ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter comes before the Administrative Law Judge Division (Division) pursuant to S.C.
Code Ann. §§ 61-6-100 et seq. (Supp. 2002), § 61-6-910 (Supp. 2002), and §§ 1-23-310 et seq.
(1986 and Supp. 2002) for a contested case hearing. The Petitioner, Dorothy M. Glover, d/b/a 521
South Liquor Store, seeks a retail liquor license. The Respondent stipulated that the applicant and
the location meet the statutory requirements for granting the license, and that the only issue is the
suitability of the location as raised by the protest. The Protestant has raised concerns about the
suitability of the location in light of the number of beer and wine permits and retail liquor licenses in
the area, and the ability of the Sheriff’s Office to adequately police the area. A hearing was held on
this matter on June 26, 2003, at the offices of the Division in Columbia, South Carolina. Proper notice
was given to the Parties and the Protestant, and they were present as indicated above.
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 parties and the Protestant,
I make the following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of evidence:
1.Notice of the time, date, place and subject matter of the hearing was given to the
Petitioner, the Respondent, and the Protestant.
2.The Petitioner, Dorothy M. Glover, d/b/a 521 South Liquor Store, is seeking a retail
liquor license. The proposed location is located at 35 B Horatio Hagood Road, Rembert, South
Carolina.
3.The qualifications set forth in S. C. Code Ann. § 61-6-110 (Supp. 2002) concerning
the age, residency, and reputation of Ms. Glover are properly established by stipulation. Furthermore,
Ms. Glover has not had a license for the sale of alcoholic liquors revoked within the last five years.
Notice of the application was lawfully posted both at the location and published in a newspaper of
general circulation, as required by § 61-6-180.
4.Ms. Glover has no criminal record and is of sufficient moral character to receive a
retail liquor license. She currently has an off premises beer and wine permit for the Rembert
Convenience Store with an entrance around the corner from this proposed location. The convenience
store and retail liquor store would be in the same physical building, but with separate entrances.
5.There was no evidence that the proposed location is within three hundred feet of any
church, school or playground, as provided in § 61-6-120 (A).
6.No other member of Ms. Glover’s household has been issued a retail liquor store
license. Additionally, the Petitioner has not been issued more than three retail liquor licenses, nor
does she have an interest, financial or otherwise, in more than three retail liquor stores.
7.Ms. Glover testified that the proposed location had adequate parking with sufficient
lighting. Furthermore, Ms. Glover stated that there had not been problems with loitering or litter at
the convenience store. Her employees go outside every half hour or hour and circle the building to
discourage loitering. Ms. Glover has attended the We Care program in Columbia, and has used those
tactics to train her employees in checking identification to prevent underage drinking.
9.The Protestant addressed the Court. Chief Dennis is concerned about the inability
to adequately police the area, the amount of traffic in the area, and feels that the area is already
adequately served. He stated that most of the crime in Rembert is related to drugs or alcohol and that
an additional outlet will strain the Sheriff’s Department’s resources. He admitted, however, that there
is a Sheriff’s substation directly across the street from the proposed location, and that highway 521,
which runs along the side of the building is a major thoroughfare and is well traveled. In addition,
he stated that there have been no calls for assistance concerning Ms. Glover’s convenience store.
Two other citizens were allowed to address the Court. Mr. James Barry Stanley had filed a
protest with the Department that was determined to be untimely. He stated that he is concerned
about the manpower at the Sheriff’s office and the strain that an additional alcohol outlet could have.
In addition, he stated that there is a basketball court nearby and that the children may have to enter
the Petitioner’s parking lot to retrieve the ball. Jamie Kendall also testified as a representative of
McLeod Chapel Baptist Church. He is concerned about the incidences of alcoholism in the area and
the moral issues surrounding the availability of alcohol. Although the Protestant’s and the other
witnesses’ convictions are strong, their arguments do not rise to the level of adequate grounds to
prevent issuance of the license.
10. I find the proposed location to be suitable for a retail liquor license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the above Findings of Fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law:
1.S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600 (Supp. 2002) grants jurisdiction to the Administrative
Law Judge Division to hear contested cases under the Administrative Procedures Act. Furthermore,
S.C. Code Ann. § 61-2-260 (Supp. 2002) grants the Division the responsibility to determine
contested matters governing alcoholic beverages, beer and wine.
2.S.C. Code Ann. §§ 61-6-110 et seq. (Supp. 2002) sets forth the requirements for
determining eligibility for a retail liquor license.
3.Although “proper location” is not statutorily defined, broad discretion is vested in the
trier 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). As the trier of fact, the Administrative Law Judge is
authorized to determine the fitness or suitability of the proposed business location for a license to sell
liquor using broad, but not unbridled, discretion. Byers v. South Carolina ABC Commission, 281
S.C. 566, 316 S.E.2d 705 (Ct. App. 1984). 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 operations of the proposed business and its impact upon the community within which
it is to be located. Kearney v. Allen, 287 S.C. 324, 338 S.E.2d 335 (1985). Additionally, without
sufficient evidence of an adverse impact on the community, the application must be granted if the
statutory criteria are satisfied. The fact that a Protestant objects to the issuance of a 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).
5.In considering the suitability of a location, it is relevant to consider whether the
testimony in opposition to the granting of a license is based on opinions, generalities and conclusions,
or whether the case is supported by facts. Smith v. Pratt, 258 S.C. 504, 189 S.E. 2d 301, (1972);
Taylor v. Lewis, et al. , 261 S.C. 168, 198 S.E. 2d 801 (1973). There was no testimony or other
evidence submitted as to the specific adverse impact that the granting of this particular license would
have on the community. There were no concrete facts or incident reports submitted, only potential
concerns by the Protestants.
6.The Petitioner meets the statutory requirements for holding a retail liquor license at
the proposed location. I find her to be highly credible and experienced with the requirements of
selling alcohol.
ORDER
Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the retail liquor license of Petitioner Dorothy M. Glover,
d/b/a 521 South Liquor Store of Columbia, Inc. for the location at 35 B Horatio Hagood Road,
Rembert, South Carolina, be granted upon the Petitioner’s payment of the required fees and costs,
and upon final inspection by the State Law Enforcement Division under SC Code Ann. § 61-6-1510
(Supp. 2002).
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________
CAROLYN C. MATTHEWS
Administrative Law Judge
August 5, 2003
Columbia, South Carolina |
