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:
Carl C. Estridge d/b/a Twin Lakes Club vs. SCDOR

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Revenue

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
Carl C. Estridge d/b/a Twin Lakes Club

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Revenue
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
94-ALJ-17-0227-CC

APPEARANCES:
H. Jackson Gregory, Esquire for Applicant

Conrad Michael Gore and Charles Woodhurst, Protestants
 

ORDERS:

ORDER AND DECISION

This matter came before the Administrative Law Judge Division on the application of Carl C. Estridge to renew the on-premises beer and wine permit and the sale and consumption license for the Twin Lakes Club located on Leesburg Road in Columbia, South Carolina. The hearing was held after notice on September 22, 1994. The file maintained by the Department of Revenue and Taxation was made a part of the record in this case without objection. Based upon a preponderance of the testimony and evidence presented, I make the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The applicant, Carl C. Estridge, is over the age of 21 and is resident of South Carolina. Other than minor traffic offenses, he has never been convicted of a crime and is a person of good moral character.

2. He currently holds an on-premises beer and wine permit and a sale and consumption license for Twin Lakes Club located on Leesburg Road in Columbia, South Carolina and is seeking to renew those permits. The building has operated with some type of alcoholic beverage license for many years. The business has been operated by the applicant since 1986 and there were no previous protests when the permits were renewed.

3. There have been no citations issued for violating any laws relating to the sale of beer and wine.

4. The business is a private club that serves as a neighborhood bar. It is open seven (7) days a week and closes at 12 midnight. It is open on Sunday pursuant to hours allowed by the law.

5. There is a parking lot outside of the club which is fenced in and provides access from Leesburg Road and Gray Street. The location has not been the subject of an official visit by the Richland County Sheriff Department. There is no loitering on the premises.

6. One of the residents that lives near the property, Conrad Michael Gore complained that he had contacted police on numerous occasions to protest the noise and gunshots he heard. Gore also complained about beer cans and intoxicated persons in the area. There was even an attempted break-in of his property. When questioned further, Mr. Gore was unable to attribute all of these problems to patrons of the Twin Lakes Club.

7. Another resident, Charles Woodhurst is president of the Strathaven Forest Homeowners Association and protested on the basis that the flow of traffic in the area was congested particularly at the point where Twin Lakes' is located because Leesburg Road narrows. However, further evidence reveals that there are no sidewalks in the area which causes a hazard to pedestrians. The fence around the club restricts access on Leesburg Road. There is no evidence to suggest that there is an inordinate amount of traffic to and from the club or that patrons of the club are the cause of the congestion and other traffic problems.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Administrative Law Judge Division is vested with the powers, duties and responsibilities exercised by the former Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission and hearing officers pursuant to Chapter 23 of Title 1. S.C. Code of Laws § 61-1-55 (Supp. 1993).

2. S.C. Code § 61-9-320 (Supp. 1993) provides the statutory requirements for this issuance of beer and wine permits. It sets forth eight (8) criteria before a permit is issued. S.C. Code § 61-5-50 sets forth the criteria granting a sale and consumption license. These requirements have also been met. To renew a permit or license issued by the Department, the applicant must met the same criteria. The applicant is entitled to renewal absent evidence to show a sufficient change in the business to warrant refusal. The evidence produced in this case does not show by a preponderance of the evidence that there are sufficient changes in the operation of the business to warrant refusing to renew the permit and license.

3. The proposed place of business is a proper one. The reasons for the protest concern traffic problems and other incidents which could not be linked to this business. These concerns have been adequately addressed in this Order and are without merit. The location previously was licensed by the Department for an on-premises beer and wine permit and a sale and consumption license. The establishment has not had any problems with the local law enforcement agency.

ORDER

Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the applicant is entitled to renewal of the permit and license. It is ORDERED that the Department of Revenue and Taxation issue to the applicant, Carl C. Estridge an on-premises beer and wine permit and a sale and consumption license upon the payment of the appropriate fees.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________________________________

ALISON RENEE LEE

Administrative Law Judge

September _____, 1994

Columbia, South Carolina


 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2025 South Carolina Administrative Law Court