SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

2. The Petitioner, David Hickson, d/b/a Corner Liquors, is seeking a retail liquor license. The proposed location is located at 600 B. Davis Street, Lake City, South Carolina.

3. The qualifications set forth in S. C. Code Ann. § 61-6-110 (Supp. 2004) concerning the age, residency, and reputation of David Hickson are properly established. Furthermore, Mr. Hickson 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 published in a newspaper of general circulation, as required by § 61-6-180.

4. Mr. Hickson 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 three hundred feet of any church, school or playground, as provided in § 61-6-120 (A).

6. No other member of the Mr. Hickson’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 he have an interest, financial or otherwise, in more than three retail liquor stores.

7. Mr. Hickson and his wife both testified and I find them to be very credible witnesses. They addressed their desire to improve the community, to invest in Lake City and to keep any loiterers away from the store and the trash removed from the surrounding area. They specifically noted that they had removed a canopy that they had installed near the store when it became apparent that it was becoming a gathering place for loiterers. In addition, they have participated in alcohol education programs sponsored by some of their wholesalers, and in community beautification events.

8. The Protestants addressed the Court. Their primary concerns are that the store will promote loitering, drug activity and additional criminal behavior. They are worried about increased foot and vehicular traffic through their neighborhood and the possible attendant trash.

9. I find the proposed location to be suitable for a retail liquor license.

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. 2004) 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. 2004) grants the Court the responsibilities to determine contested matters governing alcoholic beverages, beer and wine.

2. S.C. Code Ann. §§ 61‑6‑110 et seq. (Supp. 2004) sets forth the requirements for

determining eligibility for a retail liquor license.

3.                  S.C. Code Ann. § 61‑6‑170 (Supp. 2004) states

“the department (South Carolina Department of Revenue) may, in its discretion, limit the further issuance of retail dealer licenses in a political subdivision if it determines that the citizens who desire to purchase alcoholic liquors therein are mote than adequately served because of (1) the number of existing retail stores, (2) the location of the stores within the subdivision, or (3) other reasons.”

The Department did not take such action in this case. They specifically did not oppose this license and would have granted it, but for the protest.

4. 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 be granted 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. There were no concrete facts or incident reports submitted, only conjecture and concerns by the Protestants.

6. The Petitioner meets the statutory requirements for holding a retail liquor license at the proposed location.

ORDER

Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the retail liquor license of Petitioner David Hickson, d/b/a Corner Liquors for the location at 600 B. Davis Street, Lake City, South Carolina, be granted upon the Petitioner’s payment of the required fees and costs.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________________________

CAROLYN C. MATTHEWS

Administrative Law Judge

November 21, 2005

Columbia, South Carolina