Opinion
June 22, 1971.
Editorial Note:
This case has been marked 'not for publication' by the court.
Walter L. Wagenhals, City Atty., Boulder, for defendant in error, The City of Boulder Fermented Malt Beverage Licensing Authority, and Michael C. Trent, John Buechner and Charles Haertling, as members thereof.
Williams, Trine & Greenstein, P.C., Morris W. Sandstead, Jr., Boulder, for plaintiff in error.
Hutchinson, Black & Hill, Stanley A. Black, Boulder, for defendant in error, E.R.L. Ltd.
DWYER, Judge.
This case was transferred from the Supreme Court pursuant to statute.
Plaintiff in error, F.A.F., Incorporated, by this writ of error seeks to reverse a judgment entered by the District Court of Boulder County. That judgment affirmed the order of the City of Boulder Fermented Malt Beverage Licensing Authority, which granted a fermented malt beverage license to E.R.L., Ltd. authorizing the sale of 3.2 beer for consumption both on and off the premises.
The location of the premises for which the license was granted is in the Williams Village Shopping Center near the southwest corner of 30th Street and Baseline Road in Boulder, Colorado. This shopping center is located north of the Denver-Boulder Turnpike. In the area in which the licensing authority determined to be the 'neighborhood' are a number of business establishments and a number of apartment houses. This area has a population of 9600 residents, and there were no similar outlets in the designated neighborhood.
The issuance of the license was not opposed by anyone other than F.A.F., Incorporated. This protestant owned and operated the nearest establishment licensed to sell 3.2 beer. Its premises are located south of the Denver-Boulder Turnpike and are outside of the designated neighborhood.
The record of the proceedings before the licensing authority supports the decision of the authority to issue the license. The findings and conclusions made by the authority at the conclusion of the hearings demonstrate that in issuing the license the authority gave proper consideration to the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood and the desires of the inhabitants. Although the protestant challenges the sufficiency of the findings of the authority, we find the factual basis of the authority's decision is clearly stated in its findings and conclusions. The findings satisfy the requirement stated in Le Pore v. Larkin, 146 Colo. 311, 361 P.2d 343; and Geer v. Presto, 135 Colo. 536, 313 P.2d 980, that findings by licensing authorities must furnish a basis for jurisdictional review and apprise the reviewing court of the factual basis for its action.
The granting of the license under the circumstances disclosed by this record was within the discretionary power of the licensing authority. No abuse of this discretion was shown, and the trial court properly upheld the decision of the local licensing authority.
The judgment is affirmed.
SILVERSTEIN, C.J., and PIERCE, J., concur.