licensed premises 

whenever there is live entertainment at the 

premises; Live entertainment shall include but 

shall not be limited to bands and a disc 

jockey. All security personnel shall be 

clothed in such a way as to make his/her 

status as security personnel readily apparent. 

g. Failure to adhere to this agreement may result 

in citation(s) by the Bureau and/or nonrenewal of the license by the Board. 

8.) Since the effective date of the CLA, Troutman’s 

Hotel Liquor License was renewed one (1) 

additional time: from August 1, 2015 to July 31, 

2017.

9.) From August 1, 2015 to July 31, 2017, there has 

been one (1) citation and adjudication known as 

No. 15-1595. However, this adjudication regarded 

actions that occurred before Troutman’s hotel 

liquor license was renewed on August 1, 2015.

10.) Troutman has had nine (9) adjudicated 

violations. 

11.) Neither one single violation, all occurring 

before August 1, 2015, nor their aggregate 

prevented Troutman from renewing his hotel 

liquor license. 

12.) Neither one single violation, all occurring 

before August 1, 2015, nor their aggregate 

diminished the reputation of Troutman as to 

make him an ineligible hotel liquor license

holder as a person of poor or ill repute.

13.) From August 1, 2013 to August 1, 2015 there 

were twenty-one (21) disturbances at or near 

the Hotel Holley.
6

14.) Neither one single disturbance, all occurring 

before August 1, 2015, nor their aggregate 

prevented Troutman from renewing his hotel 

liquor license. 

15.) Neither one single disturbance, all occurring 

before August 1, 2015, nor their aggregate 

diminished the reputation of Troutman as to make 

him an ineligible liquor license holder as a person 

[of] poor [or] ill repute.

16.) From August 1, 2015 to July 31, 2017, there have 

been four (4) disturbances at or near the Hotel 

Holley.

17.) The August 2, 2015 incident involved the late 

Kimberly Dexter, a homeless woman, who was 

intoxicated and drinking a beer on the sidewalk 

along Main Street in front of the Hotel Holley. A 

Bradford City police officer observed that 

Kimberly Dexter was unable to stand and was 

sitting in front of the Hotel Holley with scraped 

hands and knees, slurring her speech. She was 

cited for disorderly conduct and public 

drunkenness. No Persons were harmed. 

18.) As it relates to the August 2, 2015 incident, there is 

no indication that Kimberly Dexter obtained 

alcohol from the Hotel Holley. There is no 

indication that the Hotel Holley or its employees 

served alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person.

19.) The August 8, 2015 incident involved a potential 

fight at about 11:30 p.m. in the parking lot across 

the street from the Hotel Holley. A Bradford City 

police officer on patrol noticed a large crowd 

congregating in a parking lot across the street from 

the Hotel Holley. The officer heard screaming and 

yelling and drove into the parking lot to investigate 

what he believed to be a fistfight between two 

men. The crowd immediately dispersed including 
7

the two men suspected of fighting. The only 

person who remained was one Louis Colts, who 

began yelling at the officer. The officer believed 

Louis Colts was intoxicated as he appeared to have 

trouble standing and smelled of alcohol. The 

officer warned Louis Colts to just leave. Louis 

Colts crossed the street and tried to enter the Hotel 

Holley through the back entrance (i.e. to the “back 

bar”), but was not permitted inside by security. 

After being dismissed from the Hotel Holley, 

Louis Colts was arrested and cited with public 

drunkenness. No one was significantly harmed. 

20.) Nothing in the August 8, 2015 incident exhibits or 

demonstrates that Louis Colts had become 

intoxicated at the Hotel Holley. In fact, it appears 

that the employees of the Hotel Holley acted 

responsibly by not admitting a person who 

appeared to be visibly intoxicated. 

21.) On October 21, 2015, a highly intoxicated man 

was outside of the McDonald’s restaurant adjacent 

to the Hotel Holley. The police responded to the 

incident and, according to officers, the man was of 

severely diminished cognitive ability. He was 

unable to coherently answer any of their questions 

and gave a false address. The police report 

indicates that the man told officers that he had 

been drinking at the Hotel Holley. After the man’s 

daughter refused to retrieve him, he was 

transported to the Bradford City police station and 

placed in a holding cell. A portable breathalyzer 

test was conducted and indicated a blood alcohol 

level of .247. Notwithstanding, the police did not 

believe the man to be in need of any emergency 

medical treatment as they did not transport him to 

any hospital. No one was harmed in this incident.

22.) As it related to the October 21, 2015 incident, 

there is no suggestion as to how much alcohol the 

man had consumed at the Hotel Holley, whether he 
8

had consumed alcohol at other establishments, etc. 

There is also no direct evidence to corroborate the 

man’s only coherent statement that he had been 

drinking at the Hotel Holley. 

23.) On May 6, 2016 Jonathon Lee Yeager (“Yeager”) 

drove his truck over his friend and fellow patron 

Lori Swanson (“Swanson”) who tried to prevent 

Yeager from leaving the Hotel Holley. 

24.) This incident is subject to a pending civil lawsuit 

in [the] McKean County Court of Common Pleas 

and the defendants include Troutman and the Hotel 

Holley.

25.) Yeager was not charged with a DUI [driving under 

the influence] as a result of this incident.

26.) Yeager pled to [1 count of aggravated assault by 

vehicle; 1 count of accident involving death or 

personal injury while not properly licensed; 1 

count of duty to give information or render aid; 1 

count of driving while suspended; and 1 count of 

reckless driving]. 

27.) Swanson was severely injured as a result of being 

hit by the truck. These injuries included hip 

shattering and a broken back in two places. After 

surgery, Swanson has plates and screws in her 

right side and is unable to bear weight on her left 

leg at this time. She is currently wheelchair 

bound.

28.) Upon Yeager’s testimony, after the accident, 

Yeager fled and consumed three (3) or four (4) 

beers over the course of about three (3) hours. 

Yeager then had someone drive him to the police 

station and turned himself into authorities.

29.) While Yeager was in the Hotel Holley, there is 

disputed testimony regarding how much, if any 

alcohol, Yeager had. 
9

30.) There are two primary witnesses to this event. 

Lorie Gault, a bartender at the Hotel Holley who 

was off duty but in the bar as a patron on the day 

of the incident; and Lori Swanson, who was struck 

by the car and is now seeking damages. 

31.) At the hearing before this Court, Lorie Gault 

testified that Yeager was not drunk, but he was 

tired from being up all night before coming into 

the bar in the midday. She also testified that 

Yeager stated that he consumed alcohol before 

reaching the Hotel Holley, but he did not state a 

specific quantity or duration of time. She saw 

Yeager with a single beer in his hand at the Hotel 

Holley over the course of about four (4) hours. 

32.) At the administrative hearing, Swanson testified 

that Yeager had shots and beers.

33.) Both witnesses may have ulterior motives for their 

testimony. However, Swanson’s ulterior motives 

are more acute given the pending civil suit against 

Troutman and the Hotel Holley. 

34.) Before June of 2016, Troutman has made 

improvements to the Hotel Holley clientele and 

physical structure. 

35.) Troutman has begun to operate a steakhouse 

restaurant that attracts families and more 

upscale diners to the area. 

36.) The Hotel Holley has a back parking lot that it 

shares with a barbershop. In addition to the 

barbershop, there is a Dollar General store at the 

end of the block which also has some parking 

around the building and there is only a low bar 

creating some separation between parking lots. 

37.) Across Main Street from the Hotel Holley is a 

grocery store and gas station with a large parking 

lot.
10

38.) Across Davis Street from the Hotel Holley is a 

large parking lot as a part of a “mini-mall” or 

shopping complex. This parking area is divided 

into two separate areas by a brick wall.

39.) Troutman has made improvements to his 

parking lot including extra and brighter 

lighting.

40.) The City of Bradford Police Department has a 

camera installed near the premises that is 

capable of observing the back entrance of the 

Hotel Holley and part of the parking lot.

41.) Troutman would consider allowing the police to 

place additional cameras if cameras were also 

placed at other nearby liquor dispensing 

establishments. 

42.) The Hotel Holley also operates as a hotel. Of 

the one hundred (100) rooms, sixty-eight (68) 

are rentable as dwelling places. The ones not 

rented are used for storage, etc. 

43.) Of the rentable rooms, many are rented to 

homeless persons referred to the Hotel Holley 

by Destinations, Salvation Army, First 

Presbyterian Church, and other non-profit 

organizations. As of June 2015, Troutman had 

housed at least sixty (60) homeless persons so 

far that year. 

44.) There are fifty-two (52) permanent residents of 

the Hotel Holley. About ten (10) or fifteen (15) 

residents are senior citizens on fixed incomes. 

Many other residents receive Social Security 

Disability Benefits and are unable to work. 

45.) In addition to homeless persons, Troutman 

provides housing for the less fortunate in the 

community at the Hotel Holley. In addition to 
11

providing services to less fortunate individuals, 

Troutman houses several less fortunate families.

46.) The monthly rent for permanent residents is about 

$480.00 per month. Monthly rent includes utilities 

such as gas, electric, garbage collection, water, 

sewage, and cable television. 

47.) Troutman operates this hotel/residential portion of 

the Hotel Holley at a loss. Instead, Troutman uses 

revenues from his alcohol sales to defray the costs 

of operating the hotel/residential portion of the 

Hotel Holley.

48.) Troutman’s operation of the Hotel Holley as a 

hotel/residential facility is of great benefit to the 

community as it shelters homeless persons and 

provides permanent, stable housing for those 

who could not otherwise afford it. 

49.) No evidence was presented of any acts 

committed by Troutman himself to be or 

become an ill regarded person in the 

community. 

50.) Troutman’s employees include security officers, 

a manager for times when Troutman is not 

there, and Responsible Alcohol Management 

Program (“RAMP”) certified bartenders. 

51.) There is appropriate signage, scanning devices, 

and records maintained by the Hotel Holley in 

the course of its operations. 

Trial court’s Findings of Fact, Nos. 1-51 (emphasis added).

The trial court considered various factors that may support the 

PLCB’s denial of an application to renew a liquor license,

2

including: 1) violations 

 

2

In relevant part, Section 470 of the Liquor Code states:

(Footnote continued on next page...)
12

 

(continued...)

(a.1) SHOULD NOT BE BOLDED The Director of the Bureau of 

Licensing may object to and the board may refuse a properly filed 

license application:

(1) if the licensee, its shareholders, directors, officers, association 

members, servants, agents or employes have violated any of the 

laws of this Commonwealth or any of the regulations of the board;

(2 if the licensee, its shareholders, directors, officers, association 

members, servants, agents or employes have one or more 

adjudicated citations under this or any other license issued by the 

board or were involved in a license whose renewal was objected to 

by the Bureau of Licensing under this section;

(3) if the licensed premises no longer meets the requirements of 

this act or the board’s regulations; or

(4) due to the manner in which this or another licensed premises 

was operated while the licensee, its shareholders, directors, 

officers, association members, servants, agents or employes were 

involved with that license. When considering the manner in which 

this or another licensed premises was being operated, the board 

may consider activity that occurred on or about the licensed 

premises or in areas under the licensee’s control if the activity 

occurred when the premises was open for operation and if there 

was a relationship between the activity outside the premises and 

the manner in which the licensed premises was operated. The 

board may take into consideration whether any substantial steps 

were taken to address the activity occurring on or about the 

premises.

(a.2) The board shall only refuse to renew a license application if 

the bureau of licensing gives the applicant at least ten days’ notice, 

stating the basis for the objection; otherwise, the board must renew 

the license after receiving a properly filed renewal application.

(a.3) If the objection to the application is based on the reputation, 

criminal history, citation history or activity of one or more of the 

applicant’s shareholders, directors, officers, association members, 

servants, agents or employes and not on the reputation, criminal 

history, citation history or activity attributable to the applicant, the 

board shall order the divestiture of the shareholders, directors, 

(Footnote continued on next page...)
13

of Pennsylvania law by the licensee, its agents or employees; 2) violations of 

PLCB regulations; 3) any adjudications to any license or involvement with a 

license that was objected to by the PLCB; 4) a failure of the premises to conform 

to the Liquor Code; 5) the manner of operation of the premises, including activity 

on or about the property, correlations between such activity and operation of the 

premises, extent to which the licensee or its agents or employees had control over 

such activity, and whether steps were taken to address activity on or about the 

premises; and 6) the reputation of the licensee. 

In its analysis, the trial court noted that no one of the above factors is 

dispositive. The trial court also emphasized that time is an important consideration 

when reviewing a licensee’s history. Thus, while a single violation may be 

 

(continued...)

officers, association members, servants, agents or employes in 

question, in lieu of refusing the application. If such divestiture does 

not occur within thirty (30) days of the board’s order, then the 

board may refuse the application.

(b) In cases where a licensee or its servants, agents or employes 

are arrested or charged with violating any of the laws of this 

Commonwealth or if a licensee has one or more unadjudicated 

citations pending against the licensee at the time a renewal 

application for the license is pending before the board, the board 

may, in its discretion, renew the license; however, the renewed 

license may be subsequently revoked by the board if and when the 

licensee or its servants, agents or employes are convicted of the 

pending criminal charges or when the citation issued against the 

license is adjudicated by the Office of Administrative Law Judge.

In the event the renewal license is revoked by the board, neither 

the license fee paid for the license nor any part thereof shall be 

returned to the licensee.

47 P.S. §4-470.
14

sufficient to support the non-renewal of a license, typically, non-renewals involve 

multiple violations of the Liquor Code and a number of disturbances inside or near 

the licensed premises. Allison v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 131 A.3d 

1075, 1081 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016). Additionally, the trial court observed that 

licensees are not required to implement every possible safety measure or do 

everything possible to prevent criminal activity on the premises. Todd’s By the 

Bridge v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 74 A.3d 287, 297 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2013); Rosing, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 690 A.2d 758, 762 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 1997). 

The trial court set forth a detailed history of Licensee’s citations and 

incidents beginning in 2013. The trial court then emphasized that the totality of 

Licensee’s record prior to August 1, 2015, was not considered grounds by the 

PLCB to outright deny the license renewal. Referencing the factors listed above, 

the trial court concluded that Licensee had no violations of Pennsylvania law or 

adjudicated violations of the PLCB’s regulations or the CLA during the most 

recent licensing period. Additionally, Licensee’s violations of the CLA, related to 

scanning of the premises,3 did not prevent renewal of the license for the 2015-17 

period. The trial court noted that there were four disturbances on the premises

after August 1, 2015. In one of those instances, Licensee’s employees could have 

called police to remove a visibly intoxicated person. However, there was no 

evidence of a correlation between the operation of the premises and two other 

incidents. The last incident involved serious injury, but it appeared to have been a 

dispute between two friends. Licensee has taken steps to improve the premises on 

 

3 Licensee breached the CLA requirement to use a transaction scan device on three 

occasions, in February, May, and June of 2015. 
15

several fronts, including hiring security, training his bartenders, who are RAMP 

certified, adding lighting in the parking lot, opening a restaurant that attracts a 

more upscale clientele, and discontinuing live entertainment. 

Having set forth the relevant facts in detail, the trial court stated that it 

gave little weight to Licensee’s numerous violations and incidents prior to August 

1, 2015, because that record did not preclude the PLCB from renewing his license 

in 2015. The trial court found that subsequent violations were either de minimis or 

not within Licensee’s control. Rather than having ill repute, the trial court found 

that Licensee is performing a community service by giving shelter to people who 

would otherwise be homeless and subsidizing the cost of housing for seniors and 

disabled persons. The trial court stated that Licensee’s service to the community is 

a significant factor and proves his character. 

Trial court’s authority

In de novo hearings regarding PLCB matters, the trial court must 

make its own findings of fact based upon the record below in conjunction with 

other properly admitted evidence. Two Sophia’s, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor 

Control Board, 799 A.2d 917 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002). Further, 

[w]hether a trial court adopts the [PLCB’s] findings of 

fact or makes its own factual findings, it may reach its 

own conclusions on the evidence. See I.B.P.O.E. of West 

Mount Vernon Lodge 151 v. Pennsylvania Liquor 

Control Board, 969 A.2d 642, 647-48 (Pa. Cmwlth.

2009) (holding that Section 464 of the Liquor Code 

authorizes the trial court to reach its own conclusions 

“even when the evidence it hears is substantially the 

same as the evidence presented to the Board.”).
16

Allison, 131 A.3d at 1082. The PLCB does not question the trial court’s authority

to reach a conclusion different from its own. 

Issues 

On appeal, the PLCB argues that the trial court misunderstood the 

conditional renewal of the license for the 2015 period. The PLCB contends that 

because of this error, the trial court improperly disregarded Licensee’s history of 

violations. More specifically, the PLCB asserts that the trial court’s repeated 

references to the PLCB’s approval of Licensee’s renewal application for the 2015-

17 period reflect that the trial court misconstrued the PLCB’s conditional approval 

as an outright approval. The PLCB asserts that, based on this mistake, the trial 

court erred in failing to consider the evidence of citations and incidents prior to 

August 2015. The PLCB maintains that the trial court erred in ordering the 

renewal of the license where there were 9 adjudicated citations of the subject hotel 

liquor license before the 2015-17 operation period; there were 24 incidents of 

disturbance at or near the establishment during that period; Licensee breached the 

CLA; and Licensee is not a reputable person. 

Licensee responds that the trial court properly considered all of the 

evidence. Additionally, Licensee points to evidence that, since he entered into the 

CLA, he has taken affirmative steps to become a more responsible operator of the 

premises, and he maintains that the violations cited after the CLA were de minimis 

in nature and do not outweigh the benefits his business contributes to the 

community. Licensee argues that he had no citations in 2016 and did not have any 

violations for incidents that occurred after his hotel liquor license was renewed on 

August 1, 2015, reflecting his improvement in managing the Hotel Holley. 

Licensee contends that the disturbances/incidents that have occurred at the Hotel 
17

Holley are not related to the operation of the establishment itself, but are isolated 

incidents that involve different individuals or operations undertaken by the police 

and beyond Licensee’s control. Finally, Licensee argues that in order to be 

disreputable, Licensee himself would have had to commit acts to earn such a status 

and that the conduct of others does not affect his reputation.

Analysis

Initially, we note that the trial court, in its numerous findings, 

addressed every relevant citation, violation, and incident. Moreover, while the 

PLCB contends the trial court mistakenly construed the conditional approval as an 

outright approval, our review reveals that the trial court characterized the 

conditional approval as a failure to outright deny the license renewal for the 2015-

17 licensing period. The trial court’s decision includes various references to 

revocation, renewal, and non-renewal of a license. Contrary to the PLCB’s 

assertions, the trial court’s language does not demonstrate that its conclusions rest 

on a mistaken understanding of the facts or the law. 

Of course, “it is not improper for the PLCB to look at a series of 

violations of the liquor laws that have already been the subject of a penalty when 

deciding whether to renew a license.” I.B.P.O.E. of West Mount Vernon Lodge 

151, 969 A.2d at 648. However, “[a]lthough past adjudications may be considered 

in a license renewal case, the trial court, reviewing the matter de novo, may make 

its own findings concerning the significance of the licensee’s citation history.” Id.

Indeed, our Supreme Court has made clear that the trial court is “required to 

conduct de novo review and, in the exercise of its statutory discretion, to make its 

own findings and conclusions. Based upon its de novo review, it may sustain, 
18

alter, change, modify or amend the [PLCB’s] action whether or not it makes 

findings [that] are materially different from those found by the [PLCB] . . . .” 

Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement v. Cantina 

Gloria’s Lounge, Inc., 639 A.2d 14, 19-20 (Pa. 1994). 

In Goodfellas, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 921 A.2d 

559 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007), this Court affirmed a trial court’s order reversing the 

PLCB’s decision to deny renewal of a liquor license. The licensee in Goodfellas

operated a bar/restaurant in the Borough of Mount Carbon and had a liquor license 

and attendant amusement permit. After the Bureau of Licensing objected to the 

renewal of the license and amusement permit, a hearing examiner held a hearing 

and subsequently recommended renewal of both. The PLCB disagreed and denied 

the licensee’s renewal application, noting citations for loud noise and pricing 

violations. The PLCB acknowledged that the licensee had solved its noise problem 

by constructing a new facility but contended that it took too long to do so. The 

PLCB also conceded that the licensee was in compliance with three of the four 

terms of the parties’ CLA. Nevertheless, the PLCB noted that the licensee had 

accrued ten adjudicated citations; it referred to the licensee’s citation history as 

“‘dismal’ and reflecting an ‘utter disregard for the liquor laws.”’ 921 A.2d at 562. 

The licensee appealed to the trial court, which accepted into evidence 

the record made before the Bureau and received new evidence. In particular, the 

licensee’s owner/manager explained her delay in complying with the CLA. 

Additionally, the borough’s mayor testified that there had been no formal noise 

complaints since the licensee built the new building. He also testified that the 

licensee was the primary payer of amusement tax in the borough and an important 

source of the income for the borough. 
19

The trial court reversed the PLCB’s decision and granted renewal of 

the licensee’s liquor license and amusement permit. The trial court determined, 

inter alia, that the licensee took reasonable and timely steps to comply with the 

terms of the CLA, spent approximately $300,000 to construct a new facility, and 

had not had any noise complaints since it was completed. 

The PLCB appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by failing to 

consider the adjudicated citations pre-dating the CLA. We began our analysis by 

setting forth the trial court’s reasoning, which was as follows:

While the Board concluded that the [licensee’s]

corrective measures were insufficient to support renewal 

of the Liquor License in light of [the licensee’s] citation 

history, the Court does not reach the same conclusion. 

The [CLA] had encompassed all but two of the citations 

against the [licensee]. The [PLCB] had no qualms about 

entering into the [CLA] under those circumstances, 

providing the [licensee] complied with the requirements 

of the [CLA]. The [licensee] has since complied with all 

of the requirements of the [CLA] and has incurred 

$300,000 in doing so. As the [licensee] argues, it seems 

disingenuous for the [PLCB] to now use those same 

citations as reasons for denying renewal of the liquor 

license, even though they may be considered by the 

[PLCB] under the Liquor Code. Moreover, the noise 

complaints were the bases for at least seven (7) of the 

citations against the [licensee]. Now that the [licensee]

has taken corrective measures, there have been no further 

noise complaints or citations for noise. It seems to the 

Court that the [licensee] has been able to correct a 

substantial problem and should not now be punished by 

the [PLCB’s] refusal to renew the liquor license. 

Furthermore, the [mayor of the borough] favors renewal 

of [the licensee’s] liquor license and amusement permit 

because the business provides substantial revenue for the 

[borough]. In summary, it seems to the Court that the 

purpose behind the Liquor Code, i.e., the protection of 

the public welfare, health, peace and moral[s] of the 

citizens, has been accomplished in this case.
20

921 A.2d at 563-64 (footnote omitted).

We then addressed the PLCB’s assertions that the trial court erred and 

abused its discretion by refusing to consider adjudicated citations that pre-dated the 

CLA. We explained in Goodfellas that the trial court did not fail to consider the 

prior citations but, rather, in ordering renewal of the license, simply “made its own 

findings and conclusions about the significance of [the l]icensee’s citation history. 

As such, the trial court did not commit an error of law or abuse its discretion.” 921 

A.2d at 565. Additionally, we clarified that “the trial court is free to substitute its 

discretion for that of the [PLCB] and find that the steps taken by a licensee in 

response to its adjudicated citations justify the renewal of its license.” 921 A.2d at 

566; see also Becker’s Café, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 67 A.3d 

885, 893 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). 

In this case, in holding that occurrences after August 1, 2015, alone or 

in combination with Licensee’s past record, together with Licensee’s substantial 

improvements, supported sustaining Licensee’s appeal, the trial court properly 

considered Licensee’s history of citations and incidents; the prior determinations of 

the PLCB, including the CLAs; and the steps Licensee had taken to become a more 

responsible operator. We conclude that in doing so, the trial court neither erred nor 

abused its discretion. Goodfellas. Finally, we reiterate that the record does not 

support the PLCB’s contentions that the trial court misapprehended the facts or the 

law.

Accordingly, we affirm.

MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Joseph W. Troutman, Sr. :

:

v. : No. 1385 C.D. 2017

: 

Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, :

:

Appellant :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 24th day of January, 2019, the order of the Court of 

Common Pleas of McKean County, dated August 30, 2017, is AFFIRMED.

__________________________________

MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge