ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before the Administrative Law Judge Division (Division) pursuant to
S.C. Code Ann. §§ 61-6-100 et seq. (Supp.2002), § 61-6-910 (Supp.2002), and §§ 1-23-310 et
seq. (1986 and Supp.2002) for a contested case hearing. The Petitioner, BG’s, LLC, d/b/a BG’s
Package Store, seeks a retail liquor license. The Respondent notes that the building housing the
proposed location has not been completely renovated and would need a final inspection prior to
the issuance of the license, if one were so ordered. The Protestants have raised concerns about
the suitability of the location in light of the proximity of a school, as well as the number of beer
and wine permits and retail liquor licenses in the area. A hearing was held on this matter on
April 8, 2003, at the offices of the Division 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 the parties and the
Protestant, I make the following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of evidence:
1.Notice of the time, date, place and subject matter of the hearing was given to the
Petitioner, the Respondent, and the Protestants.
2.The Petitioner, BG’s, LLC, d/b/a BG’s Package Store, is seeking a retail liquor
license. The proposed location is located at 679 Main Street, West Columbia, South Carolina.
This location is in the South Congaree area of Lexington County. Brenda H. Meetze is the
president of BG’s, LLC, d/b/a BG’s Package Store.
3.The qualifications set forth in S. C. Code Ann. § 61-6-110 (Supp.2002)
concerning the age, residency, and reputation of Ms. Meetze are properly established.
Furthermore, Ms. Meetze has not had a license for the sale of alcoholic liquors revoked within the
last five years and notice of the application was lawfully posted both at the location and published
in a newspaper of general circulation, as required by § 61-6-180.
4.Ms. Meetze has no criminal record and is of sufficient moral character to receive a
retail liquor license.
5.There was no evidence that the proposed location is within three hundred feet of
any church, school or playground, as provided in § 61-6-120 (A).
6.No other member of the Ms. Meetze’s household has been issued a retail liquor
store license. Additionally, the Petitioner has not been issued more than three retail liquor
licenses, nor does she have an interest, financial or otherwise, in more than three retail liquor
stores.
7.Mr. Rox Pollard, the Commercial Real Estate Leasing Agent for The Shops at
South Congaree, the shopping center where the proposed location is located, testified that the
center contains a very typical retail mix, including a Winn Dixie grocery store and a Chinese
restaurant which is adjacent to the proposed location of the retail liquor store. He further testified
that his company has never experienced problems with the operation of retail liquor stores, and
that the adjacent major intersection contains a Shell gas station, a free-standing Eckerds, a Pantry
Store, and a CITGO station, all of which have beer and wine off-premises permits.
8. Dr. Venus Holland represented the Lexington District Two School Board which is
concerned about Congaree Elementary School near the proposed location
. Although the school
entrance is around the corner from the proposed location, she noted that there is a lot of
congestion in the area with the school buses, day care vans, and parents picking up children.
Because of the extended day options offered at Congaree Elementary, children are present eleven
months of the year. She conceded that this area of South Congaree is a commercial thoroughfare
and that there are several other licensed locations within the immediate vicinity.
9.The Protestants addressed the Court. Mrs. Collins was concerned about the
quality of the neighborhood, which she contended will change with the presence of a retail liquor
store. Ms. Hopkins has run a barber shop in the area for 26 years. She was also concerned about
the amount of traffic in the area, and feels that the area is already adequately served. Mr. Shah
runs a retail liquor store approximately 2 miles away, and also opined that the area is adequately
served. Ms. Corwell and Ms. Strength stated that the area is not as safe as it could be because of
the availability of alcohol, and that another outlet is not needed. They were particularly
concerned about the proximity of the elementary school. Mr. Carroll runs a convenience store six
blocks away that sells groceries and beer and wine. He maintained that the state owes a duty to
protect the existing stores, since the industry is so heavily regulated as to advertising, product
lines, etc. Although the Protestants’ convictions are strong, their arguments do not rise to the
level of adequate grounds to prevent issuance of the license.
10. I find the proposed location to be suitable for a retail liquor license.
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.2002) grants jurisdiction to the Administrative
Law Judge Division to hear contested cases under the Administrative Procedures Act.
Furthermore, S.C. Code Ann. § 61-2-260 (Supp.2002) grants the Division the responsibilities to
determine contested matters governing alcoholic beverages, beer and wine.
2.S.C. Code Ann. §§ 61-6-110 et seq. (Supp.2002) sets forth the requirements for
determining eligibility for a retail liquor license.
3.Although “proper location” is not statutorily defined, broad discretion is vested in
the trier 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). As the trier of fact, the Administrative Law Judge
is authorized to determine the fitness or suitability of the proposed business location for a license
to sell liquor using broad, but not unbridled, discretion. Byers v. South Carolina ABC
Commission, 281 S.C. 566, 316 S.E.2d 705 (Ct. App. 1984). 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 operations 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). Additionally, without sufficient evidence of an adverse impact on the community, the
application must be granted if the statutory criteria are satisfied. The fact that a Protestant objects
to the issuance of a license 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).
5.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, 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). There was no
testimony or other evidence submitted as to the specific adverse impact that the granting of this
particular license would have on the community. There were no concrete facts or incident reports
submitted, only conjecture and concerns by the Protestants.
6.The Petitioner meets the statutory requirements for holding a retail liquor license
at the proposed location.
ORDER
Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the retail liquor license of Petitioner BG’s, LLC, d/b/a
BG’s Package Store of Columbia, Inc. for the location at 679 Main Street, West Columbia, South
Carolina, be granted upon the Petitioner’s payment of the required fees and costs, and upon final
inspection by the State Law Enforcement Division under SC Code Ann. § 61-6-1510 (Supp.
2002).
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________
CAROLYN C. MATTHEWS
Administrative Law Judge
May 28, 2003
Columbia, South Carolina |
