Lancaster Law Blog : Lancaster PA Lawyer & Attorney : Russell Krafft & Gruber Law Firm : Pennsylvania : Lancaster's Legal Link

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A common question I receive from clients dealing with a loss of his or her driver's license as the result of a DUI is, "Can I get a temporary license while mine is suspended?" Everyone seems to have a friend or know someone who knows someone, who received a license to travel to and from work or school when that person lost their license because of a DUI. There are however, a lot of misconceptions about an Occupational Limited License (OLL). The bottom line is that whether you qualify depends on your circumstances.  

If your license has been suspended as the result of a DUI and you are anticipating going through or are already in the ARD program, then you DO NOT qualify for an OLL under any circumstances. On the other hand, if you have been charged with a DUI and will not or did not dispose of the charge via the ARD program, then you may qualify for an OLL if:

• it is your first DUI and the license suspension period is one year. In that case, you can apply for an OLL, but even if you are granted an OLL, it will not be issued until you have served a 60 day license suspension period; or
• the license suspension is for 18 months and it is your first or second DUI offense in the last 10 years. In that case, you can be granted an OLL but you must first have served 12 of the 18 months of the suspension and you must install the ignition interlock device on your vehicle; or
• at the time of your arrest, you refused to submit to a chemical test (typically a breathalyzer) then you can qualify for an OLL if your license suspension is 18 months, have no more than one prior DUI in the last 10 years, have served 12 of the 18 months, and have an ignition interlock device installed on your vehicle.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 As you may have seen in recent newspaper articles, Governor Corbett recently signed into law some changes to the Pennsylvania Liquor Code. The most publicized of these changes is that "happy hours", the period of time when a licensed establishment can sell discounted alcoholic beverages, has been expanded. The previous law limited happy hour to two hours per day with a maximum of 14 hours per week. The change allows a bar or restaurant to have a happy hour up to four hours per day, but maintains the 14 hour per week maximum.

This change allows a bar or restaurant some flexibility and discretion in setting their happy hours to target busy times when the specials may attract more customers. Common criticisms of these changes are that the expanded freedom will permit more drinking during those hours and possibly lead to an increase in driving under the influence offenses or accidents.

These changes are likely another step by the state to modernize the current liquor code, which was originally passed in 1951. While it has been updated and amended numerous times since then, many who work with the liquor code on a regular basis complain that it has become outdated. Whatever the reason, the expanded happy hour allows those who hold a liquor license to exercise some choice over when and how long they want to offer specials for alcoholic beverages

While the expansion of the happy hour restraints have garnered most of the headlines for the recent updates or changes to the liquor law in PA, the same law made some other important changes to the liquor code. One of the more interesting changes was that hotel, restaurant or other public service licensees may sell beer-to-go in either open or closed containers, as long as the municipality where they are located does not have open container prohibitions. This would allow an establishment to sell a draft beer to go or other similar beverage which could be carried out into the street, assuming the municipality of the location does not have an ordinance which prohibits open containers. Finally, the new law expanded the ability for certain types of nonprofit organizations to receive a special occasion permit to allow them to raise funds for their organization.

These changes highlight the fact that the liquor law rules and guidelines can be somewhat complex. If you need help interpreting the law and want to insure you are operating within the law you should contact a lawyer with experience in liquor law matters.

Aaron Zeamer is an attorney at Russell, Krafft & Gruber, LLP in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He received his law degree from Widener School of Law and practices in a variety of areas including Liquor Law issues.

Related Posts:

• Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB) Looks to Expand Sales

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week Derek Dissinger wrote about the changes to the Lancaster County common level ratios that went into effect on July 1. Another good date to remember in relation to the common level ratio changes is August 1, which is the due date for property tax assessment appeals.

The common level ratio (CLR) is important to property tax assessment appeals in that it is used most often to check the accuracy of the assessment against a recently obtained appraisal. We apply the CLR to the appraised value to see where the assessment ought to be. Taking the total millage rates for school, municipal and county, and multiplying them by the existing assessment and the assessed value we believe to be more accurate based on the appraisal, yields the annual tax burden. By comparing the two, we can estimate the annual savings that would result from obtaining a reduced assessment, and make an informed decision about the cost effectiveness of an appeal. In my previous article, Falling Real Estate Values Offer Opportunity for Property Tax Savings, I use my own home purchase to show how an appeal can create a substantial tax savings.

Most often, a recent appraisal, or a recent sale or purchase, of the property is necessary to establish fair market value. Again, the deadline to file assessment appeals is August 1, so if you would like some information about whether it makes sense for you to pursue, contact our office. 

Christina Hausner is an attorney at Russell, Krafft & Gruber, LLP in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. She received her law degree from Duquesne University School of Law and practices in a variety of areas including Real Estate.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Matthew Grosh has joined the S. June Smith Center's Board of Directors. Matt is proud to be given the opportunity to support the mission of the S. June Center which is to, "...support children with developmental needs through education, therapeutic services, and family-centered programming. We seek to educate children, support families and strengthen communities through our Infant/Toddler and Preschool Programs, as well as Project Together, Community Outreach, SPLASH, Miracles `n Motion, Community Training, and Tiny Miracles."

In addition to Matt's efforts to support the mission of the S. June Smith Center, he will be working with his colleagues Holly Filius and Julie Miller who both serve on the S. June Smith Center Foundation's Board of Directors. Holly has served on the board since 2006 and currently serves as the President. Julie joined the board in 2009. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Pennsylvania State Tax Equalization Board recently changed the common level ratio for Lancaster County from 1.33 to 1.31. The common level ratio is the ratio of assessed value of properties to fair market value for each county.  If the fair market value equals the assessed value, the ratio would be 1.00, which is the case following an assessment.  If an assessment occurs next year, the ratio will fall to 1.00.

The common level ratio is used annually for the distribution of state subsidies for each school district and also as a measure of the fair market value of real estate for calculating realty transfer taxes.  The changes in the common level ratio reflect the changes in property value.  It is also a good measure of cost of living.  The common level ratio last year in Philadelphia, for example, was 3.13.