ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-2-260 (Supp. 2001) and S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310, et
seq. (Supp. 2001) for a hearing on the application of Petitioner Y & S Easy Stop, Inc., d/b/a Easy Stop (Petitioner).
Petitioner seeks an off-premises beer and wine permit for a convenience store located at 527 Clearwater Road, Belvedere,
South Carolina.
After notice to the parties and the Protestant, a hearing was held on March 20, 2002, at the Administrative Law Judge
Division in Columbia, South Carolina. The Protestant did not appear at the hearing.
The application for the off-premises beer and wine permit is hereby granted.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having carefully considered all testimony and arguments presented at the hearing of this matter, and taking into account the
credibility and accuracy of the evidence, I make the following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. Petitioner seeks an off-premises beer and wine permit for a convenience store located at 527 Clearwater
Road, Belvedere, South Carolina.
2. This location has previously been licensed with a beer and wine permit.
3. Petitioner is of good moral character. The State Law Enforcement Division completed a criminal
background investigation of Petitioner. The SLED report revealed no criminal violations, and the record before this
tribunal does not indicate that Petitioner has engaged in acts or conduct that imply the absence of good moral character.
4. Petitioner is at least twenty-one years of age, a U.S. citizen, and a citizen of the State of South Carolina.
Furthermore, Petitioner has maintained her principal residence in the State for at least thirty days prior to the date of
making application for an off-premises beer and wine permit.
5. Petitioner has not had a beer and wine permit or alcoholic beverage license revoked within two years of the
date of his application.
6. Notice of the application appeared in a newspaper of general circulation in the area of the proposed location,
once a week for three consecutive weeks, and notice was posted at the proposed location for fifteen days.
7. The proposed location is approximately 537 feet away from the Church of Christ.
8. Evangelist Ken Chumbley, the Protestant, opposes the sale of beer and wine at this location due to the
proximity to the Church. In his letter of Protest, Mr. Chumbly stated that the property is within 500 feet of the Church
property.
9. The Department does not oppose Petitioner's application and would have issued the permit but for the
protest.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISCUSSION
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude, as a matter of law, the following:
1. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-2-260 (Supp. 2001) and Chapter 23 of Title 1 of the 1976 Code, as amended, authorize
the South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division to hear this case.
2. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-520 (Supp. 2001) establishes the criteria for the issuance of a beer and wine permit.
Included in the criteria is the requirement that the proposed location be a suitable one.
3. Although "proper location" is not statutorily defined, broad discretion is vested in the Division to determine
the fitness or suitability of a particular location. See Fast Stops, Inc. v. Ingram, 276 S.C. 593, 281 S.E.2d 118 (1981).
4. 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 he may not exercise unbridled
discretion. See Byers v. South Carolina ABC Comm'n, 281 S.C. 566, 316 S.E.2d 705 (Ct. App. 1984).
5. The determination of the suitability of a location is not necessarily a function of geography alone. It
involves an infinite variety of considerations related to the nature and operations 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); Schudel v. South
Carolina ABC Comm'n, 276 S.C. 138, 276 S.E.2d 308 (1981).
6. In this case, there is insufficient evidence to show that the proposed location is unsuitable or that the
issuance of an off-premises beer and wine permit would create problems, or have an adverse impact on the community.
This location has previously operated as a convenience store under a beer and wine permit without any negative impact on
the community. Furthermore, while the proximity of residences, schools, playgrounds and churches to the proposed
location may be considered in the determination of suitability, such factors do not apply to locations licensed before April
21, 1986. See S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-520(7) (Supp. 2001).
7. 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 the issuance of a permit or license is protested is not a sufficient reason by
itself to deny the application. See 48 Am. Jur. 2d Intoxicating Liquors § 162 (Supp. 1994); 48 C.J.S. Intoxicating Liquors §
119 (1981).
8. Petitioner meets all of the statutory criteria enacted by the South Carolina General Assembly for the issuance
of an off-premises beer and wine permit. In making a decision in this matter, this tribunal is constrained by the record
before it and the applicable statutory and case law. See 48 C.J.S. Intoxicating Liquors §§ 118, 119, 121 (1981).
ORDER
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Department of Revenue shall continue processing Petitioner's application for an off-premises beer and wine permit for 527 Clearwater Rd., Belvedere, SC.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
C. DUKES SCOTT
Administrative Law Judge
March 20, 2002
Columbia, South Carolina |
