SNOW HILL – The sale of the county’s last remaining liquor store will move forward following a decision by the Court of Special Appeals this week.
On Monday, the Court of Special Appeals issued an opinion upholding a Worcester County Circuit Court decision affirming a 2017 ruling by the Worcester County Board of License Commissioners (BLC). Now that the appeal — which related to the BLC’s granting of a license to the person buying Shore Spirits in Pocomoke — has been settled, the county will be able to move forward with the sale of the store.
“I’m very pleased with the decision of the Court of Special Appeals upholding the decision of the Board of License Commissioners and I am happy that all parties are able to move forward with the dissolution of the property,” said attorney Mark Cropper, who represented the proposed purchaser.
The issue dates back to 2017, when, in an effort to move out of the liquor business, Worcester County leaders accepted a bid from Kalpesh Patel to buy Shore Spirits in Pocomoke. The sale, however, was contingent on Patel’s ability to get a liquor license to operate it. When Patel, represented by Cropper, met with the BLC seeking a license, opposition to the request came from the owner of Newtown Market, which sells beer and wine in the same shopping center as Shore Spirits.
Despite the opposition, the BLC granted the license, citing public need. Hugh Cropper, the attorney for Newtown Market, quickly appealed the BLC’s decision in Worcester County Circuit Court. When the court upheld the board’s decision, Cropper appealed to the Court of Special Appeals.
The opinion issued by the court Monday affirms the decision of the BLC.
“In the court’s opinion the board followed closely the obligations imposed on it,” Mark Cropper said. “There was no provision by which the application could be rejected.”
On behalf of Newtown Market, Hugh Cropper had argued the BLC’s opinion was against the public interest, as numerous people had testified against the Shore Spirits license, and Patel’s license application was legally deficient because supporters who had signed it stipulated that they had “just met” Patel and therefore couldn’t certify whether he was a suitable candidate for a license.
The unreported opinion issued by the Court of Special Appeals this week states because the county’s standard form permits signatures from people who have “just met” the applicant, Newtown Market “has not carried the burden” to show that the liquor board’s action was arbitrary or fraudulent.
The court also addressed the issue of public need.
“Because the liquor board clearly gave consideration to the potential effect upon existing licensees, we conclude that the Board did not err in concluding that it was in the public interest to grant Applicant’s application even though there might be some negative impact upon existing licensees who sell beer and wine,” the opinion reads.
