ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-2-260 (Supp. 2000), S.C. Code Ann. §
1-23-310 (Supp. 2000) and S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600 (Supp. 2000) for a contested case hearing. The
Petitioner, Ralph C. Varnadore, Jr, d/b/a The County Line Party Shop and Varnadore's Package Store, seeks
an off-premise beer and wine permit and a retail liquor license for an establishment located at 16079 State
Highway 200, Great Falls, Fairfield County, South Carolina 29055.
The South Carolina Department of Revenue (Department) filed a Motion to be Excused, stating that the
Department would have granted the permit but for the protests of the application. This Motion was granted
by Order dated January 10, 2001.
After timely notice to the parties and protestant, a hearing was held at the Administrative Law Judge
Division (ALJD) in Columbia, South Carolina on March 8, 2001. The Protestant, Reverend Mike Sollers,
called the ALJD on the morning of March 8, 2001 and stated that he was unable to attend the hearing
because he had surgery the previous week.
At the hearing, the undersigned administrative law judge, sua sponte, and with the consent of the Petitioner,
amended the above caption to reflect the correct name of Petitioner's party shop.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having carefully considered the testimony and the arguments, and taking into account the credibility of the
evidence, I find the following by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. Notice of the time, date, place, and subject matter of the hearing was given to all the parties in a
timely manner.
2. The Petitioner, Ralph C. Varnadore, Jr., d/b/a The County Line Party Shop and Varnadore's Package
Store, seeks an off-premise beer and wine permit and a retail liquor license for an establishment located at
16079 State Highway 200, Great Falls, Fairfield County, South Carolina 29055.
3. The Petitioner plans the days and hours of operation for The County Line Party Shop and
Varnadore's Package Store to be Monday through Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
4. The Petitioner has sufficient lighting on the outside of the building and he has a large parking area.
5. Although Reverend Mike Sollers was unable to attend the hearing, the undersigned administrative
law judge read his protest into the record. Reverend Sollers objects to the issuance of this permit and license
because the Great Falls community is rural, residential and not business oriented. Also, there are three retail
liquor stores in the Great Falls area.
6. The qualifications set forth in S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-520 (Supp. 2000) and S.C. Code Ann. § 61-
6-110 (Supp 2000) concerning the residency and age of the applicant are properly established. Furthermore,
the Petitioner has not had a permit or license revoked within the last five years. Notice of the application
was lawfully posted both at the location and in a newspaper of general circulation.
7. The Petitioner is of sufficient moral character to receive a beer and wine permit and a retail liquor license.
8. The Petitioner's business is not located within 500 feet of any church, school, or playground.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude, as a matter of law, the following:
1. The South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division has subject matter jurisdiction to hear and to
determine this contested case pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600 (Supp. 2000) and S.C. Code Ann. §
61-2-260 (Supp. 2000).
2. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-520 (Supp. 2000) sets forth the requirements for the issuance of an off-premise
beer and wine permit.
3. S.C. Code Ann. §§ 61-6-110 and 61-6-120 (Supp. 2000) establish the criteria for determining eligibility
for a retail liquor license. Additional requirements are set forth in S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-130 to § 61-6-190
(Supp. 2000).
4. Although "proper location" is not statutorily defined, broad discretion is vested in the Administrative
Law Judge Division as the finder 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). The determination of suitability of a 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 on the community within which it is to be
located. Kearney v. Allen, 287 S.C. 324, 338 S.E.2d 335 (1985); Schudel v. South Carolina ABC Comm'n,
276 S.C. 138, 276 S.E.2d 308 (1981).
5. 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 or
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).
In this case, the Protestant did not present sufficient evidence concerning possible detrimental effects to the
community. If the businesses at this location are operated properly, there will be no negative impact upon
the community.
6. I conclude that the Petitioner's burden of proof has been met by virtue of meeting all of the statutory
requirements for the off-premise beer and wine permit and the retail liquor license at the proposed locations.
I further find that the locations are suitable for the permit and license.
ORDER
Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the application of Ralph C. Varnadore, d/b/a The County Line Party Shop and Varnadore's
Package Store for an off-premise beer and wine permit and a retail liquor license be granted and the South
Carolina Department of Revenue shall issue the permit and license upon payment of the required fees and
costs by the Petitioner.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________________________ C. Dukes Scott
Administrative Law Judge
March 14, 2001
Columbia, South Carolina |
