Opinion
No. 77-583
Decided March 2, 1978.
For failure to file requisite application prior to the enlargement of its premises, liquor licensee was subjected to three-day suspension of its license, and from trial court judgment upholding that suspension, licensee appealed.
Reversed
1. INTOXICATING LIQUORS — Expansion of Premises — Regulation — Void — Late Filing — Application — No Basis — Suspension of License. Inasmuch as Department of Revenue regulation pertaining to expansion or enlargement of liquor licensee's premises is void for lack of guidelines, the late filing of an application under that regulation cannot serve as the basis for a suspension of that licensee's license.
Appeal from the District Court of the County of Arapahoe, Honorable Marvin W. Foote, Judge.
John D. Saviers, P.C., for plaintiff-appellant.
Leland M. Coulter, Louise L. Edmonds, for defendants-appellees.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment upholding a three-day suspension of its liquor license. We reverse.
On July 27, 1976, plaintiff obtained a building permit from the Aurora Building Department to expand its liquor store. Construction was started August 27, 1976. However, plaintiff's president then became advised that the approval of the state and local licensing authorities was required for the expansion.
Plaintiff then filed an application for expansion which the local licensing authority of the City of Aurora subsequently granted. However, plaintiff's liquor license was suspended for three days for failing to obtain written permission to expand prior to commencement of construction in accordance with Colorado Liquor Code Regulation 18E. The order granting plaintiff's application for expansion is not an issue in this appeal.
Regulation 18 E has been amended and designated Regulation 47-106.2, but the objections cited in Rosenthal v. Dep't of Revenue, supra were not the subject of the amendment.
In Rosenthal v. Department of Revenue, 40 Colo. App. 422, 579 P.2d 1176 (1978), this court determined that Regulation 18 E was void for lack of guidelines, and we held that the failure to submit an application under 18E could not be the basis for suspending a liquor license. Cf. Emporium, Ltd. v. City of Colorado Springs, 40 Colo. App. 414, 576 P.2d 569 (1978). Similarly here, plaintiff's late filing of its application under 18E cannot serve as the basis for the suspension of its liquor license.
Therefore we reverse the judgment and remand the cause to the district court with directions that it order the local licensing authority of the City of Aurora to vacate the suspension of plaintiff's license.
JUDGE BERMAN and JUDGE VAN CISE concur.