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:
Lucky Eight, Inc., d/b/a Lucky Eight vs. DOR

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Revenue

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
Lucky Eight, Inc.
1299B W. Market Street
Anderson, SC

Respondent:
South Carolina Department of Revenue

Intervenor:
City of Anderson and Anderson Police Department
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
02-ALJ-17-0232-CC

APPEARANCES:
Kenneth E. Allen, Esquire, for the Petitioner

Michael Kendree, Esquire, for the Respondent

Bruce A. Byrholdt, Esquire, for the Intervenor
 

ORDERS:

FINAL ORDER AND DECISION

This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-2-260 (Supp. 2001) and S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310 et seq. (Supp. 2001) for a hearing on the application of Lucky Eight, Inc., d/b/a Lucky Eight. Petitioner initially sought an on-premises beer and wine permit and a sale and consumption (minibottle) license for a proposed private club located at 1299-B West Market Street, Anderson, South Carolina. After the initial filing, the Petitioner agreed to drop their request for a sale and consumption license for a private club, and proceed solely on the on-premises beer and wine permit. After timely notice to the parties and Protestants, a hearing was held at the Administrative Law Judge Division in Columbia, South Carolina on September 30, 2002. The issues considered at the hearing were Respondent's and Protestant's concerns regarding the suitability of the address for the on-premises sale and consumption of beer and wine in light of previous trouble at the location.





FINDINGS OF FACT



Having carefully considered all testimony, exhibits, and arguments presented at the hearing of this matter, and taking into account the credibility and accuracy of the evidence, I make the following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of the evidence:

  1. Petitioner seeks an on-premises beer and wine permit for a proposed business to be located at 1299-B West Market Street, Anderson, South Carolina. The business is situated in a commercial area.

2. Lucky Eight, Inc. is a nonprofit corporation having filed its Articles of Organization on August 17, 1999. John B. Freeman, the principal for Lucky Eight in whose name the license will be held, is at least twenty-one years of age, a U.S. citizen, is of good moral character, and has maintained his principal place of residence in the State for at least thirty days prior to the date of making application for a retail liquor license. He has not had a beer and wine permit or an alcoholic liquor license revoked within two years of the date of the application.

3. The partners in the business are: John B. Freeman and George T. Harrison. The State

Law Enforcement Division (SLED) completed a criminal background investigation of the individuals, and the record indicates that George T. Harrison has an extensive record with several misdemeanors and a felony charge. The search did not uncover any record in the name of John B. Freeman. Mr. Freeman currently holds a retail license for a store in the same building as the proposed location at issue in this matter.

4. Notice of the application appeared in the Anderson Independent Mail on April 1,

2000, April 8, 2000 and April 15, 2000. The Anderson Independent Mail is published and issued in the area of the proposed business. Petitioner also displayed a sign for fifteen days at the site of the proposed business.

5. The Respondent and Intervenor are concerned that the proposed location is

inappropriate for an on premises beer and wine permit in light of the extensive record of arrests and raids at the location. The Intervenor states that the police department would not have sufficient manpower to address the problems that would occur at the establishment if the pattern of violations continues.



CONCLUSIONS OF LAW



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

  1. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-2-260 (Supp. 2001) and Chapter 23 of Title 1 of the 1976 Code, as amended, authorize the South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division to hear this case.
  2. S.C. Code Ann. §61-4-520 (Supp. 2001) establishes the criteria for determining eligibility for a beer and wine permit.
  3. Although "proper location" is not statutorily defined, broad discretion is vested in the Administrative Law Judge Division as the finder of fact in determining the fitness or suitability of a particular location. Fast Stops, Inc. v. Ingram, 276 S.C. 593, 281 S.E.2d 118 (1981). The determination of suitability of a 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 on the community within which it is to be located. Kearney v. Allen, 287 S.C. 324, 338 S.E.2d 335 (1985); Schudel v. South Carolina ABC Comm'n, 276 S.C. 138, 276 S.E.2d 308 (1981).
  4. 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 alone to deny the application. 48 C.J.S. Intoxicating Liquors § 119 (1981).
  5. In this case, however, there appears to be ample evidence as to an adverse impact on the community. The principal officer of the Petitioner has owned the property for over five years. During that time the police department has reported numerous violations of state law that have occurred at the location. The Intervenor presented extensive incident reports showing over forty violations, including drug possession, alcohol possession, and assault, which have occurred at this location during the Petitioner's ownership of the building. There seems to be little reason to think that the situation would improve with more alcohol available in the area. The Petitioner testified that he would hire security guards; he would be personally responsible for the location, and that he would do a better job of maintaining order. At the same time, however, he states that the "drug people" ignore him and the "no loitering" signs, and these people "accumulate" in the parking lot. He admits that these people who hang out in his parking lot are "dangerous." The concerns of the Intervenor regarding having adequate manpower to control this area are legitimate.

ORDER



Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby ORDERED that the application of the Petitioner for an on-premises beer and wine permit for the establishment located at 1299-B West Market Street, Anderson, South Carolina be DENIED.



AND IT IS SO ORDERED.





______________________________

CAROLYN C. MATTHEWS

Administrative Law Judge







January 10, 2003

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court