Oronoka Restaurant, Inc. v. Maine State Liquor Com'n

• Decision Date: 30 October 1987
• Citation: 532 A.2d 1043
• Parties: The ORONOKA RESTAURANT, INC. v. MAINE STATE LIQUOR COMMISSION, et al.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

Page 1043

532 A.2d 1043

The ORONOKA RESTAURANT, INC. v. MAINE STATE LIQUOR COMMISSION, et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued Sept. 18, 1987.

Decided Oct. 30, 1987.

Barbara A. Brown (orally), Winterport, for plaintiff.

James E. Tierney, Atty. Gen., Kenneth W. Lehman (orally), Asst. Atty. Gen., Augusta, for defendants.

Thomas A. Russell (orally), Mitchell & Stearns, Bangor, for Town of Orono.

Before McKUSICK, C.J., and NICHOLS, ROBERTS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN, SCOLNIK and CLIFFORD, JJ.

SCOLNIK, Justice.

The Oronoka Restaurant, Inc., (Oronoka) appeals the judgment of the Superior Court (Penobscot County) affirming a decision of the Maine State Liquor Commission (the Commission) that affirmed the Town of Orono's denial of Oronoka's application for the renewal of its Class I liquor license. We affirm the judgment.

On January 8, 1986, Oronoka applied for the renewal of its Class I liquor license to permit the restaurant to serve spirituous, vinous and malt beverages on a full time basis. ¹ On February 10, 1986, the municipal officers of the Town of Orono (Town), conducted a public hearing on the application pursuant to 28 M.R.S.A. § 252-A (Pamph.1986) and voted unanimously to deny the application for renewal. The Town based its decision on sewage discharge violations, numerous fire code violations, and the failure of the applicant to allow the Town's code enforcement officer access to the premises to inspect for code or ordinance violations. Oronoka filed a timely appeal with the Commission, which held a de novo hearing on April 29, 1986. In a written decision dated June 18, 1986, the Commission affirmed the Town's denial of Oronoka's application. The Commission ruled that the fire code violations constituted health and safety hazards and thus were valid grounds under 28 M.R.S.A. § 252-A(2) to deny the application for renewal. The Commission chose not to predicate its decision on other alleged code or ordinance violations, including the sewage disposal matter that was pending before the Superior Court. Oronoka then filed a complaint in Superior Court for review of the Commission's action pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. Rule 80C. The Superior Court affirmed the Commission's decision and this appeal followed.

Our standard of review is the same as that employed by the Superior Court: "whether the [agency] abused its discretion, committed an error of law, or made findings not supported by substantial evidence in the record." Driscoll v. Gheewalla, 441 A.2d 1023, 1026 (Me.1982).

Under 28 M.R.S.A. § 252-A(3) the Commission is required to hold a public hearing when any aggrieved applicant appeals the municipality's decision of denial. On appeal, the Commission may consider all of the grounds set forth in section 252-A(2) upon which a municipality may deny a liquor license:

A. Conviction of the applicant of any Class A, Class B or Class C crime;

B. Noncompliance of the licensed premises or its use with any local zoning ordinance or other land use ordinance not directly related to liquor control;

C. Conditions of record such as waste disposal violations, health or safety violations or repeated parking or traffic violations on or in the vicinity of the licensed premises and caused by persons patronizing or employed by the licensed premises or other such conditions caused by persons patronizing or employed by the licensed premises which unreasonably disturb, interfere with or affect the ability of persons or businesses residing or located in the vicinity of the licensed premises to use their property in a reasonable manner;

D. Repeated incidents of record of breaches of the peace, disorderly conduct, vandalism or other violations of law on or in the vicinity of the licensed premises and caused by persons patronizing or employed by the licensed premises; and

E. A violation of any provision of this Title.

28 M.R.S.A. § 252-A(2) (Pamph.1986).

The standard to be applied by the Commission in its review of an application denial is set forth by statute: "the commission may grant the application or request only if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the decision was without justifiable cause." 28 M.R.S.A. 252-A(3)(B). The scope of the Commission's review has been further defined in Ullis v. Inhabitants of the Town of Boothbay Harbor, 459 A.2d 153 (Me.1983) which requires that the Commission not merely review the legal sufficiency of the Town's reasons, but that the Commission conduct a de novo hearing on the liquor license application. Id. at 156-57. Although the Commission may take new evidence at the hearing on any issue relevant to the denial of the license application, its review is limited to the facts as they existed at the time of the hearing before the Town. Ullis...