ORDERS:
ORDER FOR REMAND
This matter came before me on September 29, 2004 for a contested case hearing on an
application for an on premises beer and wine permit for James & Larry, 132 Railroad Ave.,
Johnsonville, SC. The parties and protestant were present as shown above.
At the call of the case, several items were immediately apparent. First, the applicant is
profoundly hard of hearing. Mrs. Weaver was unable to hear and respond to several questions
without the aid of her son, Willis A. Weaver, Sr. Mr. Weaver testified that he also assists his
mother at the location with her business.
In addition, there is a dispute about the correct address. Mrs. Weaver indicated that she
listed the location’s address as 132 Railroad Avenue on the application, because she thought that
was the correct address. She later received a water bill that showed the address as 233 Railroad
Avenue. Chief Ron Douglas of the Johnsonville Police Department testified that Florence
County just received 911 services in 1999, and that several addresses were corrected at that time.
Agent Marion Walters of the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) testified that
despite the incorrect address on the application, his investigation and map were for the correct
location, regardless of the address used. The even numbered businesses are across the railroad
tracks on the east side, while the odd numbered businesses are on the west side where this
location is, as indicated on the map provided by SLED.
Finally, Mr. Weaver testified that he “runs” the business. Mr. Weaver’s involvement was
not listed on the initial application. As part of his closing argument, Mr. Krajack argued for the
department that the application should now be denied based on the incorrect address and the
failure to list Mr. Weaver as a principal in the business under SC Code Ann. § 61-2-90 et seq.
and § 61-4-520 (2003).
Although the Department is required to investigate thoroughly the background and moral
character of each applicant, and each person having day-to-day managerial authority under § 61-2-100, the requested dismissal seems unduly harsh in light of Mrs. Weaver’s attempts to comply
with the statute, and unintentional omission of Mr. Weaver as a principal.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, that this case is remanded to the Department of
Revenue for a new application on the part of Mrs. Weaver and her son, with the correct address
listed. The Department shall fully investigate the principals and the location of James and Larry,
as well as allow for protests, as a completely new application file.
Because this case is being remanded, it is not necessary to address the protest of Chief
Douglas at this time.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
Carolyn C. Matthews
Administrative Law Judge
December 14, 2004
Columbia, SC |
