ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
BACKGROUND
On July 28, 2005, Petitioner North American Petroleum Stores, LLC, submitted to Respondent South Carolina Department of Revenue (Department) two applications for licenses to sell alcoholic beverages. In one application, Petitioner sought a retail liquor store license for a freestanding liquor store to be known as Quick Trip ABC and located at 7A South Guignard Drive in Sumter, South Carolina; in the other, Petitioner sought an off-premises beer and wine permit for its nearby gas station and convenience store, Quick Trip #1, located at 7 South Guignard Drive in Sumter. By a letter dated August 3, 2005, J. David Weeks, Esquire, filed a protest on behalf of the Westside Neighborhood Association against Petitioner’s application for a retail liquor store license at 7A South Guignard Drive. The letter’s heading only referenced “North American Petroleum Stores D/B/A Quick Trip ABC, 7A South Guignard Drive, Sumter, SC” and the text of the letter only stated the opposition of local residents to the issuance of a license “for the sale and off premises consumption of liquor at the above referenced location.” In a subsequent telephone conversation with the Department, Mr. Weeks further informed the Department that the Westside Neighborhood Association also wished to protest Petitioner’s application for a beer and wine permit at 7 South Guignard Drive. Based upon the protestant’s written protest of Petitioner’s application for a liquor license and the protestant’s verbal protest of Petitioner’s application for a beer and wine permit, the Department denied both of Petitioner’s applications by letters dated September 1, 2005.
Petitioner requested hearings on the denials of its applications before this Court, and, by Notices of Assignment filed on September 27, 2005, contested cases regarding its applications for a retail liquor license and a beer and wine permit were assigned to the undersigned with docket numbers 05-ALJ-17-0386-CC and 05-ALJ-17-0387-CC, respectively. By an Order dated October 12, 2005, the two cases were consolidated for the purposes of hearing and scheduled for hearing on October 26, 2005. At the hearing, Petitioner moved for the dismissal of the instant case—the matter involving its application for an off-premises beer and wine permit—because no written protest had been filed against its application for the beer and wine permit. For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s motion is hereby granted.
DISCUSSION
In order to protest an application for a beer and wine permit, a person must timely file a written protest setting forth certain, specific information regarding the protest. See S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-525 (Supp. 2004); 23 S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 7-201(2)-(5) (Supp. 2004). And, if a protest against a permit application is not timely filed or otherwise fails to meet the requirements for such a protest, the protest is deemed invalid and the Department must continue to process the permit application and must issue the permit if all other statutory requirements are met. See S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-525; 23 S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 7-201(5). In the case at hand, the protestant, Westside Neighborhood Association, did not, at any time, file a valid, written protest of Petitioner’s application for a beer and wine permit. The language of the Association’s August 3, 2005 letter of protest was consistently and specifically limited to Petitioner’s application for a retail liquor license, referencing only the address and name of Petitioner’s liquor store and addressing only the “sale and off premises consumption of liquor.” The letter made no reference to the address and name of Petitioner’s convenience store, or to Petitioner’s operations generally, and did not mention the sale of beer and wine. Accordingly, the Association’s letter protesting Petitioner’s application for a retail liquor license simply cannot be construed as including a protest, even implicitly, against Petitioner’s application for a beer and wine permit. Further, while the Association did apparently convey its opposition to Petitioner’s application for a beer and wine permit to the Department during a telephone call, this telephonic protest plainly does not satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirement that protests be made in writing, nor is it clear that this communication, even if construed as a protest, was timely. Therefore, because the sole protestant of record in this matter, Westside Neighborhood Association, did not timely file a written protest against Petitioner’s application for a beer and wine permit, its protest of Petitioner’s application is not valid and this matter must be dismissed.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-captioned case is DISMISSED and the Department SHALL CONTINUE TO PROCESS Petitioner’s application for an off-premises beer and wine permit for its Quick Trip #1 convenience store located at 7 South Guignard Drive in Sumter, South Carolina.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
1205 Pendleton Street, Suite 224
Columbia, South Carolina 29201-3731
November 10, 2005
Columbia, South Carolina |
