The Rise of Crafty Liquor License Transfers in Pennsylvania
It's undeniable that we are living in the golden age of craft beers. From large cities to small towns, restaurants and breweries are popping up in our neighborhoods and delighting beer drinkers with their crafty concoctions.
February 17, 2020 at 02:16 PM
6 minute read
It's undeniable that we are living in the golden age of craft beers. From large cities to small towns, restaurants and breweries are popping up in our neighborhoods and delighting beer drinkers with their crafty concoctions. However, the path to getting that liquor license approved, so we can enjoy these brewed pleasures, is littered with potential pitfalls. This can be particularly problematic if there are no available liquor licenses in the municipality in question. For those lawyers who have never dealt with liquor license transfers, it can come as a shock that there are quotas in Pennsylvania regarding the amount of liquor licenses available by county and municipality.
Pennsylvania's Liquor Code (47 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4-461(a)) places a restriction on the number of available county liquor licenses, specifically restaurant licenses (R) and eat place licenses (E), at one per three thousand residents. Therefore, each county has a certain specified number of liquor licenses that are available.
Due to earlier, more generous quotas, most counties actually have more licenses than would be permitted under the current more restrictive quota system. This usually means that the only means of acquiring one of these licenses is by purchasing the relevant license from another person or entity who holds the type of license your client is attempting to use. There are of course a few other means by which a person or entity could acquire a relevant liquor license in Pennsylvania, including for a brewery and brew pub, but that's an entirely separate article.
However, before advising a client to purchase that license, it's very important to determine exactly where that client is intending to operate their business with the liquor license. If the liquor license is staying within the same municipality, and simply moving locations within, then your client can make their application to the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB) and allow the transfer to proceed as usual under the PLCB+ system.
Unfortunately, if the liquor license your client is trying to acquire is outside of the municipality where they intend to operate, another issue becomes pertinent to the transfer. Pursuant to Pennsylvania's Liquor Code (47 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4-461(b)(3)) any license being transferred into a municipality, "must first be approved by the governing body of the receiving municipality when the total number of existing restaurant liquor licenses and eating place retail dispenser licenses in the receiving municipality equal or exceed one license per three thousand inhabitants." This means that in order to obtain approval of the liquor license from the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, the relevant municipal governing body (whether it is a Board of Supervisors, borough council, city council or Board of Commissioners) must approve the transfer in those scenarios when the municipality already has more than one license per three thousand inhabitants.
When you are representing the proposed license holder who wishes to make such a transfer, you must notify the municipality in question in order to initiate the process enunciated in 47 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4-461(b)(3). Under that same provision of the Liquor Code, the municipality must schedule one public hearing before the municipal governing body for the purpose of, "receiving comments and recommendations of interested individuals residing within the municipality concerning the applicant's intent to transfer a license into the municipality."
Further pursuant to 47 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4-461(b)(3), the governing body of the municipality must issue an opinion regarding their approval or denial of the transfer of the liquor license within 45 days of the initial request for approval. This can be done by either ordinance or resolution. If the transfer application is approved, then the potential license holder can submit their transfer application to the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (along with a copy of the resolution showing their approval).
While there is no requirement under the Liquor Code, these hearings are typically transcribed and, for the convenience of the municipality, can be scheduled during one of their regular meetings. If you are representing the potential license holder, try to coordinate the timing with the municipality and be mindful of the additional expenses that could be incurred by the municipality in hearing the request. As the governing body of the municipality is ultimately making the determination as to whether the license can be transferred, it is always best to avoid conflict and imposing additional costs that the governing body will have to explain to their taxpayers. Never forget that the governing body you are appearing in front of is an elected body who have constituents to whom they are accountable when presenting your case to them.
Things are significantly more complicated if the governing body of the municipal entity denies the request for approval of transfer. The language contained in 47 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4-461(b)(3) clearly states the following: "A decision by the governing body of the municipality to deny the request may not be appealed." However, the case law has been mixed on whether the denial by the governing body of the municipality can be appealed.
The most recent case to speak on this matter, Giant Food Stores v. Penn Township, 167 A.3d 252 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2017) indicated that the denial of a liquor license transfer was appealable to the Court of Common Pleas. The Commonwealth Court reasoned that the denial was an adjudication under the Local Agency Law (2 Pa.C.S.A. Section 751), and therefore was appealable.
Another potential issue regarding these inter-municipal transfers to be aware of concerns "dry" areas. These are areas which, by means of local ordinance, do not permit alcohol sales in that municipality. The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board will not allow for an inter-municipal transfer of a liquor license into a "dry" area where such transfer would directly defy the local ordinance. Thankfully, this issue can be sidestepped by checking with the local municipalities' ordinances to determine if the municipality has enacted any of these "dry" laws. The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board also has a list on its website compiling all dry municipalities that can be helpful in determining if you may have this issue to address.
So the next time you are enjoying one of those hoppy or malty beverages we all love, remember to raise a toast to the lawyers, municipal officials and business owners who made it possible.
Jason A. Ulrich, senior counsel at Gross McGinley in Allentown, provides legal counsel in the areas of land use, zoning, real estate and construction matters. He has served in the capacity of solicitor to several municipal entities throughout Pennsylvania. Contact him at [email protected] or 610-871-1352.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute readFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Public Notices/Calendars
- 2Wednesday Newspaper
- 3Decision of the Day: Qui Tam Relators Do Not Plausibly Claim Firm Avoided Tax Obligations Through Visa Applications, Circuit Finds
- 4Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-116
- 5Big Law Firms Sheppard Mullin, Morgan Lewis and Baker Botts Add Partners in Houston
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250