Id 7 “Adndag 4VLONOH, 21 VER A ou THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 39" JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ~ FRANKLIN COUNTY BRANCH Carley's Neighborhood Bar and Civil Action Grill, LLC, : Appellant ee No, 2013-2319 vs Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, Judge Douglas W. Herman ‘Appelice ORDER OF COURT qh AND NOW, this _4O2"" day of November 2014, after @ de novo hearing in the above- captioned matter, and upon review of the record inchiding the proceedings before the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board and the pleadings filed by the parties, and in consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED that the June 5, 2013, Liquor Control Board denying Appellant's, Carley's Order of Appellee. The Pennsylvania Neighborhood Bar and Grill renewal of its liquor license will be OVERRULED. Appellant shall be issued a renewal of its liquor license for the period beginning February 1. 2013 and ending January 31, 2015. Pursuant to the requirements of Pa. R. Civ P. 236 (a)(2),(b) and (d), the Prothonotary shall give written notice of the entry of this Order of Court, including a copy of this Opinion andOrder af Court, to each party's atiorney of record and shall note in the docket the giving of such notice and the time and manner thereof. By the Court, DQ reels ee Douglas ¥. Nerman, P.t The Pruthonotary shall serve: Donald L. Komfield, Esq.. Atomey for Appellant Michael J Plank, Esq., Attomey for AppelieeTHE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 39" JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ~ FRANKLIN COUNTY BRANCH Carley’s Neighborhood Bar and + Civil Action Geill LLC, Appellant oe No. 2013-2319 vs, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, Judge Douglas W. Herman Appellee OPINION his case involves the denial of Carley's Neighborhood Bar and Grill, LLC's (“Carley’s") liquor license renewal. An administrative hearing was held on April 4, 2013 where the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (“Board”) decided to not renew Carley’s liquor license. The Board's decision was based on: Carley’s one (1) adjudicated citation; and twenty (20) incidents of disturbance at or near Carley’s licensed premises during the most recent liquor license renewal period. Carley’s now appeals the Board's decision. A de novo hearing was held on June 17, 2014 and July 22, 2014 where evidence was presented by the parties. Based upon our findings of fact and conclusions of law as delineated in our discussion below judgment wall be entered in favor of the Carley’s. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Carley’s is located at 464 Holywell Avenue, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, Dara Taylor (Ms. Taylor”) and Jack Smith (Mr. Smith) (collectively “Appellants” are co-owners of Carley's. They filed with the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board Bureau of Licensing (“Bureau of Licensing”) an application for renewal of its liquor license for the license period beginning February 1, 2013 and ending January 31, 2015. The Bureau of Licensing objected to the renewal on January 15, 2013 and an administrative hearing was held in front of the Board on April 4,2013. On June 5, 2013 the Board issued an Order and Opinion (hereinafter “Board Opinion”) denying renewal of Carley’s liquor license, The Board based its decision upon one violation of the Liquor Code and 20 incidents of disturbance at or near Carley’s, The Board found that those incidents which involved “fights, assaults, guns, drugs, disorderly operations, visibly intoxicated patrons, and loud music” “clearly demonstrate[d] a pattern of violent, aggressive, and disorderly behavior by [Carley’s} patrons.” The Board also determined that Appellants “knew of a pattern of activity which was clearly a nuisance to police and the surrounding community,” however, despite their efforts they “failed to take timely and substantial remedial measures . Appellants filed a timely appeal to this Court on June 7, 2013. On July 19, 2013 the Board filed with this Court the record of the April 4, 2013 proceedings before the Board. On March 3, 2014 the Board filed a Motion In Limine to preclude evidence at the de novo hearing of remedial measures taken by Carley’s after the hearing before the Board. On March 26, 2014 we issued an Order denying Appellee’s motion thus permitting Appellee to introduce evidence of remedial measures at trial, On June 5, 2014 Carley’s filed a Motion to Enlarge Time for Testimony. Appellee filed that motion to allot time for testimony of their witnesses, Officers Greenawalt and Morrisette, We granted the motion on June 11, 2014, A de novo hearing was held on June 17, 2014 and July 22, 2014. The partics subsequently submitted briefs. The matter is now ready for a decision. LEGAL STANDARD ‘Appellant asks this Court to overrule the decision by the Board to not renew Carley’s liquor license. The Liquor Code provides that any applicant who is denied renewal of @ liquor license “may take an appeal limited to the question of such grievance, within twenty days from * Board Opinion at 32, 36. ‘Board Opinion at 42-43,date of refusal or grant. to the court of common pleas of the county in which the premises or permit applied for is located.” 47 P.S. § 4-464, Furthermore, “[t]he court shall hear the application de novo on questions of fact, administrative discretion and such other matters as are involved, at such time as it shell fix, of which notice shall be given to the board.” Id, Thatis, the Court may make its own findings of fact and conclusions of law, Jim Jay Enterprises, Ine. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Bd., 91 A.3d 274, 283 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014). The evidence that n includes the record of the proceedings before the the Court may consider in making its decisi Board and any evidence taken at the de novo hearing. [d, Even if the findings of fact are substantially similar to those found by the Board, the Court may reach a different conclusion if the findings are supported by “substantial evidence” in the record as a whole Id; 1.B.P.O.E. of W. Mount Vernon Lodge 151 v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Bd., 969 A.2d 642, 648 (Pa. Commw, Ct. 2009). “Licensees are held strictly liable for violations of the Liquor Code that occur on the Cafe, Ine. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Bd,, 67 A.3d 885, 890 Jivensed premises.” Becker’ (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013) (quoting St, Nicholas Greek Catholie Russian Aid Soe, v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Bd., 41 A.3d 953, 958 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012)). When considering whether to renew a license the Board may review the licensce’s record of violations of the Liquor Code regardless of when they occurred and even a single violation may be sufficient to deny a license renewal, Jim Jay Enterprises, inc,, 91 A.3d at 283. The Board may also examine patterns of violations including those for which penalties have already been paid. Becker's Café, Inc,, 67 A.3d at 890. Additionally, licensees are accountable for criminal activity eceurring off premises if there is a causal connection between the activity and the licensed premises. Jim Jay Enterprises,Inc., 9} A.3d at 283. While such activity may be unrelated to the Liquor Code the Board may shed that there rely on them as a reason for denying renewal of a liquor license if it can be establ ‘was a patter of illegal activity about which the licensee (1) knows or should have known; and (2) the licensee failed to take substantial affirmative steps to prevent such illegal activity. Jim inc.. 91 A.3d at 284 (citing Rosing, Ine. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, Jay Enterpri: 690 A.2d 758, 761 (Pa.Cmuwlth.1997)). "There is no magic number or type of incident or span of time that constitutes a pattern of conduct to require the PLCB to refuse to renew a liquor license." Pacy Associates, Ine. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Bd., 78 A.3d 1187, 1199 (Pa Commw. Ct. 2013) appeal deaied, 87 A.3d 817 (Pa, 2014). On appeal the Court may consider whether a licensce took “substantial steps” to remediate the illicit activity and whether such corrective measures warrant renewal of a liquor license. Jim Jay Enterprises, Inc., 91 A.3d at 284; Becker's C 7 A.3d at 893; U.S.A, Deli, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Bd., 909 A.2d 24, 28 (Pa. Commu. C1, 2006). However, “[rlemedial measures must be taken at a time when the licensed establishment knew or should have known that illicit activity was occurring on the premises.” Jim Jay Enterprises, Inc,, 91 A.3d at 284; LB.P.O.E., 969 A.2d at 649. Pennsylvani In Rosing, Inc. iquor Control Bd., the Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court's renewal of a liquor lice se. 690 A.2d 758, 763 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1997), impliedly overruled on other grounds. In doing so the Court took notice of the substantial corrective action taken by the licensees, [T]he Owners here took substantial affirmative measures because they made a zealous effort and incurred a financial burden to prevent drug-related activities on the premises while maintaining a reasonable zone of safety for themselves and their personnel. They installed exterior spotlights which were kept on all night. They hired a doorman to patrol the entrance, assess the patrons, and use a metal detector to inspect for weapons. They subsequently hired an armed security guard to assist. The Owners kept all entrances, locked and recently installed a buzzer on the front entrance, The Owners disseminated letters to patrons indicating that suspicious or non-spending patrons would be removed.Finally, the ownership posted signs inside and outside the premises prohibiting the sale of drugs anywhere near the premises. The Owners are not required to do everything possible to prevent criminal activity on the premises, act as their own police force, or close their business. They are only required to take substantial affirmative measures to prevent the misconduct. Such measures were proven. This evidence, as a whole. is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support the conclusion that the (Owners of the licensed corporation took substantial steps to prevent criminal activity on their premises. Id, at 762-63 In Becker's Café, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court's renewal of a liquor license where the court found that corrective action taken by a licensee was substantial and timely. 67 A.3d at 892. In that case the Board initially denied renewal of the liquor ficense based on five eitations under the Liquor Code and 12 incidents of disturbance that occurred in or around the licensed establishment from January 2010 to November 2010. Id. at $87. The trial ‘court found that the corrective measures were substantial where after meeting with the Nuisance ‘Bar and Drug Task Force in January 2010 the licensee upgraded his security cameras, hired svourity guards, removed the bathroom stalls, and carded all patrons. Id. at 888, 892, In regards to the timeliness of the corrective action the trial court stated: “[tJhe changes and improvements made by {I Jicensee . .. occurred prior to the administrative hearing and { find them to be timely [Mr.] Becker attempted (0 avert problems and work with the Mayor, Chief of Police and the District Attorney's Nuisance Bar and Drug Task Forces.” 1d. at 889 (citation omitted), FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Appellants filed an appeal to this Court within 20 days of the Board’s decision to refuse renewal of Catley’s liquor license. Therefore, it is undisputed that we have jurisdiction over this, appeal and our standard of review is de novo. Preliminarily, we note that Appellant does not challenge the fact that Carley’s incurred a Liquor Code violation or that at least 19 incidents occurred at or near Carley’s. Rather, Appellants’ argument rests solely on the purportedremedial measures that Carley’s has taken to rectify the illicit activity. Accordingly, pursuant to the record of the proceedings before the Board we find that the following violations occurred at or near Carley’s: (1) Carley’s received a citation on December 1, 2011 for violations of the Liquor Code (Citation No. 11-1911). Count I consisted of a violation of Section 401(a) and 406(a)(1) which resuicts the sale of liquor for off-premises consumption. Carley’s admitted that it offered and sold a $5 bottle of wine for take-out on August 19 and 20, 2011. As to Count II, Carley’s violated Section 471, i.e. the licensed establishment ‘was operated in a noisy and/or disorderly manner. Carley’s admitted to the following: a. On August 20, 2011 at 1:45 a.m. two male patrons were arguing near the entrance of Carley’s and approximately 20 patrons were loitering near the entrance while being loud and boisterous and security personnel did not attempt to disperse the crowed. b. On June 4, 2011 at 2:05 a.m. a Chambersburg policeman’ was flagged down and noticed a large inflamed crowd in the Carley’s parking lot with people that were yelling and screaming and believed that several of the persons in the parking should have been arrested. On June 25, 2011 at £:30 a.m, a patron had been involved in a fight with another patron inside of Carley’s which included one patron hitting the other with a beer bottle in the face. * For purposes ofthis Opinion all officers are employed atthe Chambersburg Police Department unless otherwise notedd. On July 11, 2011 at 1:10 am. several females were determined to have been in a fight inside of Carley’s and two of the females were cited for disorderly ‘conduct. ¢ On July 23, 2011 2 male patron was dra wging.a female patron across the parking lot, the female had punched the male in the face, and the female was highly intoxicated and cited for public drunkenness and possession of a controlled substance, £ On August 21, 2011 at 1:34 a.m. several patrons were fighting and/or yelling in the Carley's parking lot and it was determined that one of the persons was an off-duty rity person for Casley’s while another person was arrested for disorderly conduct and possession of a controlled substance." (2) On May 15, 2011 the Chambersburg Police Department responded to Carley’s for a fight. (3) On June 5, 2011 at 1:48 a.m. Chambersburg Police observed a large crowd exit Carley’s, an individual reported vandalism to her car, and an officer observed a recently broken window of a car in the Carley’s parking lot (4) On July 31, 2011 at 1:30 a.m. an officer from the Chambersburg Police Department was dispatched for a fight outside of Carley’s. The officer observed no Carley’s employees. One female struck another female with what appeared to be a bottle and a fight then ensued, The police charged one intoxicated female with disorderly conduct. (5) On October 28, 2011 at 1:00 a.m. an officer was dispatched to Carley’s for a noise disturbance, Carley’s lowered the volume after the officer instructed it to Notes of Testimony Ex. B-2, April 4, 2013. The incidents were also testified to atthe hearing before the Board, 7(6) On November 13, 2011 at 1:30 a.m. an officer observed several people arguing in the Carley's parking lot and he did not see any Carley’s employees within the vicinity. The officer intervened and the crowd dispersed. (7) On December 4, 2011 at 1:45 a.m. an officer observed an individual hitting and kicking a parked car in front of Carley’s. The individual was arrested for public drunkenness. (8) On February 26, 2012 at 12:30 a.m. an officer was conducting routine crowd monitoring and observed a fight and warned the individuals involved to stop the fight. (9) On March 2, 2012 an individual reported to the Chambersburg Police Department that he was assaulted the night before in front of Carley’s. He believed he was struck by a gun and suffered from a broken nose and injuries to his forehead and eye. Police determined that Mr. Smith was at the scene at the time and was aware of the incident, Surveillance footage showed the individual was followed from inside the establishment to the parking lot. Security was present at the time (10) On March 18, 2012 at 1:30 a.m. an officer observed a large crowd of people in the Carley’s parking lot who were pushing and yelling, It took the officer 45 minutes to disperse the crowd and he did not observe any security personne! from Carley’s, (11) On April 22, 2012 at 1:45 a.m, an officer observed an argument outside of Carley’s. One of the individuals was charged with possession of marijuana, Two security personnel from Carley's were present. (12) On July 14, 2012 at 11:38 p.m. an officer responded to a call of an accident near Carley’s but upon arriving did not find evidence of an accident. However, Ms Taylor told the officer a large fight took place inside the bar. Five Chambersburgofficers and six State Police officers ejected approximately 50 to 75 individuals, some ‘of which wore pepper sprayed and arrested by State Police. Four Carley's security personnel were working, (13) On October 14, 2012 at 1:44 a.m. an officer observed a large crowd in the Carley’s parking lot. He did not sce any Carley’s employees. ‘The officer made an arrest of an individual for possession of marijuans. (14) On November 1, 2012 at 11:51 p.m. an offices observed one intoxicated individual at the wheel of his car. He also observed two other intoxicated individuals walking through the parking lot and one of them fell down and passed out on the ground. ‘The individual was taken to the hospital I. Incidents of Disturbance As.we noted, Appellants do not dispute the citation or the incidents that took place at or near Carley’s. The 19 incidents of disturbance along with the citation resulting therefrom clearly demonstrate a pattern of disturbance and criminal activity in or eround Carley’s. Count Il of the citation recounted six different disturbances ranging from arguments outside of Carley’s to fights inside of Carley's. The disturbances span a time period ftom May 15, 2011 to November 1, 2012. Several of the incidents involved acts of violence including; a fight between two patrons which included one of the patrons hitting the other with a beer bottle in the face; a fight between several females inside of Carley's which resulted in disorderly conduct charges for two of the Females; several patrons fighting and/or yelling in the Car! s parking lot with one of the persons being an off-duty security employee at Carley's and another person being cited for disorderly conduct and possession of ¢ controlled substance; the Chambersburg Police Department responding to Carley’s fora fight; a fight between two females outside of Carley'swhere there were no Carley’s employees and one of the females was charged with disorderly conduct; an officer observed a fight and warned the individuals to cease fighting; an individual reported that he was assaulted the night before at Carley’s and believed he was struck by a gun and surveillance footage showed the victim being followed from inside of Carley's to the parking Jot: a farge fight took place inside of Carley’s where four employees were working and Ms Taylor asked for help from officers to remove approximately 50 10 75 individuals, some of which were pepper sprayed and arrested by State Police: and a male patron dragged a highly intoxicated female, who was eventually cited for public drunkenness, across the parking lo ‘Additional incidents involved acts of vandalism and numerous noise disturbances including: two male patrons argued near the entrance of Carley’s and 20 patrons loitered near the entrance and were loud and boisterous while the security personnel did not attempt to disperse the crowd; a large inflamed erowd was yelling and screaming in the Carley’s parking lot; Chambersburg Police observed a large crowd exit Carley’s, an individual reported vandalism to hor car. and an officer observed a recently broken window of a car in the Carley’s parking lot; an officer observed an individual, who was eventually arrested for public drunkenness, hitting and kicking a parked ear in front of Carley’s; an officer responded to a noise disturbance and Carley’s lowered the volume when requested: an officer observed several people arguing at the Carley’s parking lot and he did not sec any Carley's employees within the vicinity; an officer observed a large crowd of people in the Carley’s parking Jot who were pushing and yelling and the officer did not observe any security personnel from Carley's; an officer observed an argument outside of Carley’s where two Carley’s security personnel were present and arrested an individual for possession of marijuana: an officer made an arrest for possession of marijuana after he observed a large crowd in the Carley’s parking lot and did not observe any Carey's The dates and times ofthese incidents are set forth above, 10employees; an officer observed an intoxicated individual at the wheel of his car and another jual who fell while walking though he parking lot and required medical intoxicated indiv attention, We note that the count pursuant to the citation relating to sale of liquor for off-premi: consumption to be an isolated incident as there was no evidence of further violations of that section of the Liquor Code and therefore it was not an abuse of Carley’s licensing privilege, In all, we count 19 incidents of disturbance occurring at or near Carley's within just under a year and a halt with several of thom resulting in charges or arrests. We find that there is a causal connection between the illicit activity and Carley’s. Most of the criminal activity and other disturbances involved patrons of Carley’s and all of the incidents took place either inside of Carley’s or in its parking lot. See St. Nicholas, 41 A.3d at 960 (finding that violence involving patrons of a club which occurred inside the club or its parking lot during or shortly after hours was under the licensee's contro! and therefore causally linked (o the operation of the business); CL Becker’ Café, 67A.3d at 892 (affirming trial court's renewal of liquor license based in part on its finding that incidents of disturbances were not causally related to the operation of the business where most of the incidents did not involve patrons of the licensee establishment but were related to the location of the establishment near the housing projects and bad blood between the parties involved). Furthermore, itis plain that the disturbances cited herein equate 10 a pattern of illicit activity at Carley’s, 19 incidents of disturbance indicated repeated criminal activity and noise disturbances. Merriam-Webster defines a “pattern” as “a reliable sample of traits. acts, tendencies, or other observable characteristics of a person, group, or institution.”* In. construing the sample of 19 incidents here we observe characteristics which evince a pattern of attorn, Merriam-Webster, (October 20, 2014), hit utp www merriam-webster.com/distionary/pattera, iillicit activity at or near Carley’s, See St. Nicholas, 41 A.3d at 955-56 (affirming trial court's refusal to renew liquor license where there were eight instances of disturbances including incidents of disorderly conduct and public drunkenness in the club's parking lot, verbal and physical assault near the premises, and a stabbing in the parking lot); Pennsylvania Liquor ‘an, Inc,, 664 A.2d 695, 699 (Pa, Commw. Ct, 1995) (record supported non- Control Ra. renewal of a liquor license where two citations were issued upon establishment, one of which was for Liquor Code violations for 27 occasions of sales of illegal drugs, and the other for lewd conduct on the premises, and there was evidence that a patron drove an automobile into a group of people outside the establishment) ‘This does not end our inquiry, We must now determine whether Carley's adduced fe the illicit a evidence which demonstrates that it has taken substantial steps to reme\ ity, and if it did, whether it do so in a timely manner. Much of the disturbances and illicit activity stemmed from a lack of trained security personnel inside and outside of Carley’s in addition to 2 lack of crowd control predominantly near closing time. Ih regards to Carley’s remedial efforts we make the following findings of fact based on the credible evidence. H, Remedial Measures Ms. Taylor and Mr. Smith are co-owners of Carley’s. In March 2010 Ms. Taylor's husband died, she was distraught, and left the bar operation to live in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, Ms. Taylor did not fully recover from the loss of her son and husband unti) January 2013. On June 23, 2011 the Chambersburg Chief of Police called Ms. Taylor to ask her if she had any interest in running Carley’s because there was a lot of problems going on there, Ms. ‘YVaylor broke a bone the next day and could not return right away, The Chief called Ms. Taylor again in August 2011 and she then went back to Chambersburg. After Ms. Taylor came back to‘Chambersburg in 2011 she had a meeting with the Chief of Police and called Mr, Christensen for help and met with him at the end of 2011. Ms. Taylor and Mr. Smith did not get along at that time but have reconciled their differences as urged by Mr. Christensen. Mr. Christensen made suggestions in 2011 to Ms. Teylor and Mr. Smith and in April 2012 Mr. Christensen devised a list of sugpestions that Ms. Taylor and Mr. Smith fully implemented by April 2013, David Christensen used to work for the Liquor Control Board, He is a private investigator and teaches RAMP certification classes. Mr. Christensen first became involved with Carley’s in the context of providing recommendations to nuisance bars to avoid non-renewal in 2010 or 2011. He eventually consulted with Ms. Taylor and Mr. Smith in April 2012, iving them 22 suggestions on how to nun the bar more efficiently. Some of these suggestions included: no consumption of alcohol by ownership on licensed premises; invoices paid in a timely manner; ownership or management present at peak hours; proper bookkeeping; RAMP certification; barring people: proper security attire so security are easily identifiable; clean outside area; patrol of outside area especially when crowd is leaving; prevent illegal drug transactions: video surveillance: “wanding” for metal objects: and change in the type of music, Mr. Christensen also provided ado not” list which was a list addressing concems for Carley's employees. It took six ‘months to a year for Ms. Tayfor and Mr. Smith to implement his suggestions. He pushed for the implementations in late 2012 and the majority of them were fully implemented in April 2013 ‘Mr. Christensen made two unannounced visits on a Friday night and a Saturday night. On the Friday night visit which was around the summer of 2012 Carley’s had six security personnel; the employees were attentive to the patrons; the patrons were not rowdy or visibly intoxicated; he could not hear music outside: and no one was malingering in the parking lot, The Saturday night visit took place near the end of 2013. Mr. Christensen testified that Carley’s was crowded; 3patrons were wanded and ID'd; security personnel were inside and outside with reflective lime green identifying vests on; there were security cameras at the bar, in the dining room, and pointing out into the parking lot; the music level was proper and the music was appropriately consistent with Mr. Christensen’ s recommendation; no loitering in the parking lot; the dress of the patrons was appropriate; the parking lot was lit up; and Mr. Christensen did not observe any “nuisance type activity” when he was there. Ms. Taylor testified that since the meeting with Mr. Christensen in April 2012 Carley’s has implemented the suggestions posited by Mr. Christensen, Four big night lights were put up outside the bar which light up the parking lot “like it’s daylight.” Ithas made a difference because there are no longer people sitting in their cars doing drugs or drinking alcohol. Six security personnel who do not know the patrons were hired towards the end of 2012. All of them are RAMP certified, They wear lime green shirts with big black letters that spell out “security When a patron walks into Carley’s the first thing they see is a security employee and the patron is ID'd by one security employee and wanded by another. The security employee working the door uses a clicker to ensure that Carley’s does not go over the 150 person capacity. Two security employces stand near the DJ booth and overlook the crowd. On weekends starting at 10:00 p.m. one of the six security employees tours the parking lot every half hour to check cars and to protect the privacy of tenants who live in the area. Carley's locks the door at 1:00 am. so no one else can enter. ‘The interior lights go on at 1:15 a.m., the music is stopped at 1:30 a.m and everyone is asked to move to the front, At that time one security employee goes to the front, another one goes out in the parking lot, two are in the back helping people move forward and the Jast two stay at the bar area. As more patrons go outside more security personnel go outside until there is only one security employee left inside which is usually between 1:45 aim, and 2:00 a.m.Ms. Taylor testified that most patrons are gone from Carley’s by 1:50 a.m. She farther testified that Carley’s no longer has a problem with noise complaints because the security is tasked with facilitating noise reduction in the parking lot, Carley’s implemented a new security camera system with two cameras on the dance floor, one over the pool tables, one in the bar area, one near the bathroom doors, one outside that shows patrons entering Carley’s, and three in the parking lot. As for the music change suggested by Mr. Christensen, Carley’s now only plays radio edited versions, DJs are not allowed to drink alcohol on the job, Ms. Taylor testified that since 2011 disorderly patrons are put on a list and are permanently barred. A dress code was implemented as suggested by Mr. Christensen, Ms. Taylor testified that she has not received any noise complaints from the neighbors since implementing the changes and she drives through the parking lot on random evenings to ensure the noise level is appropriate. She further stated that the Police Chief has not contacted her regarding any new problems. As far as her relationship with Mr, Smith, Ms. Taylor testified that they now have daily communication and mutual involvement with bookkeeping and inventory. Officer Craig Leisher testified that in his recent patrolling of the area where Carley’s is located he has noticed better crowd control as a result of the increased number of security personnel outside and the crowd noise is much better. Sergeant Morrissette testified that the biggest improvements were the bright lights in the parking lot and the presence of security personne] outside when the patrons leave Carley’s ‘The remedial measures taken by Carley’s were substantial and the effectiveness of their implementation is apparent from the testimony. The bulk of the illicit conduct at Carley’s stented from loitering in the parking lot ond lack of security personnel causing fights and arguments (o occur, noise disturbances, vandalism to cars, intoxicated individuals roaming theparking lot, and summary offenses based on disorderly conduct and possession of controlled substances. In response to these disturbances the owners consulted Mr. Christensen who specializes in aiding bars to comply with the Liquor Code. As testified by both Mr. Christensen and Ms. Taylor the improvements that Carley’s implemented included: putting four big lights up ashich stopped people from sitting in their cars and drinking or doing drugs: disallowing access to the bar after 1:00 a.m. and asking people to leave by 1:30 a.m.; installment of a new security system with two cameras on the dance floor, one over the pool tables, one in the bar area, one near the bathroom doors, one outside that shows patrons entering Carley’s, and three in the parking lot, the predominant problem area; change of music to radio edited versions; prohibiting DJs from drinking alcohol; implementing a dress code; and maintaining a banned list for disorderly patrons which is maintained by a log and it is posted on both doors. We believe the most significant improvernent has been the hiring of six RAMP certified security employees. ‘These employees wear readily identifiable lime green shirts with the word “security" writen on them, To cut down on the entry of underage individuals or patrons with weapons any people who enter are ID'd and wanded to detect any metal. Another substantial tt improvement that goes hand in hand with the hiring of the six security personnel includes the patrol of the parking lot every half hour starting at 10:00 p.m. on the weekends in conjunction with the night lights that were installed in the parking lot area. Many of the disturbances occurred in the parking lot of Carley’s and therefore security patrol of the parking lot is vital to Carley’s maintaining peace ncar its establishment and quelling any potential disturbances. Furthermore, many of the disturbances took place near closing time when patrons were leaving the establishment, As sueh, the transition of security personnel from inside Carley’s to the outside was crucial in order to prevent any disturbances in the nature of arguments, fights, orexcessive noise. At closing time the security employees shift from the inside to the outside in proportion to the amount of people inside and outside of Carley's. The presence of the security personnel in the parking fot has been testified to as significant in crowd control and crowd noise when patrons Ieave by Officer Leisher, Sergeant Morrisseite and Ms. Taylor, Further evidence of the effectiveness of the implementation of Mr. Christensen’s suggestions include Ms. Taylor's testimony that she has not received any noise complaints from neighbors since implementing the changes and has not been contacted by the Police Chief regarding any new problems, Like the ficensees in Rosing, “the Owners here took substantial affirmative measures because they made a zealous effort and incurred a financial burden to prevent . ..” further disturbances such as noise complaints and disorderly conducts. After the full implementation of the recommendations by Mr. Christensen in April 2013 there were no incidents of disturbance. In fact, the last incident took place on November 1, 2012. The lack of disturbances thereafter demonstrates the quality of the corrective measures implemented at Carley’s. Another factor which may have contributed to the disturbances at Carley's involved the relationship between Ms. Taylor and Mr. Smith, The relotionship between the two was strained in 2010 as testified by Ms. Taylor, However, the two now get along as co-owners and have daily communication and mutual involvement with bookkeeping and inventory. Like Rosing. “(t)his evidence, as a whole, is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support the conclusion that the Owners of the: licensed corporation took substantial steps to prevent criminal activity [and other violations] on their premises.” Rosing, 690 A.2d at 762-63 ‘The Board argues that the facts here are analogous to L.B.P.O.E, where the Superior Court noted in its reversal of the trial court’s decision to renew the licensee’s liquor license that the evidence demonstrated that the licensee used a door buzzer system, employed security, used 17a metal detector wand, utilized four security cameras, posted signs prohibiting fighting, used a barred patrons list, and patted down members and their guests. 969 A.2d at 651. Nonetheless, the Court found that [while all of these measures are meritorious, we note that the hearing examiner, who actually recommended renewal of the license, was readily able to identify additional steps that could be taken to promote safety and prevent future assaults, or worse, on the premises. These steps include items such having security personnel be made more identifiable by having them wear shirts with “security” printed on them, purchasing ireestanding metal-detector, and simply employing more security personnel on weekends. 1d. The Court further pointed out that there was no information regarding the position of the security cameras or the efficacy of the barred patrons list, Id. at 652, We find LBP.O.E. to be distinguishable from the case at bar. In this case, the hearing examiner noted that Carley's failed 10 significantly alter its closing time, eliminate last call, or significantly curtail hip-hop DY music, As we noted, Carley’s implemented a policy whereby prohibiting access to the bar after 1:00 am. and asking people to leave by 1:30 am. We find such a change as significant as it consists of a gradual process by dismissing patrons from the bar rather than sending all of the bar patrons ‘out simultaneously within a short period of time thereby reducing potential for noise and disputes between patrons. As to the failure to eliminate a last call we do not find such evidence to be a compelling reason to deny license renewal. Carley’s last call is at 1:15 am., the lights are tured con, and patrons can get a final drink. The patrons are given fifteen minutes afterwards and then are asked to leave the bar. Furthermore, we find that the change in music as recommended by Mr, Christensen was sufficient, Both Mr. Christensen and Ms. Taylor testified that while the change in music was gradual, “gangster rap” nonetheless significantly dissipated from the mu: played at the establishment and radio edited versions of songs are used. Even if we agreed with the hearing examiner's interpretation of the preceding changes or supposed lack thereof, a "[Wicensee is not required to institute every possible safety measure." Todd's By The Bridge, 18Inc. v, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Bd., 74 A.3d 287, 297 (Pa, Commw, Ct. 2033). The other corrective measures taken by Carley's were substantial. The hearing examiner also noted that Catley’s failed to strictly maintain RAMP certification as it expired in April 2013. Ms. Taylor testified that in her 15 years of owning the bar it has never had a lapse in RAMP certification and all of Carley’s employees are RAMP certified. As such, we view the lapse as an aberration and not indivative of Carley’s abusing its licensing privilege. Accordingly, we find that the corrective action taken by Carley’s was substantial in nature. Nonetheless, Appellants are only entitled to renewal of their liquor license if they took the corrective action in a timely manner. IIL. Timeliness of Remedial Measures The timeline of events is critical when ascertaining whether Carley’s took prompt corrective action. The incidents of disturbance took place from May 15, 2011 to November 1 2012. ‘The Bureau of Licensing objected to the renewal of Carley’s liquor license on January 15, 2013 and an administrative hearing was held in front of the Board on April 4, 2013. Ms. Taylor had been living in Myrile Beach, South Carolina around the time that the incidents began because her hushand had recently passed away. On June 23, 2041 the Chambersburg Chief of Police called Ms. Taylor to ask her if she had any interest in running Carley’s because there were alot of problems going on there. Ms. Taylor testified that she broke a bone the next day and could not return right away. The Chief called Ms. Taylor again in August 2011 at which time she went back to Chambersburg, When she returned she spoke with the Chief of Police and he gave her a list of problems that were going on at Carley's. Ms. Taylor called Mr. Christensen to hire him as a consultant for Carley’s. Ms. Taylor, Mr. Christensen, and Mr, Smith had a meeting towards the end of 2011 regarding crowed control and possible difficulties with their employees lor and Mr. Smith to mend their and the fisst thing Mr. Christensen suggested was for Ms. Tay 19relationship. In early 2012 the two agreed to make it work and started implementing Mr. ‘Smith met with, Christensen's recommendations. In a meeting in April 2012 Ms. Taylor and M Mr. Christensen where he made recommendations in the form of lists of suggestions to correct problems at the bar. Mr. Christensen really pushed for implementation of the recommended corrective measures in the latter part of 2012. It took six months to fully implement the recommendations whieh eventually occurred by April 2013, In Becker's Cafe, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the corrective action taken by the bar owners was timely where there were five citations and 12 incidents of disturbance that took place over a period of 11 months but corrective action was initiated when the incidents began. Thus, incidents continued to occur at the bar in that case for some time even aficr the initiation of corrective action, However, the court purportedly realized that corrective measures take time to fully implement and recognized that complete implementation took place prior to the administrative hearing before the Board. Similar to that case the citation and incidents of disturbance here took place over a period of 18 months. ‘The crucial time to observe when making our determination is the time of initiation of remedial measures at Carley’s. As noted, the incidents began to occur on May 15. 2011, On that date there was a police response to areport of a fight at Carley’s. There is no doubt that Ms, Taylor and Mr. Smith were imputed with knowledge of that incident and the subsequent incidents occurring at or near Carley’s. ‘The first steps toward remedial measures occurred toward the end of 2011 when Ms. Taylor hired Mr. Christensen as a consultant for Carley's and those two and Mr. Smith had a meeting wherein Mr. Christensen made some suggestions regarding crowd control and implored Ms. Taylor and Mr. Smith to coexist as co-owners, Therefore, the initial remedial action occurred approximately five months after the first incident at Carley’s, Ms. Taylor and Mr, Smith began implementing, 20the suggestions in early 2012, The substantial remedial measures were fully implemented by ‘April 2013, about a year after the list of suggestions was given to Ms. Taylor and Mr. Smith by Mr. Christensen and approximately 22 months after the initial incident in June 2011, However, Ms. Taylor hired the six security employees at the end of 2012. As previously expounded upon, swe find that the implementation of the extra security personnel along with their methodical oversight of the patrons inside and outside of Carley's with the aid of the new resources available to them to detect underage patrons and weaponry was significant corrective action to quell the majority of the problems that Carley’s found itself experiencing in the past, We believe the hiring of the employees was the most meaningful remedial measure taken by Carley's and was timely given that it was implemented four to six months prior the Board hearing, Furthermore, the majority af the other recommendations were fully implemented at the time of the. administrative hearing in April 2013, as was the case in Becker's Cafe. Cf. ILB.P.0.E., 969 A.2d at 650 (finding that the corrective action taken by the licensee was not timely where the licensee took the corrective action three years after the initial incident and did so after the hearing before the Board and only two weeks prior to the hearing before the trial court), Although corrective measures taken by the owners of Carley’s were not fully implemented until the hearing before the Board, corrective measures were initiated only a few months after the first incident and were gradually implemented into Carley’s operation until full implementation was achieved. ‘Accordingly, we find that in response to the Liquor Code violation and pattern of illicit activity, Curley’s took substantial remedial measures in a timely manner. Therefore, the action of the Board will be overruled and Carley’s will be issued renewal of its liquor license. 21CONCLUSION Tn light of the foregoing discussion judgment wil] be entered in favor of Appellant. The June 5, 2013 Order issued by Appellee denying renewal of Appellant's liquor license will be overruled. Appellant shall be issued a renewal of its liquor license. An Order consistent with this Opinion is attached.