ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COURT
Sara T. Wallace, d/b/a Wallace’s ABC)Docket No. 04-ALJ-17-0335-CC
5619 Hwy #1, Cheraw, SC)
)
Petitioner,) FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
) January 24, 2005
vs.)
)
South Carolina Department of Revenue,)
)
Respondent.)
____________________________________)
APPEARANCES:Sara T. Wallace, Pro Se, Petitioner
Dana R. Krajack, Esquire, for the Respondent
Protestants:Julius Loflin, Grace C. Wallace, Herbert Loflin,
Samuel E. Hickson, Jr.
This matter comes before the Administrative Law Court (Court) pursuant to S.C. Code
Ann. §§ 61-6-100 et seq. (Supp. 2003), § 61-6-910 (Supp. 2003), and §§ 1-23-310 et seq. (1986
and Supp. 2003) for a contested case hearing. The Petitioner, Sara Wallace, d/b/a Wallace’s
ABC, (Wallace’s ABC) seeks a retail liquor license. The Department of Revenue (Department)
made a Motion to be Excused stating that but for the protests on the suitability of the location,
this license would have been granted. This Motion was denied by order dated October 20, 2004.
At the hearing, the Department presented evidence received from the Protestants that, in fact, the
protests of the Protestants listed above had been validly received by the Department in a timely
manner on August 1, 2004, and that the Court should hear the concerns of these Protestants.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having observed the witnesses and exhibits presented at the hearing and closely passed
upon their credibility and taking into consideration the burden of persuasion upon the parties, I
make the following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of evidence:
1.Notice of the time, date, place and subject matter of the hearing was given to the
Petitioner, the Respondent, and the Protestants.
2.The Petitioner, Wallace’s ABC, is seeking a retail liquor license. The proposed
location is 5619 Highway #1 South, Cheraw, South Carolina. Sara Wallace is the principal
owner of Wallace’s ABC.
3.The qualifications set forth in S. C. Code Ann. § 61-6-110 (Supp. 2003)
concerning the age, residency, and reputation of Mrs. Wallace are properly established.
Furthermore, Mrs. Wallace has not had a license for the sale of alcoholic liquors revoked within
the last five years and notice of the application was lawfully posted both at the location and in a
newspaper of general circulation.
4.Mrs. Wallace has no criminal record and is of sufficient moral character to
receive a retail liquor license.
5.There was no evidence that the proposed location is within five hundred feet of
any church, school or playground.
6.No other member of the Mrs. Wallace’s household has been issued a retail liquor
store license. Additionally, the Petitioner has not been issued more than three retail liquor
licenses, nor does she have an interest, financial or otherwise, in more than three retail liquor
stores
7. All parties agreed that the Applicant, Mrs. Wallace, is qualified to own and
operate
a retail liquor store. The only issue is the Protestants’ concerns about whether the proposed
location is suitable under the statute.
8. All the Protestants expressed concern about the presence of a liquor store in their
small, close-knit community. They were worried about the effect that alcohol would have on the
families in the area. Several Protestants had personally seen the adverse effects that alcohol can
have on a family and the effect of driving while intoxicated.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the above Findings of Fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law:
1.S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600 (Supp. 2003) grants jurisdiction to the Administrative
Law Court to hear contested cases under the Administrative Procedures Act. Furthermore, S.C.
Code Ann. § 61-2-260 (Supp. 2003) grants the Court the responsibility to determine contested
matters governing alcoholic beverages, beer and wine.
2.S.C. Code Ann. §§ 61-6-110 et seq. (Supp. 2003) sets forth the requirements for
determining eligibility for a retail liquor license.
3.Although “proper location” is not statutorily defined, broad discretion is vested in
the trier of fact in determining the fitness or suitability of a particular location. Fast Stops, Inc.
v. Ingram, 276 S.C. 593, 281 S.E.2d 118 (1981). As the trier of fact, the Administrative Law
Judge is authorized to determine the fitness or suitability of the proposed business location for a
license to sell liquor using broad, but not unbridled, discretion. Byers v. South Carolina ABC
Commission, 281 S.C. 566, 316 S.E.2d 705 (Ct. App. 1984). The determination of suitability of
location is not necessarily a function solely of geography. It involves an infinite variety of
considerations related to the nature and operations of the proposed business and its impact upon
the community within which it is to be located. Kearney v. Allen, 287 S.C. 324, 338 S.E.2d 335
(1985). Additionally, without sufficient evidence of an adverse impact on the community, the
application must not be denied if the statutory criteria are satisfied. The fact that a Protestant
objects to the issuance of a license is not a sufficient reason by itself to deny the application. See
45 Am. Jur. 2d Intoxicating Liquors § 162 (Supp. 1995); 48 C.J.S. Intoxicating Liquors § 119
(1981).
5.In considering the suitability of a location, it is relevant to consider whether the
testimony in opposition to the granting of a license is based on opinions, generalities and
conclusions, or whether the case is supported by facts. Smith v. Pratt, 258 S.C. 504, 189 S.E. 2d
301, (1972); Taylor v. Lewis, et al. , 261 S.C. 168, 198 S.E. 2d 801 (1973). There was no
testimony or other evidence submitted as to the specific adverse impact that the granting of this
particular license would have on the community. Although the Protestants were very passionate
in their concern for their community and the possible effect that a retail liquor store may have on
the area, they did not present any specific facts about this location.
6.The Petitioner meets the statutory requirements for holding a retail liquor license
at the proposed location, and the Protestants have failed to convince the Court that there is any
specific harm in granting this license.
ORDER
Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Department of Revenue complete its processing of
the Petitioner’s application for a retail liquor license at 5619 Highway #1 South, Cheraw South
Carolina, and that the license be granted upon the Petitioner’s payment of the required fees and
costs.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________
CAROLYN C. MATTHEWS
Administrative Law Judge
January 24, 2005
Columbia, South Carolina |