ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
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) upon filing of an application by Shunika D. Brown, d/b/a Spotlight Social Club
("Petitioner") as a non-profit organization for an on-premises beer and wine permit and a sale and
consumption ("mini-bottle") license for a location at 6013 Augusta Road, Greenville, South Carolina.
Because it received a written protest to the application, the Department denied Petitioner's application.
After Petitioner appealed the Department's denial, the Department transmitted the case to the
Administrative Law Judge Division ("ALJD") for a hearing. After timely notice to the parties and the
Protestants, a contested case hearing was held on July 17, 2002, at the ALJD in Columbia, South Carolina.
Shunika Brown testified in support of Petitioner's application. Mr. Hammond, the sole Protestant, failed to
appear at the hearing. Upon review of the relevant and probative evidence and applicable law, the
application for an on-premise beer and wine permit and sale and consumption license are 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:
- Notice of the time, date and place of the hearing was given to the Petitioner, Protestants, and the
Department. (1)
- The Petitioner seeks an on-premises beer and wine permit and sale and consumption ("mini-bottle")
license for the Spotlight Social Club, 6013 Augusta Road, in Greenville, South Carolina
("proposed location" or "Club"). The proposed location is situated on a major thoroughfare
running through the city of Greenville.
- The applicant meets all the statutory requirements for holding an on-premises beer and wine
permit and a sale and consumption license as a bona fide non-profit organization.
- But for the written protest of Frank Hammond, Jr., the Department would have granted the permit
and license.
- The evidence fails to establish that granting the permit and license to Petitioner for this location
in these circumstances will have an overall adverse impact on the community. If that change
occurs after the Petitioner receives the permit and license, the proposed location would no longer
be suitable, and the Department could properly bring an action to revoke the Petitioner's permit
and license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the Findings of Fact, I conclude as a matter of law, the following:
- Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-2-260 (Supp. 2001), S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(B) (Supp. 2001) and S.C. Code
Ann. § 1-23-310 et seq. (Supp. 2001) the South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division has jurisdiction
in this matter.
- S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-520 (Supp. 2001), which sets forth the requirements for the issuance of a beer and
wine permit, provides, in relevant part:
No permit authorizing the sale of beer or wine may be issued unless: 1)The applicant, any partner of 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. ***
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.
***
- S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-520 provides that the Department may issue an mini-bottle license upon finding:
1)The applicant is a bona fide nonprofit organization... ,
2)The applicant, if an individual, is of good moral character, or, if a corporation or association, has a
reputation for peace and good order in its community, and its principals are of good moral character. ***
S.C. Code Ann. § 61-6-1820 (1) & (2) (Supp. 2001).
- The applicant has met its burden of demonstrating the statutory compliance of its application.
5. As the Protestant abandoned his protest by failing to appear at the hearing, the issue of whether the
location is suitable is not before me. Consequently, I conclude that Petitioner has met its burden of proof
in showing that it meets all of the statutory requirements for holding an on-premises beer and wine permit
and mini-bottle license at the proposed location.
ORDER
Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's application for an on-premises beer and wine permit and for a
sale and consumption ("mini-bottle") license for the proposed location, known as Spotlight Social Club,
located at 6013 Augusta Road, Greenville, South Carolina, is granted upon payment of all fees and
statutory requirements;
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________________________
C. DUKES SCOTT
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
July 17, 2002
Columbia, South Carolina
1. After convening the hearing, the undersigned asked if the Protestant was present. No one responded. Thereafter, the
undersigned recessed for fifteen minutes to allow the Protestant to arrive. The undersigned then reconvened the hearing.
Mr. Hammond failed to appear. Consequently, Mr. Hammond is deemed to have abandoned his protest. |
