Williams v. Liquor Control Commission

• Decision Date: 11 July 1978
• Citation: 175 Conn. 409,399 A.2d 834
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Adrienne WILLIAMS v. LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION.

Page 834

399 A.2d 834

175 Conn. 409

Adrienne WILLIAMS v. LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued May 3, 1978.

Decided July 11, 1978.

William N. Kleinman, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom, on the brief, was Carl R. Ajello, Atty. Gen., for appellant (defendant).

Benson A. Snaider, New Haven, for appellee (plaintiff).

Before COTTER, C. J., and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO and RUBINOW, JJ.

BOGDANSKI, Justice.

The plaintiff, Adrienne Williams, applied to the defendant liquor control commission for a package store liquor permit. From the denial of the application, the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Common Pleas. That court sustained the appeal on the ground that the action of the commission in denying the application was illegal and arbitrary. From that judgment, the commission has appealed to this court, assigning error in the trial court's substitution of its judgment for that of the commission.

The plaintiff's application involved premises located at 1285 Boston Post Road, route 1, Madison, in the area of the entranceway to Hammonasset state park. Pursuant to § 30-39(b) of the General Statutes the commission held a public hearing and subsequently denied the application of the grounds of unsuitability of place.

Section 30-46(a)(3) of the General Statutes provides that "(t)he commission may . . . refuse to grant permits for the sale of alcoholic liquor if it has reasonable cause to believe: . . . that the number of permit premises in the locality is such that the granting of a permit is detrimental to public interest, and, in reaching a conclusion in this respect, the commission may consider the character of, the population of, the number of like permits and number of all permits existent in, the particular town and the immediate neighborhood concerned, the effect which a new permit may have on such town or neighborhood or on like permits existent in such town or neighborhood." That provision confers broad discretion upon the liquor control commission to grant or deny permits. Gulia v. Liquor Control Commission,164 Conn. 537, 538, 325 A.2d 455; Aminti v. Liquor Control Commission, 144 Conn. 550, 552, 135 A.2d 595; Campisi v. Liquor Control Commission, 175 Conn. 295, 297, 397 A.2d 1365.

In Biz v. Liquor Control Commission, 133 Conn. 556, 561, 53 A.2d 655, 658, this court in considering the provisions of § 30-46(a)(3) noted that "(a) principle and purpose may be read into the act to prevent the issuance of too many permits in certain localities, depending upon the character and number of the population and upon the number of existing permits in the locality. We hold that these are factual matters properly left to the determination of the commission." The determination of what constitutes too many permits in certain localities or neighborhoods is thus a question of fact, within the discretion of the administrative agency. Moreover, because of the danger to public health and welfare inherent in liquor traffic, the police power to regulate the liquor trade runs broad and deep, more so that comparable regulatory powers over other activities. Viola v. Liquor Control Commission, 158 Conn. 359, 362, 260 A.2d 585.

In § 30-46(a)(3) there appear several different area designations: locality, town, and neighborhood. Those terms are flexible and imprecise, unlike such terms as acre or mile. Of those terms, town is the most precise in that towns, though widely variable in size and area, are nonetheless defined by set and definite boundaries. Neighborhood, on the other hand, is a more flexible and imprecise concept. It is defined as a "district or section, esp(ecially) with reference to the character of its inhabitants." Webster, New International Dictionary (2d Ed.). Like towns, neighborhoods vary widely in size and extent. A neighborhood in a large, densely populated city may refer to a one or two block area while a neighborhood in a sparsely settled rural area may extend several miles or more. Moreover neighborhoods are usually not defined by set boundaries and it is often difficult to determine precisely where one neighborhood ends and another begins.

Of the four permit premises which the commission found were in the same neighborhood, one was located within one mile of the proposed premises to the east in the next town of Clinton. The other three were located to the west in the central business district of Madison, all within one block of each other. There was some conflict in the evidence as to the exact distance from the plaintiff's premises to the three outlets in the...