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:
Briarpatch on 34, LLC, d/b/a Briarpatch on 34 vs. SCDOR

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Revenue

PARTIES:
Petitioner:
Briarpatch on 34, LLC, d/b/a Briarpatch on 34
802 Ninety Six Highway, Greenwood, SC

Respondent:
South Carolina Department of Revenue
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
04-ALJ-17-0300-CC

APPEARANCES:
Petitioner & Representative:
Briarpatch on 34, LLC, d/b/a Briarpatch on 34, 802 Ninety Six Highway, Greenwood, SC, James Graham Padgett, III, Esquire

Respondent & Representative:
South Carolina Department of Revenue, Dana R. Krajack, Esquire

Parties Present:
Petitioner present, Respondent excused, Protestants present.
 

ORDERS:

FINAL ORDER AND DECISION

I. Statement of the Case

Brianna Dorn Lawrence (Lawrence) filed with the South Carolina Department of Revenue (DOR), an application for an on-premises beer and wine permit for Briarpatch on 34, LLC, d/b/a Briarpatch on 34, 802 Ninety Six Highway, Greenwood, South Carolina. Protests were filed pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-525 resulting in a contested case before the Administrative Law Court (ALC) under S.C. Code Ann. §§ 61-2-260 (Supp. 2003), 1-23-600(B) (Supp. 2003) and 1-23-310 (Supp. 2003). Reverend Stanley Sprouse, along with other protestants, appeared at the hearing with Rev. Sprouse acting as the spokesperson for the group.

II. Issue

Not all of the requirements for obtaining a beer and wine permit are disputed here. Rather, the granting or denying of the permit turns upon whether the location for the permit is a proper locations. Thus, the issue here is deciding whether Lawrence meets the requirements for an on-premises beer and wine permit in light of an allegation that the location is improper.

III. Analysis

A. Findings of Fact

Based on the preponderance of the evidence, the following findings of fact are entered:

On or about May 12, 2004, Lawrence filed an application with the Department of Revenue for an on-premises beer and wine permit. DOR identified the application as AI # 32034045-PBW . The applicant and the location were investigated by SLED and the investigating agent drew a map generally depicting the immediate area of the proposed location.

B. Specific Facts of Location

The map shows that the enterprise where the beer and wine permit will be utilized is located at 802 Ninety Six Highway, Greenwood, South Carolina. The business conducted there is an antique, gift, and gourmet shop with business hours of 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday. The building housing the business consists of approximately 10,000 square feet and accommodates approximately 40 vendors. The vendors occupy specific areas of the building and provide a variety of merchandise including candles, furniture, jewelry, gourmet food (soup, jelly, candy, etc.), and antiques.

In addition, artisans’ creations are available for purchase and include beaded jewelry, paintings, and ironworks. Moreover, a number of vendors provide craft creations and handmade clothing for babies and children.

If the permit is granted, the location will provide fine wines for sale and, in accordance with applicable law, will offer wine tasting functions on a sporadic basis. The wine section will occupy approximately 50 square feet out of the 10,000 square feet in the building.

Within the surrounding area is New Market Baptist Church at a distance of 920 feet. Further, South Greenwood Assembly of God is 1068 feet from the proposed location. No schools are in the area.

As to residences, several are in the area with the closest being at a distance of 191 feet. Overall, the area is generally rural in nature with a mix of residential and business locations. For example, the area is home to Russell's Auto Paint across Hwy. 34 from proposed location. In addition, Fred's Antiques is also within the area.

Crime is not a problem in the area. As for traffic, Highway 34 allows traffic to enter and exit the location on the front and Old Ninety Six Highway allows traffic to enter and exit on the back of

the property. Both routes provide access to the parking area on the side of the building. To accommodate the parking area, the building is configured so that the main entrance to the facility is from the side parking lot. The side lot is paved and provides parking for 30 vehicles with an additional 20 spaces available on the adjacent grassy area.

If no consideration were given to the dispute concerning the on-premises beer and wine application, the protestants agree that the establishment itself as created by Lawrence is an asset to the community.

B. Conclusions of Law

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law:

A. Law of Location Applied to Location Facts

Under S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-520 (Supp. 2003), no beer and wine permit may be granted unless the location of the place of business is a proper location. In deciding if a location is proper, the proximity of the location to residences, churches, schools, and playgrounds is a proper consideration. William Byers v. S.C. ABC Comm'n, 305 S.C. 243, 407 S.E.2d 653 (1991); Moore v. S.C. ABC Comm'n, 308 S.C. 160, 417 S.E.2d 555 (1992).

Here, while no schools or playgrounds are within the immediate vicinity, two churches and several residences are in the area. When considered as a whole, the beer and wine permit will not be within an improper proximity to either the churches or the residences. For example, the churches are over 900 feet away when measured consistent with the regulations governing beer and wine permits. Further, the facility will not be operating during hours likely to conflict with church activities since the facility will close at 6:00 p.m. on Monday through Sunday and will not open until 2:00 p.m. on Sunday.

As to residences, the area is already somewhat commercial and thus is compatible with a business providing sales of antiques, gifts, and gourmet foods. In this case, no persuasive evidence shows that the business will be incompatible with the expected rest and relaxation associated with residential living. Moreover, since the facility will close at 6:00 p.m. on Monday through Sunday, the facility does not disturb the hours of normal sleep for residents.

A proper consideration for reviewing a beer and wine permit is examining the impact granting the permit will have upon law enforcement. Moore v. S.C. Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm'n, 308 S.C. 167, 417 S.E.2d 555, 556 (1992). Here, no persuasive evidence shows that the facility will place a strain upon police to adequately protect the community and no evidence demonstrates any continuing criminal element in the area. Accordingly, no increased police involvement is shown by the granting of this permit.

In a similar vein, consideration can be given to the extent to which the highway traffic presents a location that is heavily traveled or creates a traffic danger. Palmer v. S.C. Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm'n, 282 S.C. 246, 317 S.E.2d 476 (Ct. App. 1984). Here, the location has added additional parking and now has access to the facility from two major highways. Parking on the paved lot is adequate to accommodate the needs of the business and provides an easy entrance and exit.

A valid consideration is whether the surrounding area has commercial activity. Taylor v. Lewis, 261 S.C. 168, 198 S.E.2d 801 (1973); Ronald Byers v. S.C. Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm'n,, 281 S.C. 566, 316 S.E.2d 705 (Ct. App. 1984). While not extensive, the area is one for which commercial activity is suitable. Currently, Russell's Auto Paint is across Hwy. 34 from the proposed location and Fred's Antiques is within the area. Moreover, Highway 34 is a transportation route giving a commercial nature to the area. Thus, the area is compatible with the business here under review.

A proper consideration is whether, absent the beer and wine permit, the establishment would be an asset to the community. Smith v. Pratt, 258 S.C. 504, 189 S.E.2d 301 (1972). Here, the facility provides an outlet for artisans and craftsmen and adds a business that is unique for the area. Thus, absent the beer and wine permit, the establishment is an asset to the community.

Certainly, one must respect the moral grounds of an individual to abstain from the purchase and consumption of alcohol and the right not to be disturbed by those who do chose to buy and drink beer, wine, or liquor. Corwin v. Board of Liquor Control, 164 N.E.2d 412 (Ohio 1960) ("We would not imply that an objection to the issuance of a permit on moral grounds should be ignored by the director in determining the advisability of issuing the permit. The opposition of many religious denominations to the sale and use of intoxicants is a commendable one that should not be lightly regarded). However, the suitability of a proposed location for the sale of alcoholic beverages cannot be found wanting based only on the religious convictions of opponents to an application. Rather, in South Carolina, the sale of alcoholic beverages is a lawful enterprise. Thus, honestly and openly stated religious convictions are not sufficient grounds for denying a permit.

B. Ultimate Conclusion as to Location

I have considered all of the factors relevant to the proposed location and have given due weight to the evidence presented at the hearing. The proposed location is not within an improper proximity to residences, schools, churches, and playgrounds. Further, no other factors are inconsistent with the statutory requirements for a beer and wine permit. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-520 (Supp. 2003). Accordingly, Lawrence's application seeks an on-premises beer and wine for a location that is a proper location.

IV. Order

Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby ordered:

DOR shall grant Brianna Dorn Lawrence's application for an on-premises beer and wine permit at 802 Ninety Six Highway, Greenwood, South Carolina.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________________________

RAY N. STEVENS

Administrative Law Judge

Dated: December 21, 2004

Laurens, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court