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:
- 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:
- 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.
- S.C. Code Ann. §61-4-520 (Supp. 2001) establishes the criteria for determining eligibility for a beer and wine
permit.
- 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).
- 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).
- 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 |