ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter comes before me for a contested case hearing pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-2-260
(Supp. 2000) and S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-310 et seq. (1986 & Supp. 2000). Wilford Underwood, Jr.,
d/b/a Flamingo Restaurant (Petitioner) filed an application for an on-premise beer and wine permit for
the premises located at 122 Millwood Drive, Spartanburg County, South Carolina (location). The
application was objected to by the Spartanburg County Sheriff's Department (Protestant) based upon
the moral character of Petitioner. The South Carolina Department of Revenue (Department) found that
the Petitioner met all the statutory requirements.
A contested case hearing was held on Wednesday, June 13, 2001, at the offices of the Administrative
Law Judge Division (Division), Columbia, South Carolina. The issues considered were the suitability
of the proposed location and the moral character of the Petitioner.
Appearing at the hearing and offering testimony was the Petitioner, as well as Dep. Sheriff John Hudson
of the Spartanburg County, South Carolina Sheriff's Department.
The application request is granted with restrictions.
EXHIBITS
Certified copies of documents forwarded to the Administrative Law Judge Division from the
Department are made a part of the record. No exhibits were placed into the record at the hearing.
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 Petitioner and the Protestant, I
make the following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. The Division has personal and subject matter jurisdiction.
- Notice of the date, time, place and subject matter of the hearing was timely given to the Petitioner
and the Protestant.
- The Petitioner, Wilford Underwood, Jr., seeks an on-premise beer and wine permit for a restaurant
known as "Flamingo Restaurant," located at 122 Millwood Drive, Spartanburg, Spartanburg County,
South Carolina. The permit is to be issued in the name of the Petitioner.
- Petitioner has been operating a restaurant at the location known as "Flamingo Restaurant" for the
last year and two months.
- Petitioner serves fried chicken, hamburgers, fish, shrimp, ribs and other items at his restaurant.
Food will be available to customers during all hours the restaurant is open for business.
- Petitioner was born on August 2, 1944, and is over the age of twenty-one years. He has lived in
Spartanburg County, South Carolina almost all his life. He is a resident and citizen of that county
and has been for the last twenty years.
- Petitioner is single and has owned his own home located at 1650 Union Street, Spartanburg, South
Carolina for more than twenty years.
- Petitioner has been employed for thirty-five to forty years as a mason with various construction
firms in Spartanburg County. For the last four to five years he has been employed as a mason with T
& N Construction Company, Spartanburg, South Carolina.
- Petitioner was raised in the Community Baptist Church of Spartanburg County and has been a
member of that church for the last thirty-five years.
- Petitioner has never held an ABC license or permit in his own name and has never had a license or
permit revoked.
- More than twenty years ago Petitioner was arrested for selling a beer to a person after 12:00
midnight on Saturday (approximately 12:05 a.m. on Sunday), in violation of the ABC laws in this
state. Also, during the year 1992, a warrant was issued for his arrest on charges of assault and
battery and malicious injury to personal property. The charges, however, were dismissed. Petitioner
explained that he was home one evening when a lady created a disturbance outside. After Petitioner
asked her to leave his property, the lady became angry and drove her vehicle against one of
Petitioner's legs, wedging it against a gate. He took the chain from the gate and hit the hood of her
car when she would not back off. He called for police assistance. She left before the officers
arrived. She subsequently took out the warrant. Petitioner, upon learning of the warrant, went to the
magistrate's office. After appearing several times at General Sessions court, he was told by the
Solicitor's office that he did not need to return. The charge apparently was dismissed for lack of
prosecution or for insufficient evidence.
- I find that Mr. Underwood is of good moral character and has not been convicted of a crime for
more than ten years.
- Notice of this application has appeared at least once a week for three consecutive weeks in the
Spartanburg Herald-Journal, a newspaper of general circulation in the local area where the Petitioner
operates his business.
- Notice of the application has been given by displaying a sign for a minimum of fifteen days at the
site of the location.
- The location is in a mixed use area of Spartanburg County, outside the city limits of Spartanburg,
South Carolina. There are several residences and wooded areas in the immediate vicinity of the
location.
- There are no churches, schools, or playgrounds within five hundred feet of the location.
- The location has parking spaces for approximately thirty vehicles.
- Petitioner will be responsible for the daily operations of the business. The restaurant will not be
open on Sundays, Mondays, Tuesdays, or Wednesdays. Petitioner intends to open the business
between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m. on Thursdays and Fridays and between the hours of
5:00 p.m. and midnight on Saturdays.
- Petitioner has several relatives and friends who will assist him in operating the restaurant.
- Petitioner leases the location pursuant to a written lease agreement from Loyd Trent, Jr. for the sum
of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) per month.
- Petitioner does not intend to have live bands at the location. He currently has a juke box and one
pool table.
- There are two pole-mounted security lights and additional lights mounted on each corner of the
building at the location.
- The Spartanburg County Sheriff's Department protested the application. Dep. Sheriff John Hudson
testified at the hearing. He has been with the Sheriff's Department for the last seven-and-one-half
years.
- Deputy Sheriff Hudson stated that the Sheriff's Department has worked hard to "clean up" this area
of drugs and crime and wants to keep it a safe neighborhood for the citizens who live there. He
further testified that there are several locations nearby where fights and shootings occur, as
evidenced by shell casings left on the ground. The Sheriff's Department does not want this location
to become a "problem" too.
- Dep. Sheriff Hudson further testified that he has no record of any incidents at the location since it
has been operated by Petitioner. Dep. Sheriff Hudson spoke of the prior arrest of Petitioner on an
ABC violation.
- I find that the location is suitable for the area, subject to Petitioner signing an agreement with
Respondent to close the restaurant at midnight each evening it is open, to maintain adequate lighting
outside, and to ensure loitering does not occur outside the location.
- Petitioner is reminded that the location is to be operated as a restaurant, not a bar or lounge. It is not
intended that by the granting of this permit there will be excessive usage of beer and/or wine
consumption at this location which will require additional law enforcement than presently is needed
at the restaurant.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude, as a matter of law, the following:
1. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-2-260 (Supp. 2000) and Chapter 23 of Title 1 of the 1976 Code, as
amended, the South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division has jurisdiction in this matter.
- The sale of beer and wine is a lawful enterprise in South Carolina, as regulated by the State.
- S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-520 (Supp. 2000), which sets forth the requirements for the issuance of a
beer and wine permit, provides:
No permit authorizing the sale of beer or wine may be issued unless:
1) The applicant, any partner or co-shareholder of the applicant, and each agent, employee, and servant
of the applicant to be employed on the licensed premises are of good moral character.
2) The retail applicant is a legal resident of the United States, has been a legal resident of this State for
at least thirty days before the date of application, and has maintained his principal place of abode in the
State for at least thirty days before the date of application.
3) The wholesale applicant is a legal resident of the United States and has been a legal resident of this
State for at least thirty days before the date of application and has maintained his principal place of
abode in the State for at least thirty days before the date of application or has been licensed previously
under the laws of this State.
4) The applicant, within two years before the date of application, has not had revoked a beer or a wine
permit issued to him.
5) The applicant is twenty-one years of age or older.
6) The location of the proposed place of business of the applicant is in the opinion of the department a
proper one.
7) The department may consider, among other factors, as indications of unsuitable location, the
proximity to residences, schools, playgrounds, and churches. This item does not apply to locations
licensed before April 21, 1986.
8) Notice of application has appeared at least once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper
most likely to give notice to interested citizens of the county, city, or community in which the applicant
proposes to engage in business. The department must determine which newspapers meet the
requirements of this section based on available circulation figures. However, if a newspaper is
published in the county and historically has been the newspaper where the advertisements are published,
the advertisements published in that newspaper meet the requirements of this section. An applicant for
a beer or wine permit and an alcoholic liquor license may use the same advertisement for both if the
advertisement is approved by the department.
9) Notice has been given by displaying a sign for fifteen days at the site of the proposed business. The
sign must:
(a) state the type of permit sought;
(b) state where an interested person may protest the application;
(c) be in bold type;
(d) cover a space at least eleven inches wide and eight and one-half inches high;
(e) be posted and removed by an agent of the division.
- Petitioner has met the qualifications set forth in S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-520 (Supp. 2000),
concerning his residency and age, as well as the publication and notice requirements.
- The factual determination of whether or not an application is granted or denied is usually the sole
prerogative of the executive agency charged with rendering that decision. Palmer v. S.C. ABC
Comm'n, 282 S.C. 246, 317 S.E.2d 476 (Ct. App. 1984). As the trier of fact, an administrative law
judge is authorized to determine the fitness or suitability of the proposed business location of an
applicant for a permit to sell beer and wine using broad but not unbridled discretion. Ronald F.
Byers v. S.C. 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 witnesses and determine the
relevance and weight of any testimony and evidence offered. In this case, I find that Petitioner is
credible and has been gainfully employed all his working life. The establishment of this restaurant is
a second occupation for Petitioner, which he hopes to operate after his retirement from the masonry
business.
- Although "proper location" is not statutorily defined, broad discretion is vested in the judge in
determining the fitness or suitability of a particular location. Fast Stops, Inc. v. Ingram, 278 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). Any evidence adverse to the
location may be considered. The proximity of a location to a church, school, or residences is a
proper ground by itself, on which the location may be found to be unsuitable and a permit denied.
Byers v. S.C. ABC Comm'n, 305 S.C. 243, 407 S.E.2d 653 (1991). Further, the judge can consider
whether "there have been law enforcement problems in the area." Palmer v. S.C. ABC Comm'n,
282 S.C. 246, 317 S.E.2d 476 (Ct. App. 1984).
- In considering suitability of location, it is relevant to consider previous history of the location and to
determine whether the testimony in opposition of a permit is based on opinions and conclusions or is
supported by facts. Taylor v. Lewis, 261 S.C. 168, 198 S.E.2d 801 (1973). An applicant seeking a
permit or license at a location that has been previously permitted and/or licensed, must still meet the
statutory requirements and the location must be found to be suitable.
- Permits and licenses issued by the State for the sale of liquor, beer, and wine are not rights or
property, but are privileges granted in the exercise of the police power of the State to be used and
enjoyed only so long as the restrictions and conditions governing them are complied with. As the
tribunal authorized to grant the issuance of a permit is also authorized, for cause, to revoke it, that
tribunal is likewise authorized to place restrictions or conditions on the permit or license. See
Feldman v. S.C. Tax Comm'n, 203 S.C. 49, 26 S.E.2d 22 (1943).
- In this case, the testimony of Dep. Sheriff John Hudson about the efforts of the Sheriff's Department
to police this neighborhood and make it safe for its citizens to live in is honorable. It is the
responsibility of the Petitioner to assist in that effort and ensure that his restaurant does not create
problems for law enforcement. I, therefore, conclude that restrictions must be placed on the permit.
- A violation of any of the restrictions or of any regulation or section of the Alcoholic Beverage
Control Act is punishable by revocation or suspension of the permit pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§
61-4-580 and 61-6-1830 (Supp. 2000).
- S.C. Code Ann. § 61-2-160 (Supp. 2000) prohibits the issuance, renewal, or transfer of a permit or
license under Title 61 if the applicant owes state or federal government delinquent taxes, penalties,
or interest. I conclude that none is owed.
- I conclude that the Petitioner has met his burden of proof in showing that he meets all of the
statutory requirements for holding a beer and wine permit at the location. I further conclude that the
proposed location is a proper one for granting the permit, subject to the following restrictions, which
must be stipulated to:
- The Petitioner and/or his employees shall maintain proper lighting on the exterior and outside of the
proposed location to discourage criminal activity. The Petitioner, however, shall insure that the
lights do not reflect or shine upon surrounding residences.
- The Petitioner and/or his employees shall prohibit loitering, littering, and the consumption of beer or
wine by his customers in the parking lot area of the proposed location.
- The Petitioner and/or his employees shall permit parking only in the parking lot at the location. No
parking shall be permitted in the roadway or right of way.
- The hours of business at the location shall be from 7:00 p.m. until midnight on Thursdays and
Fridays and from 5:00 p.m. until midnight on Saturdays.
- Live music will not be permitted at the location. Any other music must be kept to a minimum so as
not to disturb any neighbors.
- Furthermore, S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-370(c) (1986 & Supp. 2000) provides:
No revocation, suspension, annulment, or withdrawal of any license is lawful unless, prior to the
institution of agency proceedings, the agency gave notice by mail to the licensee of facts or conduct
which warrant the intended action, and the licensee was given an opportunity to show compliance with
all lawful requirements for the retention of the license. If the agency finds that public health, safety or
welfare imperatively requires emergency action, and incorporates a finding to that effect in its order,
summary suspension of a license may be ordered pending proceedings for revocation or other action.
These proceedings shall be promptly instituted and determined.
ORDER
Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitioner's application for an on-premise beer and wine permit
for the location at 122 Millwood Drive, Spartanburg County, South Carolina, is granted upon payment
of all fees.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the permit and license shall only be issued by the Department upon
the Petitioner signing a written statement to be filed with the Department to adhere to the restrictions set
forth above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a violation of any of the above restrictions will be considered a
violation against the permit and may result in a fine, suspension, or revocation of the permit.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
MARVIN F. KITTRELL
Chief Administrative Law Judge
June 14, 2001
Columbia, South Carolina |