SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

FINDINGS OF FACT

Having observed the testimony of the witnesses and exhibits presented at the hearing and closely passed upon their credibility, I make the following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of evidence:

1. Petitioner seeks a retail liquor license for its location at 4411 Highway 24, Anderson, South Carolina.

2. Petitioner is a resident of the State of South Carolina and has maintained his principal place of abode in this state for at least thirty (30) days prior to making this application.

3. Notice of the application was lawfully posted at the location, and in the Anderson Independent Mail, a newspaper of general circulation.

4. Petitioner does not currently hold any other retail liquor licenses, or have an interest, financial or otherwise, in any other retail liquor store.

5. The location is in a commercial shopping center located at the corner of Highway 24 and Old Green Pond Road. The shopping center currently houses a Bi-Lo Super Center and other retail stores.

6. There are no residences, churches, schools, or playgrounds within five hundred (500) feet of the location.

7. The location’s proposed hours of operation are from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday.

8. Protestant Howard L. Pinkham, is the owner of Lakestop ABC, a retail liquor store located across the street from the location. Mr. Pinkham objects to the license being issued because of the number of liquor stores already in business in the area.

9. Currently, there are two retail liquor stores within a half mile of one another and the proposed location.

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. 2006) grants jurisdiction to the Administrative Law Court.

2. S.C. Code Ann. §§ 61-6-110 et seq. (Supp. 2006) outlines the general requirements for determining eligibility for a retail liquor license. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-120 (Supp. 2006) specifically provides that a liquor license shall not be issued to a place of business if:

the place of business is…within five hundred feet of any church, school, or playground situated outside a municipality. Such distance shall be computed by following the shortest route of ordinary pedestrian or vehicular travel along a public thoroughfare from the point of the grounds in use as part of such church, school, or playground…

3. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-910 (2) (Supp. 2006) provides that an application for a license to sell alcoholic liquors must be denied if, “the store or place of business to be occupied by the applicant is not a suitable place.”

4. 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. Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm’n, 282 S.C. 246, 317 S.E.2d 476 (Ct. App. 1984). Administrative law judges are authorized to determine the fitness of an applicant for alcohol permits and licenses using broad, but not unbridled discretion. Byers v. S.C. Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm’n, 281 S.C. 566, 316 S.E.2d 705 (Ct. App. 1984).

5. Although “proper location” is not statutorily defined, the Administrative Law Court has the authority to determine the fitness or suitability of a particular location. Fast Stops, Inc. v. Ingram, 276 S.C. 593, 281 S.E.2d 181 (1981). 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 operation 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). In determining the suitability of a location, it is proper for this Court to consider any evidence that demonstrates any adverse effect the proposed location will have on the community. Palmer, supra. Furthermore, 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).

6. Unless there is 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 permit is not a sufficient reason by itself to deny the application. See 45 Am.Jur.2d Intoxicating Liquors §162 (Supp. 1995); See 48 C.J.S. Intoxicating Liquors § 166 (2004).

7. The ultimate issue of the Protestant’s case is that he will be in direct competition with this liquor store. Protestant claims that this would economically harm his business, and further speculates that the petitioner’s liquor store will fail because of the close proximity to the other stores. Protestant claims that this license should be denied as there are already two retail liquor stores in the immediate area, including his which is located directly across the street from the proposed location. Protestant maintains that the addition of this liquor store may eventually drive one of the existing locations out of business. Findings, however, may never be based upon surmise, conjecture, or speculation, but must be founded on evidence of sufficient substance to afford a reasonable basis for it. Mullinax v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 318 S.C. 431, 443, 458 S.E.2d 76, 83 (Ct. App. 1995). While the Court is sympathetic to the Protestant’s concerns, the statutes provide no protection based solely on the economic security of the existing liquor stores in the area. Testimony introduced at trial confirms that the area is one of high growth, as Bi-Lo and Food Lion have recently opened large shopping centers. This construction and plans for housing developments in the vicinity are clear indicators of the growth the area is experiencing.

For the reasons above, the Court finds that the Petitioner has met all of the statutory requirement for a retail liquor store, and authorizes the Department to issue the retail liquor license.

ORDER

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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application for a retail liquor license by Brian Robert Phillips, d/b/a Floppy’s Spirits, 4411 Highway 24, Anderson, South Carolina must be granted.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

___________________________________

CAROLYN C. MATTHEWS

Administrative Law Judge

December 21, 2007

Columbia, South Carolina