Can a Maryland Class D liquor license holder run the bar in one building and a package goods store in a separate building on the same property?

Plain-English summary

In 1988, a state senator asked the Attorney General, on behalf of the Allegany County liquor licensing board, whether a motel operator holding a Class D beer, wine, and liquor license could add a package goods store in a new, separate building across a driveway from the existing bar and restaurant. The opinion concluded the license did not authorize that arrangement. It read the statutory phrase "the place described" in the license, together with the detailed location requirements for license applications, as limiting all sales under a single license to the specific building described when the license was issued, not just anywhere on the same tract of land. Splitting package goods sales into a new, separate building would, in the opinion's view, effectively create a second business under one license, which conflicted with the legislature's concern that a licensed alcoholic beverages business be located where the community had actually reviewed and found suitable. The opinion did note, however, that a different licensee could hold a separate license and run a package goods store in another building on the same property, since Maryland law only barred two licenses for the same "premises," not two licenses for physically separate buildings on one lot.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1988. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Could a Maryland bar owner add a separate package goods store building under the same liquor license?
No, according to this 1988 opinion. It concluded a Class D license's authority to sell "at the place described in it" meant sales had to occur in the same building identified in the original license application, so relocating or adding package goods sales in a new, separate building was not authorized under that same license.

Could two different buildings on the same property each have their own liquor license?
Yes. The opinion found that Article 2B's ban on issuing more than one license for the same "premises" was meant to prevent two licenses for the identical location, not to block separate licenses for physically distinct buildings on one tract, so a different licensee could hold a separate license for a package goods store in another building on the same lot.

Did the opinion think connecting the two buildings' rooflines would count as one building?
No. The opinion specifically rejected the idea that extending a roof to physically join a new package goods building to the existing bar building would make them a single building, since the structures would still have no common wall, common entrance, or interior connection, and would still be separated by a driveway in regular use.

Background and statutory framework

The licensee at issue operated a bar and restaurant as part of a motel in Allegany County and wanted to add a package goods store in a new building across a service driveway from the existing bar. Article 2B, §21(a) authorized a Class D license holder "to keep for sale and sell all alcoholic beverages at retail at the place described in it for consumption on the premises or elsewhere," meaning a Class D licensee could sell both package goods and drinks served on-site. The opinion considered whether the phrase "the place described" limited sales to a single building or, following the broader definition of "premises" in §120(h) (which reaches "any building, parking lot, terrace or grounds which form an integral part of the licensed premises"), could extend across an entire tract.

The opinion concluded the narrower reading applied to §21(a), reasoning that provisions like §45(d)(1) (allowing denial of a license where "the place" is unsuitable to the neighborhood), §56(18)(a) (requiring a citizen certificate attesting to the suitability of "the premises"), and §60(c) (requiring published notice of "the location of the place of business") reflected the legislature's intent that a licensed business be evaluated and approved for a specific, described location, not a moving target within a large tract. The opinion read §21's reference to "the place described" alongside §56(7)'s requirement that a license application describe "the particular place" and "the portion of the building in which the business will be conducted," following the statutory-construction approach in In re Criminal Investigation No. 1-162, to conclude the authorization to sell "at the place described" meant only the specific building and portion described in the application.

At the same time, the opinion found that Article 2B, §41(a), which bars issuing more than one license for the same "premises," did not prevent a second, separately owned or operated business in a different building on the same tract, following a 1936 AG opinion that had permitted separate licenses for a tavern and night club on different floors of one building with separate entrances and no interior connection. The opinion viewed this construction as consistent with the alcoholic beverages laws' broader purpose of preventing concentration of the liquor business in a few hands, citing Baltimore Retail Liquor Package Stores Association v. Board of License Commissioners, and reconciled §21(a) and §41(a) using the harmonizing approach in Kaczorowski v. City of Baltimore: a single Class D license reaches only its own building, while separate licenses may authorize separate businesses in separate buildings on the same property.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• Article 2B, §21
• Article 2B, §21(a)
• Article 2B, §120(h)
• Article 2B, §45(d)(1)
• Article 2B, §56(18)(a)
• Article 2B, §60(c)
• Article 2B, §56(7)
• Article 2B, §41(a)
• Article 2B, §56(12) and (15)
• Chapter 2, Laws of Maryland 1933

Cases:

• Jackson v. Birgfeld, 189 Md. 552, 554, 56 A.2d 793 (1948)
• Comptroller v. John C. Louis Co., 285 Md. 527, 539, 404 A.2d 1045 (1979)
• In re Criminal Investigation No. 1-162, 307 Md. 674, 690, 516 A.2d 976 (1986)
• Baltimore Retail Liquor Package Stores Association v. Board of License Commissioners, 171 Md. 426, 433-34, 189 A. 209 (1937)
• Kaczorowski v. City of Baltimore, 309 Md. 505, 516-17, 525 A.2d 628 (1987)

Source

• Landing page: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Pages/attorney-general%E2%80%99s-opinions.aspx
• Original PDF: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Documents/pdfs/Opinions/1988/Volume73_1988.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain, the linked PDF is authoritative.

ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

Licenses—Class D License Does Not Authorize Licensee To Operate Bar in One Building and Package Goods Store in Another Building on Same Tract of Land.

January 26, 1988

The Honorable John N. Bambacus
Senate of Maryland

On behalf of the Board of Alcoholic Beverages License Commissioners of Allegany County, you have requested our opinion on whether a person who holds a Class D beer, wine, and liquor license may operate a bar and restaurant in one building and a package goods store in an adjacent building to be built on the same tract of land, which the licensee owns.

For the reasons given below, it is our opinion that the Class D license does not authorize the operation of a package goods store and a bar and restaurant in the manner contemplated.

I
Background

The particular licensee whose situation gives rise to your request operates a bar and restaurant as an adjunct of a motel. The licensee wishes to add a package goods store in a separate building, which would be located across a driveway from the bar and restaurant. The driveway is used to provide services to some of the motel's meeting rooms and, because of the layout of the site, is necessary for that purpose.

Article 2B, §21 provides for the issuance of Class D beer, wine, and liquor licenses to taverns and similar businesses. A Class D license "authorizes the holder to keep for sale and sell all alcoholic beverages at retail at the place described in it for consumption on the premises or elsewhere." Thus, a Class D licensee may sell package goods, as well as operate a bar. Your question is whether the package goods element of a business operated under a Class D beer, wine and liquor license must be conducted within the same building that houses the bar element of the business, or may be conducted in an adjacent building, so long as the building housing the package goods element is situated on the same lot as the building housing the bar element.

II
"Place" of Single License

In our view, the reference in §21(a) to "the place described" in a Class D license is intended both as a definition of what the license authorizes and as a limitation on the scope of that authorization. That is, the license is not a blanket permit to carry on the business of selling alcoholic beverages at any location the licensee may at any time choose. Instead, the license pertains only to the designated location, and all sales of alcoholic beverages, whether as package goods or in the operation of the bar, must be conducted at the place to which the license applies.

It has been suggested that the "place described" in the license is the equivalent of the business's "premises" and that, for this purpose, the term "premises" has the meaning given to it in §120(h). That provision prohibits drinking or displaying "in any bar ... or any other licensed place any alcoholic beverages other than those which may lawfully be sold by the licensee therein" and requires the posting of warning signs on the "premises" of those licensed to sell only beer and wine. And, "[f]or the purposes of this section, the word 'premises' shall be construed to include any building, parking lot, terrace or grounds which form an integral part of the said licensed premises." Applying that definition to §21(a) might well authorize the licensee to conduct package goods sales in a building separate from that housing the licensee's bar.1 However, we do not think that the definition of "premises" in §120(h) is determinative of what constitutes the "place" to which a license pertains under §21(a).

Section 120(h) specifies that it defines the word "premises" only "[f]or the purposes of this section." Moreover, the word does not have a single, immutable meaning: "The word 'premises' has a varied meaning depending upon its context and the object to which it is applied." Jackson v. Birgfeld, 189 Md. 552, 554, 56 A.2d 793 (1948). In the context of the prohibition in §120(h), a broad construction of the word is clearly appropriate and, indeed, necessary to ensure that the prohibition will be fully effective. We do not believe that an equally broad construction of the word "place" is likewise appropriate in the context of §21(a), however. To the contrary, we believe that such a construction would be inconsistent with legislative policy concerning the location of alcoholic beverages businesses.

Several provisions of the alcoholic beverages laws reflect the General Assembly's concern with ensuring that alcoholic businesses would be conducted at locations suitable to those businesses. For example, §45(d)(1) vests the Allegany County Board of Alcoholic Beverage License Commissioners with discretion to deny a license "when the place for which the license is applied for is not a proper one with reference to the public peace and general welfare of the neighborhood or to the character of its inhabitants ..."

Moreover, the community that would be affected by the establishment of an alcoholic beverages business is to be accurately informed as to the location for which such a business is proposed, and the community's view of the suitability of the location is to be considered in determining whether to grant or deny the license. The license application must include a "certificate signed by at least ten citizens who are owners of real estate and registered voters of the precinct in which the business is to be conducted" stating, among other things, that they "are familiar with the premises upon which the proposed business is to be conducted, and that they believe that the premises are suitable for the conduct of the business of a retail dealer [in] alcoholic beverages." §56(18)(a). Before granting a license, the Allegany County Board of Alcoholic Beverages License Commissioners must publish notice of the application in the town or city nearest to the proposed place of business, and the notice must specify the location of the place of business. §60(c).

Clearly, the suitability of a proposed alcoholic beverages business that is to be situated on a large site may depend in part on the precise location of the business upon that site — if, for example, one portion of the site adjoins an existing commercial area, while another portion adjoins an existing residential area. Hence, we think that the restriction of alcoholic beverages sales to the place described in the license is intended to ensure that the business actually conducted will be that which was found to be suitable. That is, we believe that a license granted for a business to be conducted on one portion of a large tract would not authorize the conduct of an alcoholic beverages business on a different portion of the tract instead.

The description of the place where a licensee will carry on the business is supplied by the licensee in applying for the license. Section 56 requires that the license application include a statement of "[t]he particular place for which a license is desired, designating the same by street and number if practicable; if not, by such other apt description as definitely locates it, and also a description of the portion of the building in which the business will be conducted ...." Article 2B, §56(7). The reference in §21 to "the place described" in a license must be read in conjunction with this provision in §56. In re Criminal Investigation No. 1-162, 307 Md. 674, 690, 516 A.2d 976 (1986). Doing so makes it apparent, in our view, that the authority granted by a Class D license to sell alcoholic beverages "at the place described in it" is intended to authorize sales only at the "particular place," including the "description of the portion of the building in which the business will be conducted," supplied in the license application.

Where a Class D beer, wine, and liquor licensee undertakes to separate the business's package goods sales from its bar and relocate the package goods sales into a separate building, the potential impact on the community may well be even greater than the impact of relocating the entire operation from one portion of the property to another. The relocation and expansion of the package goods sales contemplated here would in effect amount to the establishment of a second business under the auspices of the original license. In view of the legislative concern for locating alcoholic beverages businesses appropriately in relation to their surrounding communities, we do not think that the General Assembly intended to authorize such a result.

This is not to say that we believe §21(a) was intended to prohibit any licensee from ever extending the area occupied by the business. Such a prohibition would ignore the commonly recognized fact that, with the passage of time, any business may need to alter or expand its facilities and would prevent alcoholic beverages licensees from ever responding appropriately to changes in their needs. We do not think that these provisions should be read so rigidly as thus to straitjacket alcoholic beverages licensees. See Comptroller v. John C. Louis Co., 285 Md. 527, 539, 404 A.2d 1045 (1979) (statutes should be construed to avoid results inconsistent with common sense). Hence, we think that minor expansions reasonably necessary for the business purposes of the licensed business should not be regarded as amounting to the conduct of the business in a place other than that described in the license, so long as the business continues to be conducted in the building described in the license.2

III
Separate Licenses on Same Property

In our view, a separate package goods store could be established on the same property as the bar and restaurant, if a separate Class A bar, wine, and liquor license were issued for it.3 Although §41(a) prohibits the issuance of more than one license for the same premises, we do not believe that this provision prohibits licensure of two separate businesses in separate buildings on the same property.

In 21 Opinions on the Attorney General 106 (1936), the Attorney General concluded that licenses might be issued for a tavern and a night club located in the same building, but on separate floors. The establishments had separate entrances, had no internal connection with each other, and were under different ownership and management. Under those circumstances, the Attorney General concluded that the two establishments constituted different "premises" for the purpose of §41(a).4 In the Attorney General's view, "the prohibition against two licenses for the same premises was designed to prevent two licenses for the identical location described therein, ... but was not intended to prevent the issuance of two licenses for the same building, if the establishments were physically separated." 21 Opinions of the Attorney General at 107.

We think that the 1936 opinion correctly construed the word "premises" for the purposes of §41(a). Hence, we think that separate buildings on a single tract of land would clearly constitute separate and distinct premises for which licenses could be issued.

Moreover, we think that this view of the matter comports best with one of the underlying purposes of the alcoholic beverages laws: to prevent the concentration of the alcoholic beverages business in the hands of a few. Baltimore Retail Liquor Package Stores Association v. Board of License Commissioners, 171 Md. 426, 433-34, 189 A. 209 (1937).5 Construing §21(a) to authorize a Class D licensee to establish package goods operations separate from its bar would tend to undermine that policy. In contrast, construing §41(a) to permit the issuance of separate licenses for a package goods operation and a bar in separate buildings on the same tract of land would be consistent with that policy. Accordingly, to give full effect to both §21(a) and §41(a), we think that §21(a) must be construed as authorizing the conduct of package goods sales by a Class D licensee only in the same building as the bar; §41(a) should be construed as authorizing the establishment of separate package goods and bar operations under separate licenses. Kaczorowski v. City of Baltimore, 309 Md. 505, 516-17, 525 A.2d 628 (1987).

IV
Conclusion

In summary, it is our opinion that a Class D beer, wine, and liquor license does not authorize its holder to operate a bar and restaurant in one building and a package goods store in an adjacent building to be built on the same tract of land. However, a different licensee may operate a package goods store in a different building on the same tract of land.

J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General
Gerald I. Langbaum, Assistant Attorney General
C.J. Messerschmidt, Assistant Attorney General

Jack Schwartz
Chief Counsel
Opinions & Advice

1 It might be concluded that the separate building proposed to be constructed would not "form an integral part of the said licensed premises" — that is, the bar and restaurant for which the license was originally issued. In that case, the separate building would not be included in the "premises" of the bar and restaurant and alcoholic beverages could not be sold in the separate building under the Class D license. In view of our conclusion below, however, we need not address this issue.

2 We understand that the licensee has suggested that the proposed package goods store would be in the same building as the bar and restaurant if the roof of the new structure were extended to meet the roof of the existing structure. In our view, that expedient will not serve. The two structures would nonetheless be separate and distinct, with no common wall, common entrance, nor interior access from one to the other, and would continue to be separated by a driveway in regular use. Under these circumstances, we do not think that they can be regarded as a single building, merely because the roof of one meets the roof of the other.

3 However, a license for the package goods store may not be issued to the person or for the use of the partnership, corporation, or unincorporated association that holds the license for the bar and restaurant. §41(a).

4 The prohibition was then codified at Article 2B, §21, but was substantially identical to present §41(a). See Chapter 2, Laws of Maryland 1933 sec. 1 at 35.

5 That purpose is reflected in other provisions of Article 2B, as well as in §41(a). For example, a license applicant must furnish statements that the applicant has no pecuniary interest in any other licensed establishment and that no one other than the applicant has a pecuniary interest in the establishment for which the license is sought. Article 2B, §56(12) and (15).