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. 2001), § 61-6-910 (Supp. 2000), and §§ 1-23-310 et seq. (1986 and Supp. 2001) for a contested case hearing.
The Petitioner, William J. Blair, d/b/a Blair's ABC Store, seeks a retail liquor license. The Department of Revenue
(Department) made a Motion to be Excused stating that but for the protests it received, this license would have been
granted. This motion was granted. A hearing was held on this matter on March 18, 2002, at the offices of the Division in
Columbia, South Carolina. Without objection, the Department of Revenue's file was made part of the record in this matter
at the hearing.
The Protestant, The Honorable Elaine O. Harris, Mayor of the Town of Pacolet, testified 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 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, William J. Blair, d/b/a/ Blair's ABC Store, is seeking a retail liquor license. The proposed location is
located at 471 N. Hwy. 150, Pacolet, South Carolina.
3. The qualifications set forth in S. C. Code Ann. § 61-6-110 (Supp. 2001) concerning the age, residency, and reputation
of the Petitioner and/or licensee are properly established. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not had a license for the sale of
alcoholic liquors revoked within the last five years and notice of the application was lawfully posted both at the location
and in a newspaper of general circulation.
4. The licensee has no criminal record and is of sufficient moral character to receive a retail liquor license.
5. There was no evidence that the proposed location is within three hundred feet of any church, school or playground.
6. No other member of the Petitioner'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 he have an interest, financial or otherwise, in more than
three retail liquor stores.
7. Mayor Harris stated that the community did not want a liquor store and that she objected to the store on moral
grounds. She had with her a petition containing the signature of 293 citizens of the area who did not want the liquor store.
She stated that she understood that there may
not be a legal reason for denying the license.
8. 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. 2001) 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. 2001) grants the Division
the responsibilities to determine contested matters governing alcoholic beverages, beer and wine.
2. S.C. Code Ann. §§ 61-6-110 et seq. (Supp. 2001) 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 not be
denied 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 the license would have on the community.
The objections were on moral grounds and that a liquor store might encourage others to consume alcohol.
6. The Petitioner meets the statutory requirements for holding a retail liquor license at the proposed location.
ORDER
Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the retail liquor license of Petitioner William J. Blair, d/b/a Blair's ABC Store, 471 N.
Hwy. 150, Pacolet, SC be granted upon the Petitioner's payment of the required fees and costs.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________
C. Dukes Scott
Administrative Law Judge
March 19, 2002
Columbia, South Carolina |
