ORDERS:
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter comes before the Adminstrative Law Judge Division (ALJD) pursuant to S.C Code Ann. § 61-2-260 (Supp. 1999), S.C.
Code Ann. § 1-23-310 (Supp. 1999) and S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600 (Supp. 1999) for a contested case hearing. Petitioner applied for
an on-premises beer and wine permit and a nonprofit private club minibottle license for an establishment located at 911 Highway 178,
Pelion, South Carolina. The South Carolina Department of Revenue (Department ) denied Petitioner's application because of public
protest by a concerned citizen, Mr. Samuel Wayne King, concerning the suitability of the proposed location. After timely notice to
the parties and protestants, a hearing was held at the Administrative Law Judge Division in Columbia, South Carolina on October 12,
2000. At the hearing, Mr. King made a Motion to Intervene which was granted.
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
In the Agency Transmittal that was filed with the ALJD on July 6, 2000, the Department stated that it was denying the Petitioner's
application because of public protest by Mr. King. Furthermore, the Department stated that but for these questions being raised by the
Protestant over the suitability of the location, the Department would have issued the license and permit. In the Department's letter of
June 20, 2000, the only reason given to the Petitioner for the denial of the license and permit was the public protest. Furthermore, the
South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) submitted a special investigation report to the Department of Revenue on April 3,
2000 which indicated that The Hunt Club was fully in compliance with 23 S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 7-17 (1976 & Supp. 1999). This
report was forwarded to the ALJD by the Department. Also, the Department filed a Motion to be Excused from even participating in
this proceeding. This Motion was denied. At the opening of the hearing on this matter, Mr. Sipe, attorney for the Department,
reiterated that but for the public protest concerning the suitability of the location, the Department would have issued the license and
permit.
However, after Mr. Sipe heard the testimony of Mr. Randy Spires, the President of The Hunt Club, Inc., Mr. Sipe changed the
Department's position. Mr. Sipe stated that based on Mr. Spires' testimony, The Hunt Club does not meet the requirements set forth
under 23 S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 7-17 (1976 & Supp. 1999). Therefore, Mr. Sipe requested that the ALJD deny the license and permit
applications.
Since the Petitioner had no notice of the Department's substantial change of position, I find that this case should be returned to the
Department of Revenue so that it can review its findings and make any appropriate modifications. Due to the return of this matter
for the reasons stated above, the issue of the suitability of the location does not need to be addressed at this time.
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case be returned to the South Carolina Department of Revenue.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_____________________________________
C. Dukes Scott
Administrative Law Judge
November 15, 2000
Columbia, South Carolina |
