ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
This matter came before the Administrative Law Judge Division (Division) pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-520 (Supp. 1999) and
S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310, et seq. (1986 and Supp. 1999) for a contested case hearing. The Petitioner applied for an on-premise
beer and wine permit for an establishment named Dream Makers, located at 571 Mingo Street, Orangeburg, South Carolina. Several
Protestants signed letters protesting the issuance of this permit. They were mailed the Hearing Notice via regular U.S. mail on May
22, 2000, along with the "Administrative Memorandum to Individuals Protesting a License or Permit," a memorandum apprising the
Protestants of their rights in these matters. However, none of the fourteen Protestants appeared at the hearing. The South Carolina
Department of Revenue (Department) filed a Motion to be Excused setting forth that but for the protests of the Protestants this permit
would have been issued. This motion was granted by my Order dated May 22, 2000. A hearing on this matter was held on August 1,
2000, at the offices of the Administrative Law Judge Division in Columbia, South Carolina. At the commencement of the hearing, the
Petitioner, Clay Rine Whaley, took the stand and testified as to her fitness to hold an on-premise beer and wine permit for Dream
Makers.
The qualifications set forth in S. C. Code Ann. §§ 61-4-520 and 61-6-1820 (Supp. 1999) concerning the residency and age of the
Petitioner are properly established. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not had a permit or license revoked within the last two years.
Notice of the application was lawfully posted both at the location and in a newspaper of general circulation.
The Petitioner has no criminal record and is of sufficient moral character to receive a beer and wine permit. Additionally, the proposed
location is not unreasonably close to any church, school or playground.
Even though the Department of Revenue received protests to the issuance of this permit, the Protestants must be present at the
hearing in order to express their concerns so that their position(s) will be a part of the record of the case. Furthermore, a Protestant is
not considered a party of record to the contested case. Byers v. S.C. Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission, 316 S.E. 2d 705 (S.C.
App. 1984). To have full participation rights at the hearing, including the right to cross examine witnesses, to receive a copy of the
Administrative Law Judge's order, and to appeal an adverse decision, a Protestant must request to be admitted as a party. See Scybala
v. S.C. Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission, 346 S.E. 2d 530 (S.C. App. 1986). As set forth above, the Protestants in this matter
were informed of their rights in the memorandum mailed to them on May 22, 2000. The Protestants in this case did not move to be
admitted as parties and therefore cannot prevail in this matter in absentia.
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Department of Revenue issue an on-premise beer and wine permit to the Petitioner in this
matter for Dream Makers.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________
Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
August 31, 2000
Columbia, South Carolina |
