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. §§ 61-2-90 & 61-2-260 (Supp. 2004) and S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310 et seq. (Supp.
2004) for a contested case hearing. Petitioner seeks a nonprofit private club minibottle license
and an on-premise beer and wine permit. Respondent Department of Revenue (Department)
made a Motion to be Excused stating that but for the protest it received this application would
have been granted. Finding “good cause,” the Department’s motion was granted by my Order
dated May 5, 2005. A hearing was held on May 24, 2005, at the offices of the Court 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 by Petitioner and the
Protestant, I make the following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of the evidence:
1.Notice of the time, date, place and subject matter of the hearing was given to
Petitioner, the Protestant, and the Department.
2.Petitioner seeks a nonprofit private club minibottle sale and consumption license
and an on-premise beer and wine permit for Sylvia's Sports Bar located at 8160 Valley Falls
Road, Spartanburg, South Carolina. Sylvia's Sports Bar is incorporated under the laws of South
Carolina as a nonprofit corporation. Sylvia G. Boatman is the original organizing member of
Sylvia's Sports Bar as set forth in the club's by-laws. Ms. Boatman is a legal resident of the State
of South Carolina.
This location has been previously operated as a nonprofit private club since 1997 under
the name "Valley Sportsman." In fact, Ms. Boatman worked at Valley Sportsman when it was
previously operated as a private club. Valley Sportsman has not experienced problems with
local law enforcement in the past. Along with being operated as a private club that caters only to
its members and guests, this location will also host fund-raisers for those less fortunate in the
community, as it did when previously operated.
3.Sylvia's Sports Bar will be situated outside the city limits in Spartanburg County
on Valley Falls Road. This area is "mixed zoning" with both businesses and residential areas
nearby. Valley Falls Road is a two-lane road with moderate traffic and is in the process of being
widened approximately one mile from Sylvia's near the entrance to USC Upstate. The location
has a warehouse located next door that is utilized for business several times a month, as well as
businesses across from the location. There are several residential communities located
approximately 1/8th of a mile from the location. However, it appears from the evidence
presented at the hearing that those communities are not located directly on Valley Falls Road.
4. The qualifications set forth in S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-520 (Supp. 2004)
concerning the residency and age of Sylvia's Sports Bar's principal, Sylvia G. Boatman, are
properly established. Furthermore, Ms. Boatman has not had a permit or license revoked within
the last two years and notice of the application was lawfully posted both at the location and in a
newspaper of general circulation.
5.There are no schools, churches, or playgrounds located within five hundred (500)
feet of this location.
6.Petitioner’s principal, Ms. Boatman, does not have a criminal record and is of
sufficient moral character to receive a nonprofit private club minibottle license and on-premise
beer and wine permit.
7.Dr. John C. Lancaster is the sole Protestant against the issuance of this permit and
license. Dr. Lancaster is the pastor of First Baptist Church Valley Falls and has held that
position for the past twelve (12) years. First Baptist Church Valley Falls is situated
approximately 1/2 mile from the proposed location at 8350 Valley Falls Road. His main
concerns regarding this club are: that the community is growing and changing and that Valley
Falls Road is a busy thoroughfare; that drunk drivers will leave Sylvia's Sports Bar creating a
risk to the community; and that the location will serve alcohol while his church is conducting
religious services.
Dr. Lancaster's arguments appear to be based on a sincere concern for his church
members and the surrounding community. However, in order to deny this nonprofit private club
minibottle license and on-premise beer and wine permit, direct evidence of an adverse impact on
the community is necessary. Though the evidence offered raises "potential" concerns that this
nonprofit business "may" change the integrity of the vicinity, the evidence did not establish that
the granting of this nonprofit license and permit will have an overall adverse impact on the
surrounding area, especially in light of the fact that this location has been licensed and permitted
since 1997. There also was no evidence of an existing criminal problem that could be
exacerbated by granting the permit and license. However, if a drastic change occurs after
Petitioner receives this nonprofit license and permit, the proposed location may no longer be
suitable and the community and/or the Department could properly bring an action to prohibit the
renewal of Petitioner's nonprofit license and permit. Therefore, I find that Petitioner's proposed
location is suitable for a nonprofit private club minibottle license and on-premise beer and wine
permit.
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. 2004) grants jurisdiction to the Administrative
Law Court to hear contested cases under the Administrative Procedures Act. S.C. Code Ann. §
61-2-260 (Supp. 2004) also grants the Administrative Law Court the responsibilities to
determine contested matters governing alcoholic beverages, beer and wine.
2.S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-520 (Supp. 2004) sets forth the requirements for the
issuance of a beer and wine permit.
3.In addition to the requirements set forth above, a license for the sale and
consumption of alcoholic beverages must not be granted unless the provisions of S.C. Code Ann.
§ 61-6-1820(2) (Supp. 2004) are met. That section requires that the principals and applicants
must not only be of good moral character, but the business must also have a reputation for peace
and good order. Additionally, Section 61-6-1820(3) provides that a sale and consumption license
shall not be granted unless the proposed location meets the minimum distance requirements from
churches, schools, or playgrounds as forth in S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-120 (Supp. 2003). Section
61-6-120 also requires that a location outside of a municipality licensed to sell liquor must be a
minimum of five hundred (500) feet from any church, school, or playground. The distance is
determined by following “the shortest route of an ordinary pedestrian or vehicular travel along
the public thoroughfare from the nearest point of the grounds in use as part of such church,
school or playground. . . .”
4.S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-20(6) (Supp. 2004) establishes that a nonprofit
organization is not open to the general public and only the members and guests of the nonprofit
organization may consume alcoholic beverages upon the premises.
5. A license for the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages must not be
granted unless the provisions of S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-1820(1) (Supp. 2004) are met. Section
61-6-1820(1) provides that the applicant may receive a license upon the finding that “[t]he
applicant is a bona fide nonprofit organization or the applicant conducts a business bona fide
engaged primarily and substantially in the preparation and serving of meals or furnishing of
lodging.” S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-20(6) (Supp. 2004) defines a “nonprofit organization” as “an
organization not open to the general public, but with a limited membership and established for
social, benevolent, patriotic, recreational, or fraternal purposes.”
6.Petitioner has properly met the requirements of 23 S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 7-401.4(D) (Supp. 2004), which sets forth how the management of the nonprofit organization shall
be conducted.
7.Although "proper location" is not statutorily defined, 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). 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, supra.; Taylor v.
Lewis, supra.
“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).
8.Petitioner meets the statutory requirements for holding a nonprofit private club
minibottle license and on-premise beer and wine permit.
ORDER
Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the nonprofit private club minibottle license and on-premise beer
and wine permit for Sylvia's Sports Bar be granted upon the payment of the proper fees and
costs.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________________________
Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
June 8, 2005
Columbia, South Carolina |
