HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 93-14 , ..... ._.. . .
ORDINANCE NO. 93-14
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CITY OF FRIENDSWOOD, TEXAS,
ORDINANCE NO. 91-33, PASSED AND APPROVED THE 2ND DAY OF
DECEMBER, 1991, WHICH ORDINANCE PROHIBITS THE SALE OF
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES BY A DEALER WHOSE PLACE OF BUSINESS
IS WITHIN 300 FEET OF A RESIDENCE.
* * * * *
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIENDSWOOD,
STATE OF TEXAS:
Section 1. City of Friendswood, Texas, Ordinance No. 91-33,
passed and approved the 2nd day of December, 1991, and being an
ordinance prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages by a dealer
whose place of business is within 300 feet of a residence, is
hereby repealed.
PASSED AND APPROVED on first reading this 13th day of
September 1993.
�
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on second and final reading this
27th day of September , 1993 .
Evelyn . Ne n
Mayor
ATTEST:
. �'
Deloris McKenzie, CMC
City Secretary
FWDWLCOH OL3.ORD\081883
�� � ro: �h� Q 'G.��.�1�
FAOM: DATE: �I/DIQ a°
PAGES INCLUDING �
�". ' q� THIS PAGE:
�� �t
.
FAX#:
F
AX#: �
�
P
HON •
E#. •.
' �
_ .. _ �.
ORDINANC� N0. 91-3 _
AN ORDINANCE PROHI�ITING THE SAL� �F ALCOH�LIC �i
BEVFs22AGES 8Y A DEALER WHOSE PLACE OF BUSIN�SS IS WITHYN
30U FEET OF A CHURCH, PiJBLIC SCHOOL, OR PUBLIC
HOSPITAL; PROHIBYTING THE S�1I,� 0�` ALCOH�LIC BEVE�.2AGES °�
FROM A PLACE OF BUSINESS WHICH IS T�OCA�ED WITHIN 2,004
�'EET OF-A CHURCH, PUHLIC SCHOOL, OR PU�LIC HQSPITAL YF � �,
- � THE BUS�N�SS D�RIVES 75$ OR MORE OF ITS INC�ME FROM THE '
ON-PR�MISE SALE OF AI,COHOLTC BEVERAG�S; PROVIDING �'OR
;
THE METHOD OF MEASUREMENT; PROVIDING A PEYJAI,TY OF AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXC�ED $2,000 FOR EACH AAY OF vYOr���oN
O� ANY PROVISION HEREOF; PRpVIDING FOR TH� REPEAL OF _
ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CdNFI,IGT WITH
THIS ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY.
,� ,r * ,� * = ..
8� I� ORDAINED BY TH� CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRT�NDSW04D,
S�Y'AT£ OF TEXAS t
�$ection �.. It shall be uniawfuJ. to seil or offer for sale
any elcoholic beverage from a pi�ce of business which is located
; wi�h�tn three hundred feet (300') of a church, public achool, or
public hosp3.ta1.
; Section 2� Yt shall be unlawful to sell or offer for eale
any elcoholic bevarage from a p18ce of business which ig located'
within one thousand feet (1,000') of a church, public school, or
public hospit�l i.� the business derives eeventy�five percent
(?5t) or more o£ i.ts gross revenue from the on-prem�.$e sa2e of
alcoholic beverages.
��ction 3. For �he purposes •hereof the measurement of the
distance beCween the place of bueiness where alcoholic beverages
are sold and the church or public hospital �hall be along the •. K
property Iines of the stireet fron�s and fram front door to front
. _
�-f�
door, and in direct line acxoss intersections. The measuremen�
. of the distance between the place oF busine$s where alcoholS.c
beveraqe� are sold and tihe pub�ic schools shall be from the
nearest property line of the public schooi to the nearest daorway
by wh3.ch the public may enter the place of business, along street
lines and in direGt �.ine across in�ersections. Far any bus�ness
where elCOhoJ.ic beverages are soZd holding e permit or license �.
covering a premise where minors are prohibited from entering the
pzemises under Sect�on 109.53, Texas Alcoholic aeveraqe Code�;
.�- ..__ �� �
uncons�ituti.onal by a court of competen� juriadicti.on, it shall
not affect, impair, Qr invalidate thi.s Ordinance as a whole or
- any paxt ox provision hereof other than tihe part declared to be
�,nvalid or unconsti�utional; and the City Council of the City of
Friendswo4d, Texas, declares that it would have passed each and
every part of the same notwiths�anding the omission of any such
part thus declared to be invalid or unconstitutionaZ, or whether
there be one or more parts.
PASSED AND APPROVED on firs� reading this �th day of
January � i 1991. - . .
PASSED , APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on second and �inal reading
this 4th d8y of February _ � I992.
i
!
! aul w. Schra er
; ayor
�
' AT�'�STs
.
Delorie Archer, CMC
City Secret8ry
-3-
y/L �� .�i�� .�� - - � . . .
ORDINANCE Nd. 91-33
AN ORDxNANCE AMENDING CITY OF FRZENOSWOOD, TEXAS�
OROTNANCE NO. 91-3, PASSED AND APPROVEO THE 4TH DAY OF
FEBRUARY, 1991, BY STRIKING ALL 4F SECTZONS 1 AND 2
THEREO� AND SUBSTITUTING THEREFOR NEW SEGTIONS 1 AND 2
TO PRORTBITZNG THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERI�G�S BY A �
DEALER :WHOSE PJ�ACE 4F BUSINESS YS WTTHIN 300 FEET OF A
RESID�N.CE; PROVIDING A PENALTY; PR4VIpING FOR
S$VERASILITY; AND CON`I'AINING OTHER PROVISIONS RELATING
TO THE SUBJECT.
� * �c � �
;
BE ZT ORDAIN�O BY THE CITY COUNCZL OF THE CITY OF FRIENDSWOOD,
STAm� O�' TEXAS:
�ctf o11 _l. City of Friendswood, Texas, Ordinance No. 91-3,
passed and approved on the 4th day of FebruaXy, 1991, is hereby
amended by striking aII of Section 1 thereof, which provides as
�ollows: `
[���ion 1. It shall be unlawfu7. to sell or offer
for sale any alcoholic beverage from a place of
business which is located within three hundred fe�t
(300') of a church, public school, or public hospital. ]
and substitutinq therefor the folloWfrtg:
Se�fiion 1, It shall be unlawf�l to�,� or offer
�Qr sa�e z+nY alcoholic beveraqe from a piace of
�iness t�hich is located withfn �hree hundrQd �e
_(300��_ o� a churchl public school� public hospital f or
xesi enc�,
e 3 City of Friendswood, Texas, Ordinance No. 92-03,
passed and approved an the 4th day of February, 1991, is hereby
amended by strikinq all of Section 2 thereof, �hich provides as
Fozlows: _
- (Section � For the purposas hareot the
measurement of the distance between the place of
business where aZcoholic beverages are sold and the
church or public hospital shall be along the property
Iines of the stireet fron�s and from frant door to front
�
` -z� �.. .e...
.� . , . . . .. � . . . - . . . � . . � r.�.. .�,'a': �..
. . � . .. . .� . . . � . . � . � . . ' '�04 •...�,� n.
. � , � � . - . . � .. . . . . . _ . . . . . . . .. ' �� <
'
---"u� , irec ine acr •
measurement of the distance between the place of
buginass where alcoholic baverages are sold and the �
public schools sha11 be from the nearest property line
' of the� public school to the neares� doorway by which
�he public may enter the place of business, along
street �ines and in direct line across int�rgect�ons.
For any business where alcoholic beverages are sold
holding a parmi� or license covering a premise where
- minors are prohibited from entering the premises under
Section 109.53, Texas A2cohoZic Beverage Code, the
measuremen� af the distance betWeen the premises and a
pubZic schooZ shall be along the prop�rty lines of the
stireet frontis and from Pront door to front door, and in
a direct li.ne across intersections. ]
and substituting therefor the following:
�eSF.tS4n _ ,,� FQr the � puznose$ h�e4�- th�
m�asurement of the distance b��wsen th� pl��e o�
���ine���e a�cohol�.c beveraaes are sold and_ _th�
: ct�urch or pu lia h4�ita1 �h�ll be alona the n�operty
lines o� the street fronts and fram frQn� �oor to ��'�nt
c�oort atld in a direat line across intersect�ons. Th�
Lneasurem�n� of th� dis�ance b tw�en the pzace o�
busines,� where alcoholic beveracxe� ar� __e41�_—��:1�...,_.�kl� � �
g,y�l ic school.s s}�a��l be �rom the nearest prop�r_ y 1 ine
o� the ,�ublic school to the n�args� doorwav by wh�ch
�he �ub�ic may enter the place oP bpsi.ness,__ �1411q
street �ines and in a direct line aGross _inter�ectiops.
�'Q� any busittess where alcoholic beverage� ar_� _ s41�
ho].dirzq a permit or lfcens� �QVerina a -p�g�n�se where
}ninors are prohibited from entering the�remi es under
�ection _ 109. 5�, TeXa� _ _Alcohol ic Beve�ge Code, tha,;
measurement of the distance be�ween the pr�mi��s �n�l a
puklic schvol sh�ll b� _alonq the propertv 2ines of th�
street �ronts and from front do�� tQ front door..� and in
�_d����� _11tt�_� ross fntersections. The measyrsm�n� of
the distance between the p�ace �f business whexe
�Zc9ho�.�G _beveraQes are sold and a residence shall be
:..tfrom th� .•nearest :propertv line of the re$fc��nce to the
ne�r�_s� _doorway by whiGh the pt�bl ic mav ente�the ac�
�of bus��ess f alonq street lines and in a dire�t li�n,..g �
�cross �,n�er�eGtiQns.
���,. Any person who sha12 violate any provision of
this Ordinance shall be deemed gu�lty of a misdemeanor and, upon •
coltviction, shall be �ined in an amount not to exceed $2,000.
Each v�olatfon and each day of vfolation sha21 constitute a
sgparate aPfense.
-2- •
,� 3 . �. .. • . M-.. ...._.. , .
. �
�ec�ion sn the event any section, paragraph,
. subdivision, �ciause, phrase, provision, sentence, or part of this
Ordinance or the appiication of the same to any person or
circumstance shall for any reason be adjudged invalid or held
unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, it shall
not affec�, impair, or invalidate this Ordinance as a who�.e or
any part or provisions hereof other than the part declared to be
invalfd or unconstitutional and the City Cauncil of the City of
Friendawood, Texas,. declares �.hat it would have passed each and
every part of the same notwithstanding the omissfon of any such
part thug declared to be invalid or unconstitutional, or whether
there be one or more parts.
PASSED AND APPROVED on f irst .�reading �this 18tt, day of
November 1991.
�
PASSED, APPROVEO, AND ADOPTED on second and finaZ reading
th�s 2nd day Of December � 1991.
aul W. Schrader,
Mayor
ATTEST:
DeJ.or s Archer, CMG
City Secretary .
..3..
. ��LLA� M�RCHa�T�s v. ��T�Y OF' ��aLLAS `rF��. �S9
Clce.a tI32 S.W.2c1 �fi9 {Tex. 1993)
o�:��er reasonable construction (�ar•ing bo*,n
• DA�,LAS M1�RC�{Af4T`S AIYD CON- ir. effect can �e reached.
cESSrahAi��s �ssoc��-
'TI01�' et al., Peti�eoners. �• ��hicapal C�rparations �65
' ' If legislat,ure chooses t.� preempt s�sb
`�' �rct ir�tter ctsualiy� encompassed by �iroa�
C�T� UF �DALLt�S, Reapon�enc. pawera o� h�?ne-rule city, :� m��s± do sa
Z+,ra. �gl�g. wi}h unmistakable ctarity. ,
Supreme G�urt of Texa�. 6. Intoxic�tting Liysx�r$ �1�
'Pexa�s �tcot�olic Bever�sgea Cocie
E'�pri1 ?, 1�9�. p;�,���R ardinar.ce of hc,me-rule c►Ty tha�.
R�hearirt.� Overrulec� 3une 3, �993. �g�lates where a[cuhol�c beverages are
sold under mast circu�nsia,nces, V.T.C,A.,
Mexchants �ssocz�si.ion chal�er►ged •.a- alcoholic $evera�e Coc'se § 109.5�{b�.
�idit� 4� home-ru�e cat�'$ z�ning ordiriance 7, Int�ix;catiang I.f�uoas .�10(31 .
�ispersing location of, alcoh�t-related b�.�si• Hnr:1e-ruie city may t�o►. by ordinxr►ce
nesses. 'The 134th Diskrict' Cvuri,��valias �r�hi�it sa)� of beer in nonresiden�ial areas
Gat�nty, Anne Ashby Packer, J., gr��.nt�d �r sai� r� liqu�r in r�si�ential :�r nonres.i-
reli�f, and city appealed. The C�ur� of de7ti�a �reaa; saae of�iquor m�3� bn �rr�hi�;-
Appeals, 823 S.W.2d 347, reverseci and ren- i�� within r�sidential areas ar.l� �y �hAr-
dered, and further �ppea.l wab taken. The ��. While �a.ie uf beer m�y be pro�iibited
Suprem�e� Court, E�ightower, 3., ield t�at 4�t.hin residentia� �reas by ordingrlce or
drdinan+�e flf h+�m�rule city prnhibitir.g sale �harte►. V..T.C.A., A]cahulic Pe�•prage
�f aic,�oholic heverag�.s within s00 Ceet of ��� §§ �ag.31, 1Q�.�2,
rc�i�ential a{�,ea.� w�as pc�empted by Texas
Alcatic�lic BeveragQS.�od�. S. [nto�cirtatYYig [.iquars �11
�y��e�, Crdinance of homt�-reile city prohibiLing
Enoch,�., di�.sttnted and filed opinior�in s��e of atcoholic bevet'�bes within 3G� f�et
whic�t I�eCht snd Cr�rn�n, JJ., joined. o. residex�Lial t�rea x•as greempted by Tex�s
. Alcoholic Beverages Code. V.T,C.�1., Atco-
holic Be:ierage Cade � 149.57(b):
i. Aiuz��cipaa Corporataans c=S5 9. Tntnx�cx,t�ng L'equor� �i0(3}
Hc�me-rule citi�s possess fut] �av.Jer of ��tutQ callin� f�r �ity secretary to
�e�f-government and look to lQgislature not certify whether or{iinatu:e or chari.er pro-
�or grants of power, but fr�r �imit�tions on hibi`s s�le of alc�ahclic �ievera�es in arf��
`,,heir power. Vemor's Ann.Texas Const, where alcoholic beveragPs wili potent,;a�^y
A.rt. 11, § ,�.
be c��ald afiaws secretary to wir,hh�ld certifi-
2. N�utt��ipa! C,orporatiotts a11�i�; ca�ion �nly if. ordinance or e�urtrr prrhibity
Ordinancc of home-eule city th�t a�- sale af alcoh�Iic ber�erage..g in mann�r. al-
t,�mpts to regulate subject'matter pre�nipt- �owed by Te:xas AleoholiC Bevet'�sges f�o�e_
ed by staie ata.tutE is uhenfarceable tc e�.- V.T.;;.A., A.lcvholic Beverage C�de §§ 61.-
teht it conflicts witi� stat� statu�e. 3^, 109.57{bl.
3. 1Kurticipal CarporaEions ¢=592t1) �-
�iere fact Lhat legislatvre h�.� er.acte�: ��i�hard '�i. La,nn�en, Diane Snt%la��n, Eric
law address�ng subject does not mear� t��at �, Mcye. Eric R. C�romartie, Uavi�i (�_ God-
subject mat,ter is compieteiy �reempted, �ey, Andrew U. Siegel, Dallr�s, far pe�.itiori-
precluding har.��-rule city's re�a�ation.. e�
4. Mursici.�.al �s�porattons �1�1(2) I}an Morales, �i�sstin, Iohn Roge�r�.�, Dai-
Generad iaw and �ity ordinan�:e ��i�l uot las, W. Reed lLo�krc,�f, F ust;n, ���aleslie
5e hetd rep�gnunt t�v each U'her if any U. Muncy, Fort PJ�rth, ?�r.gela ��i�tshing-
• � ... _,...
� . . .
• c�go Tex. B52 60UTH WF.ST�RN.REPdR'_ .t. 2d SERIES
�� ton, Sam A. Lindsay, Dallas, f.or re�pon- Resolution 8$�805, which established the
� ; den�. ,,..,,. . guidelines for eval�ating SUP �pplications
for s�lling orserving alcohoiic beverages i�
la�'INiON areas of.South Dallas affected, by the D-1
� T�IGHTOWE�t, Jus'tice. � �verlay. �1n June 1990, the Merchants filed
suit aga'rnst the Cit}�.
In this,�cause, we� cansider whet,her an ,,, . . . ��2
ordinance of a hcme.-rul� city prohibiting Foliowing ti bench triyl, the trial court
t}�e sale of alcoh�lic�beverages within 300 e'endered jud�ment�'whi�h, among aLher
feet nf a residential arrea is greernpted by ��n�s, granrsd the declar�tory.and iraunc-
the Texas :- Alcoholic Beverage. Code tive relief requested by the 11'ierchants.
(TAB�). �In 199(}, the .DA.las Merchants The trial court eonctuded that the D-1 over
and Concesaiona�r$s Association, t��e,Texas Iay provi�ions,of the• lJrdiQance. conflicted
Packag�e Stor.es A�aociation, aud.other jndi- with the TABC �nd was void to that extent
vidu�ls. (hereinafter.`,'Mer�hant�"} fiied suit under article, XI, section 5 of the .Texas
` agair�at the City of Dallas ("City"} for d�- Lonstitution.l ' Tlze txial court�also `perma-
claratt�ry'and injunctise 'relief. �The fxial nently:enjoined the Cit��fr4irt�e�ifo2'cing'the
� court held tha! the,ordinance`was preempt-� D--1 owertay�proviaionb��af t}ie,Urdinance.
�� �d by�th� -TABG. � The•-�court of appeals '�he court�of appeals reversed-and rendered
� reversed.: � 823 S:W.2d 347.;:.ute��hold �that yudgment. . , � ` � ` ; '
�: an ordinance:�f��a�t�ome-rule�ci?-y pra�hibiting �' � _ " � ' • ` �
, .. „ . ., , .
t�ie�sai��t�f a[cahotic'�eveirage�.within 30t� ' ' : . . ` '� t'-' '
,. . �..I. . .�.,,:':...1, •u.:,j ,
���� �eet�of a;residen*ia1 area•is preempted by �
�! � the TA$C.. :CansequenLly,,we rev�rse the The�hierchanta.argue that khe Ordinan�Q
� is preempted by�,the: TAB�C: ' We agree.
;� judgment of�the .court .c�f�appeals an� af- .
, firni the judgment of yhe .txial court. . .. ... . -::� ��. ,,
On �eptec�ber.�Q, 19L�7., l,�,e;Pallas City �RE�MPT�ON OF H011�E- : .,
� Coun�il_ ("Council") passed O�dinance No. RULE CI'�IES ,
!1 19G�4 ..("Orclinanc�"), �vhach crexted r�ew f 11 Ta deterntine �vhether #h�•� 4rdi-
; zoning� cakegoriQS for Sautli llailas. �'he nance is preempted by the,Texas Alcoholic
' Ocdinance amposed a� D-I averlay on cer- Beverage Cod�, we mustrdecide 'whether
tain sreas o� .Sciu#,h Dalias and exempted th� Legislataare, k�y enacting and arnendirg
certain arEa�t�►at are outside of and do not the TABC, preernpted ordinancea of horne-
effect the resi�iential areas of S.out,h Daltas. rule cities that prohibit the sale of�alcoholic
In this D-1 overlay area, na business is beverages under these �circumstances.
allowec�ta �ell or serve a1co��olic beverages Home-�ule cities have broad discretionary
w�ithin 3Q{3 feet of resid�ntaally zon�d prop- powers; provided that no ordinance "shall
erties not located on a fre�way service road cantain any provision inconsistent with'tiie
qr o.ther specified road. However, a busi- Canstitution of the Stat�, or o� the ge»er�l
ness in. a D-1 averlay area may sell or 3aws enacted by the Legislature ,of ..this
serve atcoholic. beverages if the (�ouncii State." TEX. CONST. art. XI, § 5. �Iome-
grants a spe�ific use germit (SUP}, On rule cities pns$es� the full power of self
�Octok�er 12, 1988, .the Cauncil approve� government and�lcwk to the Legislature not
1. In the fsndings of Fact,ti�e triai court statad in tions that are inconsistent with�the TABC; the
part: Ordinance and ttx SUP a-tandards atterttpt to
14. N�ne oE the SUps filed by any� Establish- :egulatc the sale of alcoholic beVerages,�other
`c:ieut wilhiie t1Ye arr-as wned D-! by Ordi ihan beer, by ordinanco; the Ordinance and
nance 1�694 had ber.n grantcd. � the SUP st3ndards discriminate against estab-
' 15. Tlae criteria adopted b� the Dallas City lishments holding }xnrnits issued under the
�Council make ;t virtual[y impossibk Ear any TABC, and; the U;dina�ce and the SUP stan-
existing Estabfishmen, to quatify for a SUP. dards impermissibly �attempt to disenfran-
16_ Ordinance l9694 conflicts with and is chitie the choice oE the ��otcrs of the areas
pr�empted by" the Teuas Ak,oholic Beverages affectc:d by Ord'anance 19694 in violation of
('.odc ("TABC"), in that: 1he Ordinance �.nd • the Local Option provisions and pcoee�3ures
,� the'SUP 6k�nctards impo;;e location restric- set far,h in the 'TABG „
�AL1.AS tV��RCFFANT'S �. ��TY fi?F D�I.�.�S ��'yX. 491
u«a.ss� s.w.kt Es9 �ae�. iv��;
, for grant� of po��er, hut only fvr limita- �ibile�e, ?t�4 S.�i'.`La 3�0, 383 (i'ex Ap�.—
tions on ti�eir power. �:i.IR's F«re af Do,!- ��a3t.laad ?9:h5, tivrit ref'd r.r.e:) ("WN hold
las 2�. City o�Datla�, 792 S.W.2d 569, 573 that the �onstitution dnd genera! stat.��tes
' (Tea.App.--P�l�as ;99�, ��ri� deried j. t,f thi� State do n�t tle�ty the City (a hor�e
(2-5j �n ardinan�c of a }�om�-rule ci�y �'ule cat,'] the right to regulnte the area uf
tha4; atternpts t,o �:guIate a subjec:t tnattkr t,he City i:i vrhieh liquor cc-,uld be soid."l;
�r�ernFted by a �tate statutc ir� unenforcea- A�ilene Oil L�tstrib2:tor.s 2-. C,Tit,� �of Aln'-
ble to tihe extent it c�nflicts with �he s;,ate lene, 7�� S.W.2d 644 ('I'ex.App.-Eastland
s'�atut�. See Citg of�TOOkside Vilfage v. I986, writ ref d n.r,e.). .
Coxne�zu, t',;33 S_W'�2d 790,, 796 (T�x.1982;, Suh-ec�uertly, in l9$7, �he I.egislature
ce�r� rle�i��. 4fi� LI.S. 148�, I03 S.Ct. 570, added sectior. 108_57 to the TABC and fur-
74 L.�d.'2,c3 932 (1482), ��owev2r, "t},c ttier amended it ir� 1991 .to re�d in part�
mere fac�t;�at the legislatua�e has enac'ted a �a5 Exc��t as e�pressly authori�ed b,
]a+�� addres�ing a subject do�s not mean the th►s code, a cegulation, eharter, or ordi-
eornplete subject rnatt�r is cocnpfetely nance promt;lg�a,ted b� a gover.�n;er�ta!
preernpted.." G"i�y of �ichardsan v. �Re- ent�ty of this st,�te may not ini�ese str�et-
sponsible Dog O�rrcers, 794 S.W_�� 17, 19 er. sGandards or, �,rezr�ises or busfc�aasQs
(T�x.19�10). "[Aj generai Iaw anr! � c;i*y requirec� r.o ha�e a license or gerr�rit un-
orciinance will �ot be hetd repugnant ta ��i tF►is c�d� than are iAnpos�;d an similar
each other if anr• ot.�ef re�sanable c�n- I�=�m�� �r bu�inesses th4t are ��ut re-
struct�on ieavin� . both in �effect can b� qu�'� � have such.a Iieen�:� ar perrrxi±.
reached." C�t�r oJ Beaurraont. v. F�ll, l I� �) I� �s tt�e inten+ �f .Ghe le�islatur:�
T�x. 314, 291 S.�'. ZQ2, 206 (3.92`T}. Thus, if that�-this ca�e shall exc�u�ively gt�v�rr.
the L�gislature chaos� to preempt a sulh- ��e �'ep�llation of aicohclic bevers�g�es in
jeci matter us�ally encompassed t,y t}re th:� statQ, and that e�:cept as permit;ed
broa� pawers of a hom�rule c►ty, it must by tlus code, a governmentat�entity Q{
do sQ v�it.h urcmist;aka�le clari�y. .$'e� Cit� thi� sra� m�� :►�t discrimir��tp aguinst a
of Sweet�ar�ta,�r v. Gerort, 380 S.W.2�? :i54, business holdZng a aic;ense oi� pt�t7:1;t un-
:'sv2 (Tex.1g64). der this cude. _
' (c) Neither this 9�CtiOr� nt+r Sec�i;�n
TEI�A�� �i,COHOLIC ���'�RAG� 1.�6 of this code�a£fe.cts the valid;ty or
CUUE invalidity of u zonir,g re�tl�attarZ that was
[�] In 197?', the Legi�Ix�.�re ccdifi�d the fo�-mmlh� enact�.ld bef�.�re Je:ne 1.1, 1981
Tezas Liquar Cc,ntroi Act inta *he T.�.B�.P ��d tt�.at is otlzeetvise vaind, �r ar�
Prior to the ccx�ification, sev�e;al cour�s of dmendment to ,nch H regu?a+.ion enactQd
appcals held that various QrdinazYCes of after 3une I1, 1987 if the ametidment
ho�tae-ruEe cities prohabitang the sale of alc;r l�s�eua the :esr-ri�tions on the �icensee or
hc�li� �ederages �ere nat preempt;ed by the PE��9 �� '��� nat irs�pose �dditional
Texae LiquQr C�ntn�l ��c� See, e.g., C•it� re�trictians on the ]�cens�e.e or perm:ttee.
u,�'Clule ta. Lerescamf�, 4�6 S.��Y.�d 377 t'T'ex. For purposes of t.his suhsection, ".zonin�
Civ,App.—Houston [lst D;�t�] 1969, no reguEativu" means any rharter praL�isian,
writ); Lcrud.�r v. ?'cr,a.s Cantral Board, 214 rale reguiation, or ather ena�.-tmen:t gov-
S.,�N.2d 336 �'I'ex.Civ.��pp.—$e�iumont 194b, erning .he l�cstaon or use of'h�ui�?>r�gs,
writ ref d n.r.e.}; Ecker-� v� Jac�bs, 142 other atruc.urP.s, and iand.
5_W.2d '374 (Ter�.Civ.App.--�.�:stin ;��I�), no 1':,X.A�CO.B�*v'.�UDE ANN. § 109 57�a).
writj. Subset�uent tfl the codific:ation, the �) & (cj tvern��a Su}�p.Z�2). Tt��� L�e�i�la�
Eievent� Couri of �ppeals he�d that �l�e tu�e's izt.ent is cleariy expressed 'ui aec;ian
rt�BC did eaot p�^�mpt crdina.t�ces prohibit- 1�19.�?!�� af the '..''AEiG---�r`�e regtalat�<m of
�ng the sate of �!cah4l�c t5everages. SFe alcoholic t�ev�r,�ge� is e�cIusiveiy �7c-�erned
Young, Wilkins�ra cflC Poberts r�: �it� of by the pmvisivas af Y.he. TABC un1�:;o otli-
�. "�'The TISBC] is i�atcndxl1a.s a 'scxodific;acion in��ndcd b}r ciii� :�ct." A<�cs 197�, 65:f� t..:g., ch.
onZy, aru� no subs�.'1fDt11K Cfia���c in :`�e law is 19d, � �.
' +�. 4�� Tex. 852 SOL'�'Ef<WESTERN REYOR'I'ER, 2d �ERIES
�ervvise pcov�ided:' TE�s:.ALCQ.f3EV.CODE iI.
� - AN�. § 109.57{b) (Vernon �Supp.1992). �The City argues that if section I09.57
, : �ectaan 109.57 Clesrly �reemp� an ordi- preempt5 an ordinance of a home-ri�le city
• ' � �nance of _x hvzne-rule cit� t3iat regulates
where alcaholic beverages are s,,ld under TP��ating where alcoholic beverages �sre
�� most eircurnsta.nces.` Acwrdingt}T,;we hold soid, sectioras 61.3+, 1(39.31, 149.32, ar�d
'�� that, to th� e�t+ent of any cor,flict, the 10�,33 will be rendered mesningless.s We
,;;
TAEC preemp*s,.the Ordinance.s disagree.• � �
��' - �
,'; _ . . .. . .'
�' � 3. Wh�le the dissent conler.ds�that'the legislawre 924, 8�9 (Tex.Giv.App,--Waca 1975, writ refd
�� ,did r�ot detzy homt ruIe cities_th� abiliiy to n.r.e.; Derkard v. City o/ Port Lavara, 441
�i reg�:late with unmistakable cIarity under thesc S.W.2d 748, 751 (Ttx.Civ.App.—Corpus Christi
! circumstance,-, how much more clear rnust the 1?73, no writ); City of Ctute v. Llnscomb, 446
�' iegislature be than Sex.Yio�i 309.57(b), w�hich S.VJ,2d 377 (Tex,Civ.App.—Houston [1st 'Dist.]
,' states: "It is th�inteni of.the kgislature that this 1969, no writ); Discount Liquors No, 2, lnc. v.
;� '� . code CTABCj shall�cxclusivcly govern che rtgula- Texas Liquor C�ntrol Baard, 420 S.W,2d 422,
�� tiart of alcoholie beverages in t�tis state.•.'_." 4z3, 425 (Tcz.CivApp—Amar912o 1967, tvrit
'I;; T�X�iLCO.BEV.CODE ANN. § 104.57(b) Nec- refd n.r,e.); Loculer u Texru Liqr�or Co�trol
nan Supp.15792). In addition, Senacor McFar- ,Board 274: S.WZd 336 {Tex.Civ.App—Beau-
;, {� tand, who was a rnember uf :ftt Conference mont ]948, writ refd n.r.e.); Eckert v. Jacobs.
'! � i Committee on H.B_ 1652 which enaciod Scctiou j 4'L S.W.2d 374 (Tez.Civ.App.—Austin 1940, no
j � t09.57,indicated that Section 109.57 was intend- wTit). �
! cd to cl�rify that tht T��BC guverned the ioc�a•
� tion of licxnsces and pcc.-ttfttees ar.d th8t ciLics 5. The dissent argi3es that if th% court holds thac
� could only regulate lhe location�o#li�ensees and the TAQC preempts an ordinance regulating
permittees 'in `tht inSi8IICe5 p�rovided bf fhe wherca �lcoholic bcvera�c,s are sold, sciicts'of
TABC. Specifically, Senator McFarlacid uated, alcoholic bever.ages will not have to comply
;,�r , �i]t [Section 1U4.57]•says exccpt es,authorized wi�h asry city ordfnance. This argum�nt.is with-
'� II by rhis code {a. govcrnairr_taE entity� maX not out merit. Section 109.57{a) pravides that an
;.;' regulaic the Iocation of a business holding a nrdinance may not impose stric[er sta�dards on
� ' license or a'permit] and there's ttu►neious a�cohol rtlate�•busines.scs than on non-alcoho!
�� ' prowis►aus throughovc the codc which govu-n- related busin�.sses. TF.X.AT.,�O.BEV:CODE
, �
!! i; 7:lellt�,1 G[ltitfCS h�Vt,f�c.autherity,by zoning .§ 109.57(a) {Vernon Supp.1492)_ For example,
;;�' I' or other oxdinances, to limit the lcication of undcr section 1Q9.57(a),an ordinance requiring
';�� �: businesses-or t}ie"typc of busiResses"scliing a(1 businesses with ihe same kind of greml5es to
;� i; alcvE�olic beverage. • � • have a fire cxdnguisher on thEir pre'iniseswauld
Dcbate of conferencc oommittcc report on Tex. not violate section 104.57(a). On th� other
' �. H.@. .1652 on the floor oE the Senate, 70th Leg. hand, an ordipanct requiring an alco6ol r�iatai
(June ], 1937) (colIoc�uy between Senatois business to have two firc extinguishers and only
MeFarland and Wgshingtott}. rrquired a non-alcohoC related busineu with ihe
4. Scctian t09.57(d) of tF�e TA.BC siatcs: same kind of promises to have one fire extin•
• � (d) 1'his scction does not effect thc aut3�urity 8uxgher w•ould vivlate section 109.57(a).
: of a :govern;nental entiry to regulate, in a 6. Section ti t.37 reads in �rtine nt part:
- manner as o�herwise permitt� by law, thc
iocat3on of: (a} 'The County Clcrk of thc county in whlch
(I) a massage parlor, ntule modeting an application for a license is rna�e shall
studi�, ar ottier s�exuatty oriented bus'sncss; or c�rtify whether thc loc,ation or address given
(2) �establishmeni that derives 75 percent in thc application!s in a wet arex and wheth-
or cnaro af the esiablis6ment's gross revenue er the sale of al�oholic beve;ages for which
frorn the on-prerr:Ise sale of aIcoholic brverag- the license is sou�ht Is prohibited by any valid
es. • � order of the commissioners court.
Becaust none of the parties asstrt tltai cht Ordi- (b) The �ity sc�rewry or clerk of thc city in
na�nce imp�icatts this provisioa, .we express no which an appllcation for a li.cense is made
op'tnia� coticerning�its appGcabitity. shall ccrtify whether the location or address
Sixice the foffowi.�tg caxs pre-datc thc enact- given in the application es in a wci area and
rnent o£�cectioii 1Q9.5'l, chc,y arc not applicahle wliether thc salo ot aicaholic be��erages for
when detecmining thc preemptive effect of sec- which the license is sought is prohibiced by
tion i09.ST. See Abtlerte OiI Di.glributors v. Cily cE�arter or ordinance.
of Abileite, 712 S.W.Zd 544 (Tex.App.-Eastland TF.X.AL.CO.eEV.CODE AI�IN. § bi37 (Vernon
198b, writ rePd n.r.e.}; Youn& Wtlkinson d 1978). .��ection 109.31 reads: -
Roberts v City of Abikrt� 704 S.W?d 380 {Tex. A city by charter may prohibit the sale of
App.—,Eastla�nd l985, wcit rePd r_.r.e.); T & R liquor in t�t3 or pan of thc res�dential sections
ilcscsc., !nc v: Cfty o�Arraarillo, 688 S.W.ld 622, of the city�.
625 (Te�c.Civ.�l�----Amarillo, writ reFd n.r.e.); 1'EX.ALGO.BEV.CODE ANN. § 109.31 (Yernon
�fassengale t�. City�of Co�peras Cvv� 5Z0 S.Y�'.2d l978). 5ociion"'109.32 reads in gertiuent psrt:
" DAI:LAS 14fERCfiAN'F'S v. �;l�t'Y �F �QALL��+ `�'�X. �493
C[u.a 8S2 S.W2d 489 (Tez. C45+3)
[7� �ection 109.57 e�pressly stai�es thai ALCO.R�V.CODE ANA�. §� i09.31-32
the TA$�, will exctusiveiy govern the regu- (�'ernon 1978).
lation af alcoholic bever�,ges except as oth- ��� �ction 109.33 permits a county or
• erwise pmvided by t}ie TARC.7 TEX. city t�; prohib�t. the sale af aicohaiic bever-
ALCO.BF.V.CODE ANI�; § X09.57 jVernor� �,�es by a dealer whose p:ace of t�usiness is
Supp.1992j. Thus, the TABC ailows ordi- �thin 3U0 feec of �a chun:h, schc;ol, or
nances �f home-rule cities t,� prohibit the �u�,lic hospit�l. TEX.ALCL�.I?�V�.COPE
sale of aicoholic beverages only und�r �im- � 109.33(a� (Vern�n Su�p.l99`2't. 'fhis op-
ived circun►stances. Pu}suant to sectian tion is atill av�ilab�e ta the Ciiy.e Howev-
109.3;, vhe sal? af 'tiquor may be pro}iibited er, in this case, t�� �rdinanr.e at.tempts to
vvithin resiuenl.ial �mas or►ly by charter. grohibit the aale Qf alcohnlic t;everages
TEX.kLCO.BEV.CUDE: ANN. § 109.31 wii,h.iTa 300 feet of s *esidentia� area--no�
(�ernon 1978}, Under sertion i09.32, the wit}:ir 30U fzet of a church, school c,r pu�lic
sale of lxeer may be prohibited within resi- t�aspiral.
dertial area� by ordinance or charter. [g] �ikewibe, sect�ic?r� 61.37 �o�es nUt coZ- �
TEX.ALCO.BEV.CUnE ANN. § 109.32 fl;ct with �ecti�az� 1�9,57. Seciion s�1.3?
(Vemon I978�. These options �are still ���� that a city sec.res,�ry, wii: mereiy
availa�le tfl the City. rTow�v�r, in this certify whether an ordinxnce or chai-ter
case, the Ordinance attempts tc' prahibit prohibits ttte st�le of alcaho�ic bever�,ges iri
the sale of li�uox and beer in non-residen= t�;e �area �vhere alcoholic �ever�ges wil� po-
tia) areas. Ai, oi`dinance may not prohibit tentially �ie soid. TEX.ALCO.B'EV.G�}DE
the sale bf beer in nen-residentia3 areas or ANN: � 61.37 (Verrion 1.97FZ. 'Under this
the sale of liquor in resider�Lial or non• sect�on, certification �is pro�rty ��ith�eld
residentiai . �reas. . S�e TEX. otz�y �f an ordir��n� or �harter prohibft� the
(a} An incarporatec� city ur town by charter �ess�s roquire� to have ucenses or permits un-
or' ordinaince may. ' der tlze TA$C ira cireutnstancrs not.ziIowe�i b�:
(1) p�'ohibi! the sa3e af bccr in a residential the TABC. S�ectior, I1�4.5 i(a} was by its t�rms
area; and znacted to excm�t L�censees and permitices
(2) regul,�te the salr of beer anci �.res�.ribc f;om Seccion 211.4L3 af tt�c I.oczt Governmene
E�ours when it may be so14', except a �ity ar ��.
cown may not pemiit ihe sa�t of beer u:hen iEs
salc is prohibiied by thiS cTode. The appliration of che dcx:ccine of cxpressio
TEX.ALCU.BEV.COI3E ANN. § 1(J9.32 {yernon unius ut ex.clusio alierius furiheridert�onstrates
1978}. Sectian 109.33 resds in pertinen� p3ri: �•�e we.zskness uf cht disseni`s conc.usion t4�at the
(a) T'he commissioners court of a county may �t{V may rcgulate in this insfvnc.e. Tha! doc
enart regulations applicablt in areas ?n the �rine provi�cs ihat the inclusio�i of a specific
counts� outside an incorpar�te� city or town, limitatiosl exclud�s all otlsers. Rc�yer ��. Ritter,
an�i thc govcrning hc�ard cif a city or tow:► 531 S.W_2d. 448, 449 (Tex.Ciy.App.—Bc�umont
may enact regulations app�icabt� in the city ar 1976, writ refd r.r.,c.). Sertions 109.31-3:i and
town, prohi.biting the sak o�'aico6alic bevec- 1(}9.57(d)provide specific instances whe3i a gn��-
ages by a deater whose p(ace of business is ��T�rntcita3 entity, such as a homc-rulc city, may
within 300 ftet oE a chun;h, public schoc�l, o; �'egutatc the te�cauon of an nlcohol reiated busi-
pubi ic hospital. ncs.5. Thus, b}+ expres,�ly sLating under what
'f�.r?C.ALCd.B$V.CODE ANN. § 109.33 (Vcrt�on �tF-�umstanc�s a ��vernmen.ta� cntity may r.gu-
Supp.1992). Iate the loration of a:� alcoh�! reiaced busincs:,,
it Follaws that itdtre arr.no otl�er instances when
7. Thc dissenc incorrectl� asser�s 2hat Section a governmenial encity rssay r-egulate the locatian
211.OI3 of the l.ocal Govcrnmen. Code allotivs a of an alcohot rclated business. �'he parties do
home rulc ciry t�irnpose higher stardards uEwn not assert and we can not find any appIicable
ticensees and ��ermitcees. Th�s COdlr:]usioh �s grant oE power to gov�rnmental r,ntitirs to regu-
,erroneous �ecause of Scction `1(�.Sa(a) of the late che lucation �f the aalc of alz.ahol in this
TABC. Section ;�4.57(a) scates than an or�i- case.
nanGe promulgated by a gc�vcrnmental eniily ,
rnay not impose stricter stancfaYds on �.remis�es B. In adcsition to regwtating alco8olic t�everage�
ar busines�es uf.a permittee than on similac pursuant to sections 109.3I-33, a city may ma�:e
przmiscs and businesses not rcc�ulr�d to E�ave a rec3rnrnendat#ons or protest �he }ssuance cf a
license or permit. 7'he Qrdinance im�:roses a Jxrrctit by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Ccm-
, strir;cr Standard /han altowed i�y .he TABC, En�sslon. 5ee TEX.ALCO.BEV.CODE ANN.
specificsally, by regulaeing che [ucazion af ksusi- § 11.4:(a) (Vemor t9i8).
iI • ..,_.. ....... , .
- . I
i .
� ,�� �g4 Tex. �5� SQUTH i�'ESTER�I REPORTER�. 2d SER��S �
• ', � s�.le c�f alcoholic k>evera�es in a rrtanner Ordinac�ce No. 19694 prohibits the lc�ca-
+ allowed by the TAA�. See TEX. �ion of l�usinesses selling or servin� xtca
�', ALCQ.B�V.�nDE ANN. § 5L�? {�rernon holic beveragea within 300 feet of residen-
,'' 19 r8}. , Gially 2aned property in cerLain �reas Qf the
; f� We recognize t�z benefits of ordinances city without a specia] use permit. The
i� which prohibit the sa�P of aleoholic bever- iasue before us is �vhether this iimited re-
'�+ «ges under these circu7nstan��s. HUwever, striction on the locatian of alcoho]-related
'I I the express l�nguage of section IUa.57 businesses is prezrnpc.�d by 'I�x.
i�' c.�m Ls this court ta give effect to the ��LCA.BEV,CODE § 109.57{a) and {b). Secti�n
, Pe
f�: IRgislature's clear intent—tl�� Ordinanc� i� 1�9.57(a) provides that an ordinance "may
��� preempLed t� th�e extent it eonflicts with not impose stricter 8ta�cddrds on premises
� t,he TAI3C. Therefore, we.:rever�e the or businesses" required t� be licensed un-
judg�ient a�f t1°�e court of appeals e�nd af- der the (:ode than on similar premises or
��� firm the judgment of thc trial cour� businesses. (emphasis added). Section
� i . 1Q3.57(b) states th�t "it is the intent of the
�1� Dissen�ing opinion bv ENOCH, 3, joic�ed legislature that thia code ah�ti exclusively
by HECHT and GURN�'N; JJ. ' govQm �}1e regulation of atcoholic bever-
�i �' EN�CH, Justac�, �iisse�ting. � age� in Lhis state, and that except as�per-
(' � �� - � ` mittEd by this code, a �avernmental,entity
i ; The city of Dallai.s.face� a severe impedi-
� � � mEnt to iks redevelapment efforts for a of this stx�te may nut d�c'scriminate against
,�'�� portion;of- its ,cam:nunity (South �alla�r;� a business halc3ing a ]icens� or permit an-
,
I : that s!affers di�pro�c,rtionately from pover der thi� code." (r,mphasis added.) ..
� ���" t and crir�e, . Z`�ae Dallas I1�erchant's and
�:; y lr:� •In my view, Ordinance Na. 1q694 deea
����i} Concessionaire's Associatian, the Texas not "impose stricter standards on al.cohol-
�' Package �tores �issoeiation, Inc., and the related businesscs or prernises" within the
� ' five grc�eery and liquor'store owne.�' who n,�ning of section 1G�,57{a).. Ra.ther, it
are p�etiticsner.s in this.Court all reaciily con- �s�c*� the lacation of such businesses in
� cede that aicohat-related busin�sses are ov-
, ; , son�e areas under some conditians. Nor
: erly �ancentaated in e�rtain aseas of •thf; does the ordinance attempt a "regulaGion of
; City of Dallas, that this aonc�ntration of a��holic beverages." The ordinance has
' sueh b�sieze�es causes severc problems in nothing to do with beverages. Nor does
' thESe a.reas, and that ti�e City of Dallas the urdinance "disc�iminate" against alco-
adopta,d Ordinanee No. 19894 to reduce �hes hol-related businesses_ It rnerely imp�ses
cvnc�ntration and ai�evi�te these problems. a re��.,.iction on their locatioa xo alleviate
Toaay the Court adopts petitic�n�rs' ar�u- commnnity prablems which getitioners con-
ment tt�.at, irFgardless, the Zrgislat�sre re- e
quires the�e ma.tters to only �be addressed cede such buainess�s ca.use. This 4rcii-
c�nce is not, on it� fac�, inconaistent or. in
hy the T�xaa Alcoholic Reverage C,ammis- conflict with state law. 'I`�e orclinance ?s a
sion in Austin, snd not by the Dailxs City reasaa�able su�plement to state law� tQ ad-
Cau�cil. �s much as we all are concerned dresfi a 1oca1 problem. Both s6ould +rrmain
ahout camnluni�y restoz�a.tion, I Loo would �n effect�
have joined the majarity if the lnw required
thi� result. But, the Court's �ecision is x►ot l�.ssuming for the sake of ar�urneet that
raarc3at�d by the [aw. The:-�fore I dissent. "locaraon" mav be considered a type of
1. 'Fhe F'ive busi�.ess awners are Solomon T�- ordinanc�e thst prohibi:ed ck�e location of such
dcssc. �.✓b/a S �c M C:rocnry, Nguyon Ha Lam, businesscs within a rnuch Larger distance frorn
d/ts/�M cL U iiquor,Son Ngoc I�tguyen, d,�b/a ,�sidetYt�al praperty might ha�c the effecc of
_ Bingo[�quor, Youg Suk Bragdon, cl/b/a K & Li e�3minatiag those businesses alt�gether. Sucb
Groeeiy, �nd Thu.�g Vain T�arn, dlb;a I.ee's gn orciinanoe would conflict �rith state law.
G�rY- But an osdinanc�. whi�.h is bath wi'itten and
2. This is not io sav eEu�t any vrdinance restrlet- app[iecf to im�osc n limited eestrietion�on loea•
ing thc locn�ion af a:coktol-related businesses tiort fur a valid purp��se does no� conElict w!ck
� would bc �liowcrl 1;3• sucr law. Okzviously, an �=ction 169.57.
„ �t��L�,S 1�1EItt;1�-fEw,NT'S v. C;IT�' {3.�' �UA1Li.r�� 'I'ek. 4c��r
� Citc as is52 S.4V.2d 4F39 (Tex. t993)
"standard” gover:lin� busiriesses, the law is tc ae conducted. Tha �lydir�ance anl`�
would stil! not manc�ate the outcome re�;�:iates rhe locatioi� ut the iausint�ss.
c]aimed by the (;ourt. The Lucai GovFrn-
m�nt Code �tates: The C��u.�-t recugniies l.i�at a c;t.,y ordi-
if a zonirag regul2!icn adop�ed unc�er this r'•anc� wil! n�t l�e hefc� repugnant t,� a �un-
subcha�?.er . . . imposes higher standar�!s �ral iaw� af the state "if �ny otn�r reascn-
than lhose requixed ur�der ar�nther stat- abiz rc,nsLr.u�!ion leaving both in cfic�ct cari
ut,e cr loca! .ord;nat�re Ior re�ulaCion, the �e r�'dc��e�," �352 S.W.2d at �91, �citing to
�regulat�io,� a.rl.opte� under Cjris subr,h.ap- C`�y �?f RiehaTdson +�.� F,et��u;�sible Dog
ter rvnt.rols. If zhe other s�tu�,e or nw�t��rs, 734 �.i�V.2d I i {Tex,19901}. $e-
local �rc:iaa:�ce nr re�;uiali�n i,ni;c�ses ca�:se a ra�asonabl� r�adin� of C�lES� ta�o
hi�;Fter standartjs, that�;tatute, c�rdinance, s'�atu';es pf•e�e,,±s the confli�;:t t.hF reascnir�
or r�gutation controls. ��`� �he Cuurt cr�ates: t�ere j� no �asis for
Tt;x.Loc.Gev'�� C�;D�; A,yx. � 2:1.Ui3(a� (Ver- restriCLtC�� t!1@ Cit�� vf Dalla.g' grant of �u-
non 2988) (emphasi.s adciec�;.
thoritti• to prom�ulgai,� zon:n� reg�:iations
under secti{�rs �1�.d41-.013 �.>f the I,c,cal
The Court's reading of secti�n 109.5?. of �,,vernment Cod.e�.
the Atcoholic �ieverage Cpd� �:reates. a di-
reet can�ici becK•Qen it, and sec�ion 2�1.- `�'h� Gaurt's hcsldir:g s�riously tiamp�r3
�13(a)_ $52 S.W.2d �89, 493 n. 7. Where the abiltt� af municipaliiies t�carn�iat p.rob-
pessibl�, courts a.re tv cor,strue langunge iems associaLe�i �viti� the sale o] a)cahol.
used in statutes so a� �o harmonize all The City of f)ailas did rot seek w �.�rc�nibit
redevanE lawa, not ereatx co�ix";ic:t. I,c�Sarct. t�e sale of a�cohol,�,tioeirel� fa disprrse the
G�'¢i�t C'a. 2�. First Nat'1 Bank �f Mer- locations far its sale in �rder tU acniere a
cedes, fZ7i3 �.Vti'2d 55�i, 5fi5 ('iex.1984); reducrion in the �rab��ms ass�cia;,eci with
�tate v. Starad�Td Qil Ca., `�0 r S.ti�'.2d 55(?, tne sa;e of alco}tol sueh �,s increase� �*ime,
559 (T�A.i937). c.ince it is pvssible, this �rinking o� Frernise�, litter, loitering, pub-
C011rC tT1�5L COriSLr�.]� Lh�' LO�A1 vOVerr.ment lic u�toxic.�3Lioi1, urinaf:inr in pubtic, and
Code �nd the Aicah�lic Beverage Ccde so harassment of c;��2:lren° and �ide:r�y resi-
that �io-th �;rovisions are �iven zffect. r�ents.' As �ietitior.ers a�mit, ii cities caii-
Sec�ior� 10�.�?(a) prohibits a city �rorn r�c�t resirict tr,e lacation of alcohol-relatecl
imposing siricter star�dards or: �remi.,e� or ���=��n�sses, then �zr�ly the Texa.s �tcaholic
businessES licensed und�r '�Lhe Alcol�oiic Be'����� Commission csn, in the course of.
Beverage Code t��an :�re� imRosed on simi- �'rantin� licer.ses to businesaeb. Yei iL
l¢r�1�rernises or busine�scs �iot requared tA '�����d be <<irtuall�° im�,ossible for thz Com-
have a license. T�x.At:c�.Bev.CoUE A�x ►��ssion ta obtain sufficient information in
§ �0�.57(a,l(Verno;� 1�78j (enip�asis added}, iicens;ng .proc�edings to detzrmine wh�th-
'fh� Aicoho7i� Beverage Gode def;nes er, how and wliere to impc�se such restz�ic-
"premises" as "the �;roundg nnd atl buiid• tiors in th� Cozens of cities w:nere Lhey
ings, �•ehicles, and appurtenances pertain- might be used. �"eticioner� a�lsrxit t.flat the
ing to the grous�ds, �ncludir_g any adjacent Cc�rnn►iseion ha� noL undertnken this re-
pr�rnises if. they arc� ciirectly or indirectly spor:sibal.ity to ciate, and it is fa.rfPtch�d to
unaer ti�e cor�trol of the samc person." think t,t�e Cornmissior�. wuuld even tr;�. Tt��:
?'�x.At,cU.B�v.Con�: A�rN. § 1?,49(a) (��ernc�n SU�;g89�ion that t�,e Legislature has decided
.978): Section �1.�9;a) refe.rs only to the that the Cc�manissios� shUUld acidres� :.}�e
r�iiysical premises; it d«;s' not �efine locai �,r�?�Iems invclve-� t-,ere instead c:r
`pr��ises" tu incJ�ade the locatio.a of a hocrte-ce�ie cita�s i� r�lost untikel,y. OnI}�
�icensed busines" The Or�ina�ce ciaes�n�t tnasr� iocal plannir��;, zuning and legis':ative
�ttetnpt t,a regulate the physical premises. badies have, oi• c�,n �e �expec*.,ed io ha.��. a
#cfditiandlly, nathing in the Urdinance a�3� �,ulse <:n the g�.rtic.�alar lanu usc +.�e�ds of
fresse� how the business of se�lirag alcohel their jurisaictaan.
• Several commu�i�ti- leaders in tre Soutll L�31- were exaxrbait� �v tt�c ex�:r.ssive concc:itration
lais/rsir Park aren ccstiiicd that tttcse pl'oblerrts of alcoho: re!�ied busiiicssrs tn the area.
' ` .. ,
! I�i
. � ;, i�' - ' ; .
, ��� r��� Tex. 852 SQUTI� WEST'ER�'�1 REPOB�'ER, 2d S�;RIES
' ;,� I a�re� with the Co�rt that "i; thQ Legis- timeiy respond to discorery request do not
i�j lature chooses to preempt fi subject matter , suruive nonsuit.
. � '! encompassed by the broad pawers. of a R�versed and rerraanded.
� �� home-rule cit�,.it must do � with unmis-
I �� takable clarity," 852 S.tiV_2d at 491.
'�' Wnat�ver map r�e said of section 149.a7, it 1. Judgment c�6&0
� .
� ;� cannot seriously be argved that the statute Fact that judgmen�i may have heen
� t, makes un.»aistakably clear.tha# the I.egis- wrung or premised on legai pritt�ipal subse-
� f� �ature �;as preerr�pted the City. af Dailas quently overruled does noi; sf:ect ap�lica-
from exercising its broad zonirg pawers to tian af r�s judicata.
� im�rove, living conditiQns within its bar- l. pr�etriai Procedur,e �51T.1
; , ders. Preerrc��ion i.� e�er. less likely when aiscovery sanctions barring introduc-
i orae c�nsidPrs the result. tion of ceriain evidence in dacuments for
� �! I wau�d affirm the Judgment of the court failure tu tamely respc�nd ta discovery re-
af appeals, thus i respectfully.diseent. quest do not survive nonsuit, anc� thus such
�� 1;; � _ evidence is adrnisaible in sabsequent suit
'� 'I I�ECY`-IT.and CO.R�3�N, �TJ., joir� in this between {�arties �n same issue, Vemon's
Ann.Texas ftutes Civ.Proc_, �tule �15, subd.
I � - �LaSQI�1;171g OQtI170n.. , .
� ,. 6.
.
� .�i� . , w , : �, . : � � , _
�'I �O EKlVKIMf(0.SYSTEM .
l�� j :1�r.. Shawr� M. E'razin, Dallas, for peti-
I�; . _ , tidner: .
' �'� . .
;!� � � c�y-nthie. L. Stag;�er, Sherrnan, for res�ion-
!ia ,. det�t: ' . .
,(: .
; ,� . � ' . PER CUk�IAM.
�,� Cli.fford SCHEi�1 d!b/a J & B The issue this cGUrt must decide is
'�' Cash Express, �PetiEianer,
;� I whether sanctions barring the introduct�on
� ' �;. � of cer*ain evidence and documents for faii-
� are to t�mely respand to a discovery re
ANIERICAi�1I �t�S�CAURA.�'I` �ROUP, ��;es.t s'arvi��� a ra0nsui� The trial caurt
INCORP()RA,TED, R.eapoaden�. �n�d summat
g y judgrnent for American
No. U-2518. Resta.urant Group, Inc. (American Restau-
ra�t) bssed u�n the applicab�7ity of sanc-
Supreme Court of Tex�s. tions i3nposed in an earlier suit. The Court
of Appeais affirxned. 828 S.W.2d 307. We
'' Aprii ", 1993. r�vexse the judgment of the Court. of Ap-
� Rehearsnb Overruled June 3, 1993. peal8 and r�mand the cause to the trial
�. court for further proceedings.
�
' : ' J & B Cash Express (Cash Express)
Plaintiff, whic:h haci nonsuited �rior ac- caah�:d ane of Arnerican Restauran�'s
; tion against defendant after trial caurt im- cher.ks. Howeve;r, ��znerican Res+,aurant
j ' 1 posed discovery sanctions, .rcfi��ed suit. had etopp�ed payrrient on the chc,�ck. Subse-
� . The�158t1i Distri�ct Court, De;iitcan County, yuently, Cash Express sued for breach of
' � ' Phillip Vick, d., granted defend�r,t's :nvtiQri cantract, fraud, and negligence. � After a
� �i � for sutninary judgment, and appeal was hearing, the trial court imposed sanctions
f �
i� j taken. The Caurt af Appeal�; 8?8 �.W.2d on Cash Ekpress for failing to, tirnely xe-
I � �47; affirmetl, and fut�ther a.ppeal was tak• spond t� interrogatories and docu.*n�nt pro-
,� en. Tt�e Supreme Court h�lt� tha� discav- ducti�n re�uQSta. The sanctions order pre-
;i ery s�rctions �arring intmduction of cer- clu�3ed Cash Expresa from intcbdacing cer•
� � � tain evidence in �raocuments for failure tu �:in evidence and docuinents and ordered
,; �
Mayor Y
EYELYP! NLIIJMAN
___� ��-�'7 t Cou.vc;[momb.ta<s
C._�L-L� «� ��rZ.L.����..GGTO CJ� KfTTEN HA,)E�Tl3
MEL P_MGASL'L.E�
TOM MpN[gC3tv
�09 WICLO`W'ICK 7S�tt@3-a33d EO�TLIART
�-.- f=F"LI�NOSYVOt�Q, TE3CRS %lSaG-393S6 fSAROLq7 FtA�_.Ey
— A FqF,Hti F'Pi.a.NKG7ViGii
CYry pn�annqwr
wfl�lnt_t.�f..cox
ciey soc�aan.v
oE�arits MrKenzl�, Cl�C_
FAX TRANSH2£SLOt,2
/FA.X YKCINE NULS.BER L62-- 371_2 c+r 4$2-9318
DAZ'E: S�� Jv.'h'�" � 3_ _ PAGE: � C?F 9
'H'O: _����L'.�"`�� �t�>�s.y.�_i'�_._..-y __ _��f.lr_- �_`' I�rO
_.--'_--____—'_'_-'___—'-'_-_—"-_—_—'��._.
/ �y� i
FRtJM= __ O f�.�-r G� L/-� '�I� O JX�f_e.r'--•-'�
� . T� �F"'s.—__--
SF YOU DO NOT REGEZVE LIY�L OE T73E PLl4:E."a. PY.FI,S:E: CU1�4TAGY' HY OFFSCL•
AT 713-�i82-3323. £x_ 1.9_
a.c.c,'i��,"i.�`c���.a�c�s�rt.�`c���.'��.-.'tc.�cwa�,�`_s a�rasa:ts�w.i,i.�si.iR�i.w���rties��.���s�.�K�4 w��w,u.�`i�www-.ict'�c��.�ie'
��-J'a'y /J-� ���- �� l����"��77��¢� %
� � �y� � r�y-yt���+-s-�J-y^7
(/
":�,?Q-� 7 J j.�� / .� �
TR�NSM I SS I C�1V R�PC�RT`
TH I S DOCUME'\IT VVAS CO�'�iF I RM�D
( REDUCED S AMPLE ABU��E - �EE DE�'�l I LS BELUW }
�� Ct�UNT �=�
To1 AL PAGES SCAI��i`JED = 10
TaT�L PAGES CD'�F I Ri�9E� = 1_0
�k�kx� SEND �k�k�k
—._�—�� �
�1�o. RE�ti90TE STAT I ON _� STATZT T 1 ME DUR A"C I O��'#PAGcS � MO�� RL.SUL"C:�
-- -�- -r- - -�
�� 1 0 l `�? 3 4 5 � 7 8 9 � 8-3�1-93 7�t38A�19 7' 17" lt)/ 10 COMPLETED �
_ � i i 96Citi �
"I'OTAT_ 0�07' 17" 10
NOTE�
Vo. � OPERATI01�� N�<V1GER 48 � 4£3GOBPS SELt�;CTED EC � GKRpR CURRECT G� � G2 CO�L1Ml,'�'�71CAT'!ON
PD � PULLED BY RE11()TE SF � STORE & FI��W/1RD R 1 � RELAY I�`d I T I ATE RS � REL�1Y STAT I O�
i7}3 � SF.ND T� MA:LBOX PG � Pt3LL I�G A REMt:1'E VIP � �4fULT I -POLL I�G RM � RECE I Vf. TO NIEMORY
_. u. . i.'c�. 9/.�7/9.�
.���,,
� C A.
9-27-93
Honorable Mayor and City �:�uncilmembers:
I am Orland Garelcck. I live at 91C� P.iverside Ct. , Friendswaod.
1. Texas Liquor Cantrr�l Act 10�.31
A c ity by Gharter may prChibit the sale c�f 1 iquar in al l ar part �+f
the residential ser_tians of the city.
On May 9, 1992 city charter was revised. Why was not
Ordinance No. 91-33 a revision to the charter rather than the
ordinance. It wauld have been a legal revisian.
2. Texas Liquor C:�,ntrr_�1 Act 1�'3.3�
A city by ch�rter or ordinance may prohibit the sale af beer in a
residential area.
As liquar sales can be regulated by ardinance, why daes this
stay in the ardinance. Why not leave the restri�_ti�n of within
3nn feet frQm a residence for the sale af beer in the
ordinan�e if yau must change the ardinance'?
3. Alcahalic beverage �:ade dues nat deny hc�me-rule city pawer tc
restrict by zoning ordinan�es sale of alr�oh��l tr_, r_ertain areas
within city. Vernon's Ann. Texas Gonst. Art. 11 , # 5; V. T.C. A. ,
Altr�hr�l ic Beverage �:c,de �k i.t�6 (From �:ity r�f Dallas v. Dallas
Merchants 823 S.W. 2d p. 348 # il .
4. In additian tr� regulating alcohr_�li� beverages pursuant ta
sections l09.3l-33, a city may make retommendatians �r pratest the
issuante of a permit by the Texas Alcnholir_ Heverage Cammission.
See TEX.ALGO.BEV.CODE ANN. para 11 . 41ta) (Vernan 1578a Fram 85� Gity
of Dallas v. Dallas Merchants p. 493, # 8.
Why dc�es the city want ta wait until the state legislature meets
and then try to da samethinq about the state law. Why n�at use
its present appeals rights?
If the facts be that the petitianer f�r the t-�rdinan�e change
is to only aperate the bar would it nat be that the petitioner will
derive aver 75% of hi� qross revenue fram the on-premise sale of
alcoh�alic beverages? If sa sectian l09.57Cd) af the TAbA states:
(d7 This section doe� not effect th� authority af a qovernmental
entity to regulate, in a manner as atherwise permitted by law, the
lor_ati�n of:
tl } . . .
(2) an establ �shment that derives 75% or mare of the
establishment's grass intr�me fr�m the un-premise sale �f alcaholic
beverages.
6. Three Supreme �:ourt .judges dissented the City of Dallas v.
Dallas Merthants. Judge Enoch said "But the caurt�s decision is not
mandated by law". Supreme caurts do nat make law. They interpret
them. Haw w�uld thy city be breaking �ny law by testing the facts
if someone wanted tv sue the city and the facts are n4t the same as
in the City of Dallas case.
The City af Dallas v. Dallas Merchants involves a business area
where the places �f business were already operating. This is not
the case in Friendswood.
7. In Genesis 18:�4-3� Abraham pleaded for 5ad�m and Gomorrah nC�-
t� be destr�yed if they faund 5� righte�us men in the city.
then 45, �O, 3t�, 2U �nd then 10. 10 were not found.
I am asking �nly f�r 4 v�tes against changing the �rdinan�e as it
naw stands. Further study needs ta be dcme. Beer can be regulated
by �rdinance. Liquor can be regulated by charter and z�ning.
In the petitian we did af 145 citiaens last year aver 90% were ,
against selling liquar and beer within 3U�� feet �f a residence.
This p�st weekend I personally polled �ppror.imately 54 hames near
the �ld Fizza Hut . I talked to no one who wanted liquor sold at the
1 ac at i on.
Thank you fc�r cansidering the defeat af the ordinance change.
Orland L. Carelock
A Ccncerned Litizen
�eptember 1'�, 1993
ALLOWING THE SALE OF LIQUOP. WITHIN 300 FEET OF A P.'ESIDENCE -
Amendment to Ordinance 91-33
FE: Frc�pr_�sed City Ordin�nce No. T��3-14
Amendment to City Ordinance Nc�. '31-��
Apprr�.v,imately r_�ne year aqc� City C:�_�un� il pr��posed a chanqe tc, �:,ity
Ordinance No. 91-33 which prnhibited the sale of liquor within 30t�
feet c�f a s�hr_��1 , c,hurch, hos�it�l �r rPSidenr_e �nd acicled "Except
when sold with and incidental ta the sale of prep�red foods in dininq
establ ishments" . Due t�_� the r�verwhelminc� r_c�nrern shr_�wn by the
citi�ens of Friendswond, the praposed amended �rdinance was tabled.
Naw the citizens r-�f f'riendswc,ad are again faced with a new propased
Ordinance T�3-14 which will allow the sale of liquor aithin 300 feet
of a residence. (This implies that liquor could be sald within 5 to
1C> feet r_�f a r_ it i�en' s residen�_e. )
City C:auncil prc�pr_�s�d Ordinance T93-i� �n Auqust i7, 1'3'�3 and
passed the first readinq on September 1? by a v��te �_�f 5 for the
change and � against changinq the ardinance. CVotinq for changinq
the ardinance were Measeles whc� vated yes under pr��test, Mansir_�n�
Stewart , Lc�we and Ha.je�_ate. Vatinq aqainst chanqinq the ordinance
were Newman and �'aley. :� The next readinq will be September :'7 fryr a
final vote c�n the ardinance.
The city �ttarney rec��mmended that Ordinance N��. '�1-�3 be �h�nged due
to a recent Texas Supreme C:c�urt rulinq. In the case af Dallas
Mer�_hant's and �:c�ncessionaire' s Ass����� iati���n vs. the C:ity c�f Dall�s,
the Supreme G'aurt ruled that the restri�_tian to the sale of liquc�r
within ?C>c:� fPet r�f a residen�_� was inval id sin�_e the Dal la=. m�rchants
were already established in the busines� c�f spllinq liqu�r and the
City r.,f Dallas did n��t have in it� �_harter the restri��ti��n ���f the
sale r_�f 1 iquor within �C�C� f�Pt �_�f a resid�nre. The Te,v,�s Alcahol ic
Beveraqe �=:r�mmissic�n, p�trsuant tr, Serti��n 1t>'3. �1 , pr�_�hibits the sale
��f liquor within r�sidential areas ��nly by ch�rter . Additir_�nally,
under Ser_ti�_�n 1C�'3. 3y, the s<�1� ��f be�r may b� prc�hibited within
residentzal areas by c�rdinan�e c�r charter .
+_:urrently, the sale nf alc��h��l ir beveraqes is prc�hibited fr��m being
sold in the 29E� incorpc�rated city limits of Friendswoc�d. This was
established by a r_ ity ref�rendum c�n A�ril `, 19E3. � Sinr_e
Friendsw�c�c�d is naw in twc� c��unties, an election is required to vote
the ent ire inr_��rpr�t-ated City r�f F-r iendswc��,d dry. Ser ir_�us
consideratinn should be qiven by the �� iti�ens of Friendswor_,d to
init i�te ar_t i��n tc� have a referend�im ��n this matter .
Since the se�ond and finai readinq on the prr_�pased C:ity Ordinance
T33-14 is scheduled Mr_�nday September �7, 1'�93 at 7: ��G p.m. , we
encaurage the attendanr_p c�f r_.c�ncerned c: iti�ens �t �his meeting. In
additian yc�u may alsc� want tr_� r_-��ntact the �_ ity CnUt�� il members.
Sinr_erely,
Orland Garelo�_k and Sam Nassiff
Concerned Cit i�.ens