ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT
OF THE CASE
This matter comes before the Administrative Law Court
(ALC or Court) pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-185 (Supp. 2007) and §§
1-23-310 et seq. (Supp. 2007) for a contested case hearing.
Petitioner is seeking a retail liquor license for its location at 3537 Oates
Highway, Lamar, South Carolina. After proper notice, a hearing was held on January
7, 2009 at the offices of the ALC in Columbia, South Carolina.
FINDINGS
OF FACT
Having
observed the witnesses and exhibits presented at the hearing and closely passed
upon their credibility, taking into consideration the burden of persuasion of Petitioner,
the Respondent and the Protestant, I make the following Findings of Fact by a
preponderance of the evidence:
1. Oates
Liquors, Inc. is seeking a retail liquor license for 3537 Oates Highway, Lamar,
South Carolina. Jack and Patricia Ward are the sole stockholders of Oates
Liquors, Inc. They have been residents of South Carolina since December of
2006. They purchased the premises in their own name and are currently leasing
it to Oates Liquors, Inc. In the past, at least two other retail liquor stores
have operated in the same location.
2. The qualifications set forth
in S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-110 (Supp. 2007) concerning the age, residency, and
reputation of Mr. and Mrs. Ward were properly established. Furthermore, the
licensee has not had a license for the sale of alcoholic liquors revoked within
the last five years. Also, the licensee has no criminal record and is of
sufficient moral character to receive a retail liquor license.
3. Mr. and Mrs. Ward do not currently own an interest,
financial or otherwise, in more than three retail liquor stores. See S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-140 (Supp. 2007). Notice of the application was
published in a newspaper of general circulation and was lawfully posted at the
location. Furthermore, there was no evidence presented that the proposed
location is within five hundred feet of a school or playground.
4. Pastor Mickey Lloyd of Oates Baptist Church was
the sole protestant to the issuance of the license. Pastor Lloyd protested the
issuance of the license for two reasons; location and biblical aversions to the
consumption of liquor. As to location, Pastor Lloyd testified that the
location is too close to his church because you can see the front of the store
from his church. However, the evidence did not establish that the location
would adversely impact the activities of the church. He further testified
that it is best for a community to have no alcohol stores because alcohol leads
to all of the following; violence, making a mockery out of a person,
destruction of families, impaired judgment, and wrecks. While it appears that Pastor
Lloyd has a genuine concern for the impact this proposed business may have upon
his community, no evidence was presented that the location would exacerbate any
crime in the area. To the contrary, the crux of Pastor Lloyd’s argument was
based upon his aversion to the sale of alcohol. I therefore find that
Petitioner’s proposed location is 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. 2007) 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. 2007) grants the ALC the
responsibilities to determine contested matters governing alcoholic beverages,
beer and wine.
2. S.C.
Code Ann. §§ 61-6-110 et seq. (Supp. 2007) sets forth the general
requirements for determining eligibility for a retail liquor license. S.C.
Code Ann. § 61-6-140 (Supp. 2007) further restricts a licensee from possessing
more than three retail licenses while S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-150 (Supp. 2007)
ultimately prohibits an individual from having an interest in more than three
retail liquor stores in the state of South Carolina. Furthermore, no applicant
can receive a retail liquor license if the business is located “if the place
of business is within three hundred feet of any church, school, or playground
situated within a municipality or within five hundred feet of any church,
school, or playground situated outside of a municipality.” S.C. Code Ann. §
61-6-120 (Supp. 2007). No evidence was presented that the proposed location violates
any of the above provisions.
3. The
Administrative Law Court is vested, as the trier of fact, with 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 118 (1981); S.C. Code Ann. §
61-6-910 (Supp. 2007). Although “proper location” is not statutorily defined,
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 the adverse
effect the proposed location will have on the community. Palmer v. S.C. ABC
Comm'n, 282 S.C. 246, 317 S.E.2d 476 (Ct. App. 1984). It is also relevant
to consider the previous history of the location. 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). 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, 189 S.E.2d 301; Taylor v. Lewis, 198 S.E.2d 801.
“A
liquor license or permit may also be properly refused on the ground that the
location of the establishment would adversely affect the public interest, that
the nature of the neighborhood and of the premises is such that the
establishment would be detrimental to the welfare . . . of the inhabitants, or
that the manner of conducting the establishment would not be conducive to the
general welfare of the community.” 48 C.J.S. Intoxicating Liquors § 121
at 501 (1981). Nevertheless, 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 permit
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).
4 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 Oates Liquors, Inc. d/b/a Oates Liquors be granted
upon Petitioner’s payment of the required fees and costs.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________________________
Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
January 22, 2009
Columbia, South Carolina
|
