Opinion ID: 1953840
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: the council's findings

Text: Having determined that it is the law as it existed prior to Bosselman, Inc. v. State, 230 Neb. 471, 432 N.W.2d 226 (1988), which controls, we next look at § 53-132 (Reissue 1984), which provided, in relevant part: (2) A retail license ... shall be issued to any qualified applicant if it is found by the commission that (a) the applicant is fit, willing, and able to properly provide the service proposed within the city ... where the premises described in the application are located, (b) the applicant can conform to all provisions, requirements, rules, and regulations provided for in the Nebraska Liquor Control Act, (c) the applicant has demonstrated that the type of management and control exercised over the licensed premises will be sufficient to insure that the licensed business can conform to all provisions, requirements, rules, and regulations provided for in the Nebraska Liquor Control Act, and (d) the issuance of the license is or will be required by the present or future public convenience and necessity. (3) In making its determination pursuant to subsection (2) of this section the commission shall consider: (a) The recommendation of the local governing body; (b) The existence of a citizens' protest made in accordance with section 53-133; (c) The existing population of the city... and its projected growth; (d) The nature of the neighborhood or community of the location of the proposed licensed premises; (e) The existence or absence of other retail licenses ... with similar privileges within the neighborhood or community of the location of the proposed licensed premises; (f) The existing motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic flow in the vicinity of the proposed licensed premises; (g) The adequacy of existing law enforcement; (h) Zoning restrictions; (i) The sanitation or sanitary conditions on or about the proposed licensed premises; and (j) Whether the type of business or activity proposed to be operated in conjunction with the proposed license is and will be consistent with the public interest. The record before us makes it abundantly clear that Kwik Shop, which has operated the 26 licensed premises it presently holds in a lawful manner, satisfies the conditions specified in § 53-132(2)(a), (b), and (c). We thus proceed to subsection (2)(d) of the statute and apply the evidence bearing on the factors listed in § 53-132(3). Our consideration of the factors will be set out below. In its resolutions of denial to each of Kwik Shop's 10 applications, the Council made the following 6 identical findings in support of each of these denials: 1. ... [T]he existing law enforcement resources and services in the area were inadequate.... 2. The Lincoln Police Department issued a negative recommendation for this proposed license.... 3. ... [T]he existing population of the City of Lincoln and the projected population growth of the City of Lincoln and within the area proposed to be served were inadequate to support the proposed license.... 4. ... [T]he existing licenses, and the class of such licenses ... all within [a] one mile radius from the proposed location were adequately serving the area.... 5. ... [T]he area in which the alcoholic liquor was proposed to be displayed and kept in and sold from was not reasonably secured.... 6. ... [T]he applicant had not demonstrated that the issuance of the license was consistent with promoting the health, safety and welfare of the people of the City of Lincoln, Nebraska. As an additional finding in its denial of one of the Kwik Shop applications, the Council added a seventh finding that the license would not be compatible with the neighborhood. The Council's first finding (adequacy of law enforcement resources and services) and second finding (negative recommendation of the police department) are based almost exclusively on a letter from Lincoln police chief Allan Curtis. The letter, identical in both hearings, states in relevant part: The pending applications of several grocery and convenience stores for the expansion of existing licenses or creation of new licenses within the City of Lincoln has focused attention on an issue the Lincoln Police Department considers extremely important. We would be opposed to the issuance or expansion of licenses in any manner. Curtis, however, offered no evidence to support this concern or opposition. As we stated in Gas 'N Shop v. Nebraska Liquor Control Comm., 241 Neb. 898, 903, 492 N.W.2d 7, 11 (1992): [T]here is no evidence which establishes that illegal activity increases merely because a new license is issued. The Council's third finding (population) in each of the cases is based on an affidavit of Kent Morgan, assistant planning director for the City of Lincoln, dated April 17, 1987. The affidavit sets forth Lincoln's 1960, 1970, and 1980 populations, as well as an estimate of the population as of January 1, 1987. The affidavit also states that as a general rule, the City Planning Department projects the population of Lincoln to be growing at a rate of approximately one percent per year. The fact that Lincoln is growing consistently is not disputed by the parties. Moreover, evidence presented by Kwik Shop at the hearings indicates that there are fewer off-sale-only licenses in Lincoln today than in 1970, while the population has increased 28 percent since 1970. The Council's finding that the population is inadequate to support the proposed licenses runs contrary to the record. The Council's fourth finding (existing licenses) is based upon the total number of all licenses of all classes that are within a 1-mile radius of each of Kwik Shop's proposed licensed premises. Such a comparison is misleading, however, because it includes on-sale as well as off-sale licenses. Kwik Shop presented evidence which broke down the number of licenses not only into off-sale and on-sale, but into class B (beer only) and class D (alcoholic liquor including beer) licenses. The evidence presented by Kwik Shop indicates that its proposed licensed premises have as few as one and no more than five class B and/or class D licenses located within 1 mile. Without fact-based distinctions, the Council's blanket claim of adequate service around each location appears arbitrary and is not, in fact, supported by the record. The Council's fifth finding (security) is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. Kwik Shop, on the other hand, presented substantial evidence at each of the hearings which clearly indicates that Kwik Shop would display, keep, and sell alcoholic liquor only from secured areas on its premises. Consequently, the Council's fifth finding is unsupported. The Council's sixth finding (health, safety, and welfare) is a groundless assertion not supported by any evidence in the record. Lastly, we find that the Council's seventh finding (neighborhood compatibility), included in the denial resolution of only one application, is also not supported by the record. The Council found that Kwik Shop's proposed license would not be compatible with the neighborhood in the area of the 4750 Calvert Street Kwik Shop location. Neither the City of Lincoln nor any other party appeared to present evidence concerning the compatibility of a licensed location in this particular neighborhood, however. Nothing in the evidence indicates that the granting of the licenses would not be in the public interest. We turn, then, to the remaining factors in § 53-132(3). We first note that while three people representing four of the appellees appeared at the hearings in opposition to Kwik Shop's applications, there is no evidence of a citizens' protest as such, as envisioned by § 53-132(3)(b). Additionally, of the appellees which appeared at the hearings, twothe Lincoln Package Beverage Association and Joe Quattrocchi, the owner of an established liquor storeclearly had a financial interest in having the licenses denied. The other two appellees at the hearings indicated a general aversion to alcohol sales or to the sale of alcohol in [convenience] stores. Hy-Vee Food Stores v. Nebraska Liquor Control Comm., 242 Neb. 752, 756, 497 N.W.2d 647, 650 (1993). Population, the neighborhoods of the proposed licensed premises, the existence of other licenses, and the adequacy of existing law enforcementsubsections (3)(c), (d), (e), and (g), respectivelyhave been addressed earlier. We now address the remaining criteria of § 53-132(3). All the locations are heavily traveled, high-traffic areas; at least 7,100 and as many as 24,700 vehicles pass the various Kwik Shop locations daily. There is nothing in the record indicating that granting the licenses would increase traffic to an unmanageable level. The record also does not indicate that zoning restrictions pose a problem. The evidence establishes that the stores are all located in areas zoned for business or commercial use, and a zoning change would not be necessary to permit the sale of beer at the subject premises. Lastly, we note that the record contains nothing adverse to Kwik Shop's showing that its sanitation and sanitary conditions at each store are favorable. Viewed as a whole, the evidence establishes that the requested licenses are in the public interest. Thus, we reach the question of whether the evidence before us indicates that the licenses are or will be required by the present or future public convenience and necessity as required by § 53-132(2)(d). We believe that they are. As we stated in both Hy-Vee Food Stores and Gas `N Shop, combining the concept of public convenience and necessity with the sale of alcohol appears oxymoronic. However, the Legislature has deemed it appropriate to allow private establishments to sell alcoholic liquor in this state. The record indicates that many individuals might feel less comfortable buying off-sale beer at a local tavern or a full-service liquor store than at a convenience store. Further, there is no close approximation between the purchase of off-sale beer at a convenience store and the purchase and consumption of beer in an on premises establishment. See Hy-Vee Food Stores, supra . Accordingly, convenience stores may not be treated differently from other operations which combine the sale of liquor with the sale of other merchandise or services, for the differing treatment bears no reasonable relationship to the State's policy of furthering temperance. Gas `N Shop, 241 Neb. at 905, 492 N.W.2d at 12.