Opinion
Marshall Quiat, Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.
John P. Moore, Atty. Gen., Chris J. Eliopulos, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant-appellee.
COYTE, Judge.
Lyle S. Sheftel, d/b/a The Singlejack, applied to the city council of Central City for a 3.2 beer license for consumption on the premises. Hearing was held before the city council and the application was approved. Instead of the state license being granted as a matter of course by the state licensing authority, the application for a license was set for hearing before John H. Heckers, Executive Director of the Department of Revenue. At the conclusion of the state hearing the application for license was denied. On appeal, the district court affirmed the denial of the license by the state licensing authority. Applicant appeals to this court. We affirm.
C.R.S. 1963, 75--1--5(1)(d), provides:
'In considering the issuance of licenses the licensing authority, either state or local, shall consider the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood and the desires of the inhabitants as evidenced by petitions, remonstrances or otherwise.'
Although it is not mandatory that a separate hearing be held, this statute gives the executive director discretionary authority to hold a hearing of the same kind as the local licensing authority. See Potter v. Anderson, 155 Colo. 25, 392 P.2d 650.
At the hearing before the city council, no witness testified in opposition to the issuance of the license. However, at the time the state license was sought, letters of protest were directed to the state licensing authority who concluded that a hearing should be held, independent of the city council hearing, to determine whether the license should be denied or granted.
At the hearing before the state licensing authority, several persons appeared and testified in opposition to the granting of the license. The petitions introduced in evidence before the state licensing authority were the same petitions used in the hearing before the city council. On the petitions opposing the granting of the license, there were 100 signatures, all by residents of Central City, and on the petitions favoring the granting of the license there were 97 signatures, 54 by residents of Central City. At that time, the entire population of Central City consisted of 228 persons. The applicant contended that there was a need for this type of outlet because there were eleven three-way licenses in the city but no 3.2 license authorizing consumption on the premises by young people in the 18 to 20-year-old age bracket. There was a conflict in the testimony as to the number of these young people. Testimony varied between one and 24, with a much larger number working in the area in the summer months. The state licensing authority found:
'A study of the petitions filed by all parties, in conjunction with the testimony of witnesses, shows that the inhabitants of the immediate neighborhood of Central City proper are predominantly opposed to the issuance of this license.'
There was evidence to support this finding, and it will not be disturbed on review. See Potter v. McClearn, 171 Colo. 334, 467 P.2d 54.
Further, the Executive Director denied the application on two additional grounds. Both of these grounds are supported by evidence in the record, and each reason cited was in and of itself a good and sufficient reason for denying the application.
Judgment affirmed.
SILVERSTEIN, C.J., and PIERCE, J., concur.