South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
Spontis Enterprises, d/b/a Wine World vs. DOR

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Revenue

PARTIES:
Petitioner:
Spontis Enterprises, d/b/a Wine World
11405 Ocean Hwy., Unit 17, Pawleys Island, SC

Respondent:
South Carolina Department of Revenue
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
03-ALJ-17-0246-CC

APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner:
Kenneth E. Allen, Esquire

Protestants:
Rob Svendsen and Roni Svendsen
 

ORDERS:

FINAL ORDER AND DECISION

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-2-260 (Supp. 2002) and S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-310 et seq. (Supp. 2002) upon the filing of an application by Petitioner Spontis Enterprises, d/b/a Wine World (“Petitioner”), for a retail liquor license for a location at 11405 Ocean Highway, Unit 17, Pawleys Island, South Carolina. Upon receipt of written protest to the application, the South Carolina Department of Revenue (“Department”) transmitted the case to the Administrative Law Judge Division (“ALJD”) for a hearing. After timely notice to the parties and the Protestants, a contested case hearing was held on July 24, 2003, at the offices of the ALJD in Columbia, South Carolina. The Department was excused from attending the hearing. Upon review of the relevant and probative evidence and applicable law, the application for a retail liquor license is granted upon passing an inspection performed by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (“SLED”) of the finished facility to satisfy the requirements of the law.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Having carefully considered all testimony and arguments presented at the hearing of this matter, and taking into account the credibility and accuracy of the evidence, I make the following findings of fact by a preponderance of the evidence:

1.Notice of the time, date, place, and subject matter of the hearing was given to all parties and to the Protestants in a timely manner.

2.Petitioner seeks a retail liquor license for the subject location of 11405 Ocean Highway, Unit 17, Pawleys Island, South Carolina.

3.The qualifications set forth in S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-110 (Supp. 2002) concerning the age, residency, and reputation of the Petitioner are properly established. Furthermore, the Petitioner 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.The Petitioner is of sufficient moral character to receive a retail liquor license.

5.No other member of Petitioner’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.

6.There is no evidence that the proposed location is within five hundred feet of any church, school, or playground.

7.The proposed retail liquor store is located in a strip mall in a commercial area.

8.A SLED investigation of the Petitioner’s establishment to determine whether it complied with the applicable laws revealed that construction was underway and that a final SLED inspection would be needed to determine whether the establishment complies with the applicable laws.

9.The Department was excused from the hearing on the basis of its motion indicating that it would have issued the license in question but for the unanswered questions of the suitability of the location raised by the Protestants.

10.Protestant Rob Svendsen testified that he objects to the Petitioner’s application primarily because there are already four liquor stores in the area serving a relatively small market. Mr. Svendsen testified that approximately 10,309 people reside within the 29585 ZIP code, which encompasses Pawley’s Island and Litchfield. This population of residents is currently being served by four existing retail liquor stores. Mr. Svendsen testified that, in his opinion, adding a new liquor store at the Petitioner’s proposed location within this ZIP code area would affect the economic viability of the existing stores, as the marketplace is not expanding at a sufficient pace to allow all of these stores to survive.

11.Shirley Spontis testified that she owns Spontis Enterprises along with her husband. She testified that she has observed new residential and commercial growth within a three-mile radius of the location of their proposed liquor store. She stated that within this three-mile radius there are several new commercial construction sites, three new strip malls, two new medical facilities, a new hospital, a new post office, and several new banks. She also stated that a sign indicates that a new housing development complex will soon be constructed within this three-mile radius, as well. She further testified that the site of the proposed liquor store is located within the Grand Strand area, which attracts tourists annually. She stated that in her opinion, based upon the new residential and commercial growth she has observed within a three-mile radius of the proposed location, combined with the number of tourists who visit the area every year, the area can support the addition of a new liquor store without affecting the economic viability of the existing stores.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Based upon the findings of fact, I conclude as a matter of law, the following:

1.S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600 (Supp. 2002) grants jurisdiction to the ALJD to hear contested cases under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). Furthermore, S.C. Code Ann. § 61-2-260 (Supp. 2002) grants the ALJD the responsibilities to determine contested matters governing alcoholic beverages, beer, and wine.

2.S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-110 et seq. (Supp. 2002) sets forth the requirements for determining eligibility for a retail liquor license.

3.Licenses issued by the State for the sale of beer, wine, and liquor are not rights or property, but are rather privileges granted in the exercise of the police power of the State to be used and enjoyed only so long as the restrictions and conditions governing them are complied with. As the tribunal authorized to grant the issuance of a license is also authorized, for cause, to revoke it, that tribunal is likewise authorized to place restrictions or conditions on the license. See Feldman v. S.C. Tax Comm’n, 203 S.C. 49, 26 S.E.2d 22 (1943).

4.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.The factual determination of whether or not an application is granted or denied is usually the sole prerogative of the executive agency charged with rendering that decision. Palmer v. S.C. ABC Comm’n, 282 S.C. 246, 317 S.E.2d 476 (Ct. App. 1984). As the trier of fact, an administrative law judge is authorized to determine the fitness or suitability of the proposed business location of an applicant for a retail liquor license using broad but not unbridled discretion. Ronald F. Byers v. S.C. ABC Comm’n, 281 S.C. 566, 316 S.E.2d 705 (Ct. App. 1984). It is also the fact finder’s responsibility to judge the demeanor and credibility of witnesses and determine the relevance and weight of any testimony and evidence offered.

6.Although “proper location” is not statutorily defined, broad discretion is vested in the judge in determining the fitness or suitability of a particular location. Fast Stops, Inc. v. Ingram, 278 S.C. 593, 281 S.E.2d 118 (1981). The determination of suitability of a location is not necessarily a function solely of geography. It involves an infinite variety of considerations related to the nature and operation of the proposed business and its impact on the community within which it is to be located. Kearney v. Allen, 287 S.C. 324, 338 S.E.2d 335 (1985). Any evidence adverse to the location may be considered. The proximity of a location to a church, school or residences is a proper ground by itself upon which the location may be found to be unsuitable and a license denied. Byers v. S. C. ABC Comm’n, 305 S.C. 243, 407 S.E.2d 653 (1991). Further, the court can consider whether “there have been law enforcement problems in the area.” Palmer v. S.C. ABC Comm’n, 282 S.C. 246, 317 S.E.2d 476 (Ct. App. 1984).

7.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, 261 S.C. 168, 198 S.E.2d 801 (1973).

8.The crux of the Protestants’ objection is that this retail liquor license should be denied because there are already four liquor stores in the area of the proposed location, and because a new liquor store in this area will affect the economic viability of the existing stores. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-170 (Supp. 2002) provides that “[t]he department 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 more 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 primary rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the legislature. Plyler v. Evatt, 313 S.C. 405, 438 S.E. 2d 244 (1993). The intent of the General Assembly in enacting S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-170 (Supp. 2002) was not to ensure economic viability of businesses already licensed in the area, but to safeguard the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens who live in the area. See Monarch Enters., Inc., d/b/a Monarch Liquors v. S.C. Dep’t of Revenue, Docket No. 01-ALJ-17-0520-CC (ALJD, February 22, 2002). In this case, the evidence did not establish that the public safety, health or welfare will be endangered by the issuance of a license in this case because of a plethora of retail liquor stores. Therefore, the proposed location is not unsuitable pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-170 (Supp. 2002).

9.Considering all relevant factors, I find that the proposed location is suitable for a retail liquor license. I further find that the application for a retail liquor license should be granted, but only upon the Petitioner first passing an inspection by SLED of the finished facility to satisfy the requirements of the law.

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitioner’s application for a retail liquor license for the location at 11405 Ocean Highway, Unit 17, Pawleys Island, South Carolina, is granted upon passing an inspection performed by SLED of the finished facility to satisfy the requirements of the law;

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________________________________

C. DUKES SCOTT

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE


July 25, 2003

Columbia, South Carolina


 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2025 South Carolina Administrative Law Court