ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
I. Statement of the Case
The South Carolina Department of Revenue (DOR) received from Maureen Byrd (Byrd) an application for an
on-premises beer and wine permit and a mini-bottle license for use at a restaurant to be located at 3201 Broad
Street Extension, Sumter, South Carolina. A protest was filed by Deputy Dominick West (protestant) of the
Sumter County Sheriff's Department.
The hearing in this matter was held July 9, 2001 with jurisdiction vested in the Administrative Law Judge
Division pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§ 61-2-260 (Supp. 2000), 1-23-600(B) and 1-23-310 (Supp. 2000).
Based upon the evidence and the arguments presented by the parties, the beer and wine permit and the mini-bottle license are granted but with restrictions.
II. Beer and Wine Permit
In this matter, not all of the requirements for obtaining a beer and wine permit are disputed. Rather, only one
objection was raised to the beer and wine permit and that was raised by a single protest letter to DOR.
However, the protestant did not appear at the hearing. Thus, no evidence of an improper location was
presented. Further, DOR appeared at the hearing and stated that it had no objection to the location.
Accordingly, there being no proof that the location is improper, the beer and wine permit must be granted.
However, conditions apply as later identified in this order.
III. Mini-bottle License
As with the beer and wine permit, only one objection was raised and that objection was from a single protest
to DOR with the protest asserting the location was not suitable for a mini-bottle license. Schudel v. South
Carolina ABC Comm'n, 276 S.C. 138, 276 S.E.2d 308 (1981) (even if specific statutory distance criteria are
satisfied, a minibottle license is properly granted only if the location is a suitable location). However, the
protestant did not appear at the hearing and no evidence of an improper location was presented. In addition,
DOR appeared at the hearing and stated that it had no objection to the location. Accordingly, there being no
proof that the location is improper, the mini-bottle license cannot be denied due to the location being
improper.
While DOR did not challenge the location, DOR did object to the license on the ground that the location did
not have a Grade A health license. Meeting this element is critical.
A minibottle licensee for a restaurant must operate "a business bona fide engaged primarily and substantially
in the preparation and serving of meals or furnishing of lodging." S.C. Code Ann. Sec. 61-6-1820(1) (Supp.
2000). A threshold requirement for meeting the restaurant category is that the location must hold a Class A
restaurant license. S.C. Code Ann. Sec. 61-6-20(2) (Supp. 2000). In this case, Byrd does not have such a
license. However, she believes that such a license is forth-coming and will be obtained when she finishes
installing the remainder of the kitchen equipment.
Accordingly, the mini-bottle license can be granted only with the conditions identified in this order.
IV. Order
DOR shall grant an on-premises beer and wine permit and a mini-bottle license to Byrd only upon the
following conditions:
1. The beer and wine permit and the mini-bottle license shall be issued for use only at the premises located at
3201 Broad Street Extension, Sumter, South Carolina.
2. The premises located at 3201 Broad Street Extension, Sumter, South Carolina shall be inspected by the
appropriate health and sanitation agency and must receive an "A" rating.
When the above two conditions are met, DOR shall issue the requested beer and wine permit and mini-bottle
license.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED
______________________
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: July 9, 2001
Columbia, South Carolina
| 
