ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter comes before the South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division pursuant to S.C. Code
Ann. §§ 1-23-600 (Supp. 2000) following the Petitioner's request for a contested case hearing. The
Respondent denied the Petitioner's application for an on-premises beer and wine permit because of
public protests by concerned citizens concerning the suitability of the location. (1)
The Department filed a Motion to be Excused, stating that the proposed location met all the statutory
requirements for an off-premises beer and wine permit and it would have granted the license but for the
public protests of the concerned citizens. The Court did not grant this Motion.
A hearing was held in this matter on May 31, 2001 at the South Carolina Administrative Law Judge
Division, located at 1205 Pendleton Street, Suite 224, Columbia, South Carolina. Notice of the time,
date, place, location, and hearing was timely sent to all parties, as well as the Protestant.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having observed the testimony of the witnesses and exhibits presented at the hearing and closely passed
upon their credibility, I make the following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of the evidence:
- The Petitioner seeks an on-premises beer and wine permit for an establishment known as the
Independent Club, located at 511 Ron McNair Boulevard, Lake City, in Florence County, South
Carolina.
- The Petitioner was born on February 14, 1962, and was 39 years of age at the time of the hearing.
- Notice of the application has appeared at least once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in the
Lake City News & Post, a newspaper of general circulation in the area where the Petitioner proposes
to engage in business. The notice appeared on September 27, October 4, and October 11, 2000.
- Notice of the application was given by displaying a sign for a minimum of fifteen (15) days at the
site of the proposed location.
- The Petitioner has been a legal resident of the State of South Carolina for over thirty (30) days prior
to the application and has maintained his principal place of abode in the State of South Carolina for
over thirty (30) days prior to the application.
- The Petitioner has never had a beer or wine permit or any other alcoholic beverage license/permit
issued revoked. This location has been previously permitted for the sale of alcoholic beverages.
- The Petitioner is of good moral character.
- The business hours of the proposed location will be Monday through Saturdy, 10:00 a.m. to 12:00
p.m.
- No church, school, or playground is located within five hundred (500) feet of the proposed location.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law:
- The South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division has jurisdiction over this matter
pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-2-260 (Supp. 2000).
- The factual determination of whether or not an application is granted or denied is usually the
sole prerogative of the agency charged with rendering that decision. Palmer v. South Carolina
ABC Comm'n, 282 S.C. 246, 317 S.E.2d 476 (Ct. App. 1984).
- The applicant has complied with all the provisions of S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-250 regarding
application conditions. The only remaining issue is the suitability of the location pursuant to
S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-520(7).
- Although "proper location" is not statutorily defined, broad discretion is vested in the trier of
fact to determine the fitness or suitability of the proposed business location of an applicant
who is seeking a retail liquor license. Fast Stops, Inc., v. Ingram, 276 S.C. 593, 281 S.E.2d
119 (1981); Ronald F. Byers v. South Carolina ABC Comm'n, 281 S.C. 566, 316 S.E.2d 705
(Ct. App. 1984).
- It is also the fact finder's responsibility to judge the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses
and determine the relevance and weight of any testimony offered.
- 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 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). Any evidence adverse to the location may be
considered. Byers v. South Carolina ABC Comm'n, 305 S.C. 243, 407 S.E.2d 653 (1991).
Further, the Judge may consider whether there have been law enforcement problems in the
area. Palmer v. South Carolina ABC Comm'n, 282 S.C. 246, 317 S.E.2d 476 (Ct. App.
1984). Also, the Judge may consider the proximity or the absence of other licensed locations
in the immediate vicinity, as well as the existence of small children in the area.
- In considering the suitability of a location, it is relevant to consider the previous history of the
proposed location and to determine whether the testimony in opposition to a permit consists of
opinions and conclusions or is supported by facts. Taylor v. Lewis, 261 S.C. 168, 198 S.E.2d
801 (1973). In this case, there were nine incidents within the past four years. These
incidents, however, all occurred under different management.
- 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 is not a sufficient reason alone to deny the application. 48 C.J.S.
Intoxicating Liquors § 119 (1981).
- Permits and licenses issued by the State are not rights or property, but are rather privileges
granted in the exercise of the police power of the State. See Feldman v. South Carolina Tax
Comm'n, 201 S.C. 49, 26 S.E.2d 22 (1943).
- I find that this location and the operator are suitable for the on-premises sale of beer and wine.
ORDER
Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:
ORDRED that the Petitioner's application for an on-premises beer and wine permit is GRANTED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
CAROLYN C. MATTHEWS
Administrative Law Judge
June 4, 2001
Columbia, South Carolina
1. The Protestant in this matter was Chief David Haines of the Lake City Police Department. Chief
Haines cited as reasons behind the protest various incidents that have occurred at the location in the
past, when the location was under different management. |