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.
(1986 & Supp. 2001) for a contested case hearing. Petitioner ADR Hospitality Group, Inc., seeks an off-premises beer and
wine permit for its "Lucky Corner" convenience store located at 200 East Roosevelt Street, Anderson, South Carolina. The
Department of Revenue (Department) would have granted the permit but for the protest of Pastor Phillip Sears on behalf of
the First Assembly of God regarding the suitability of the store's location. Accordingly, the Department was excused from
the hearing of this matter. After notice to the parties and the protestant, a hearing was held on September 3, 2002, at the
Administrative Law Judge Division in Columbia, South Carolina. Based upon the evidence presented regarding the
suitability of the proposed location and the applicable law, Petitioner's application for an 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 submitted an application for an off-premises beer and wine permit to the Department on April 19, 2002, for
the premises located at 200 East Roosevelt Street, Anderson, South Carolina. This application is incorporated by reference
into the record.
2. The proposed location is situated along a two-lane road directly across the street and approximately eighty-nine feet from
the church buildings of the First Assembly of God. The church also operates the South Anderson Christian Academy and
Daycare which is located approximately 275 feet away from the proposed location. Several residences are also within 500
feet of the proposed location. The location has been operated as a convenience store and licensed for the sale of beer and
wine since at least 1983.
3. Ramesh Patel, the sole shareholder and owner of Petitioner ADR Hospitality Group, is over twenty-one years of age, is
of good moral character, and has no record of any criminal convictions.
4. Petitioner ADR Hospitality Group has been authorized by the South Carolina Secretary of State to conduct business in
South Carolina since 1999.
5. Petitioner has never been cited for any violations of the alcoholic beverage control laws and has not had a beer and wine
permit or alcoholic beverage license suspended or revoked.
6. Notice of the application for an off-premises beer and wine permit appeared in The (Williamston, SC) Journal newspaper
once a week for three consecutive weeks, and proper notice of the application was posted at the proposed location for
fifteen days.
7. Petitioner operates the location between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and between 7:00 a.m.
and 11:00 p.m., Friday and Saturday. The store is closed on Sunday.
8. Since acquiring the store in April 2002, Petitioner has expended nearly $20,000 to improve the store aesthetically, on
both the interior and exterior.
9. Protestant Pastor Phillip Sears of the First Assembly of God opposed Petitioner's application for an off-premises beer
and wine permit primarily because of the proximity of the location to his church and the daycare it operates.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law:
1. Jurisdiction over this case is vested with the Administrative Law Judge Division pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-2-260
(Supp. 2001) and S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310 et seq. (1986 & Supp. 2001).
2. "[T]he issuance or granting of a license to sell beer or alcoholic beverages rests in the sound discretion of the body or
official to whom the duty of issuing it is committed[.]" Palmer v. S.C. Alcoholic Beverage Control Comm'n, 282 S.C. 246,
248, 317 S.E.2d 476, 477 (Ct. App. 1984).
3. 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. See id. § 61-4-520(6).
4. Although "suitable location" is not statutorily defined, broad discretion is vested in the trier of fact to determine the
fitness or suitability of a particular location for the requested permit. See Fast Stops, Inc. v. Ingram, 276 S.C. 593, 281
S.E.2d 118 (1981).
5. The determination of suitability of location is not necessarily a function solely of geography. Rather, it involves an
infinite variety of considerations related to the nature and operation of the proposed business and its impact on the
community in which it is to be located. Kearney v. Allen, 287 S.C. 324, 338 S.E.2d 335 (1985); Schudel v. S.C. Alcoholic
Beverage Control Comm'n, 276 S.C. 138, 276 S.E.2d 308 (1981).
6. However, without sufficient evidence of an adverse impact on the community, a permit 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 C.J.S. Intoxicating Liquors § 119 (1981).
7. Here, 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, and there has not been a sufficient evidentiary showing that the proposed location is
unsuitable for Petitioner's business or that the issuance of the permit would create problems in or have an adverse impact
on the surrounding community. Moreover, the introduction of the sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption at
Petitioner's convenience store will not significantly change the nature or character of Petitioner's operations. This location
has been operated as a convenience store with a beer and wine permit for nearly twenty years, and during that time it has
harmoniously coexisted with the nearby residences and the surrounding community in general. A convenience store selling
beer and wine for off-premises consumption simply does not engender the sorts of problems associated with establishments
that allow patrons to congregate and consume beer and wine on their premises, with the attendant merrymaking and
potential disturbance to neighbors common to such gatherings. Furthermore, while the proximity of residences, schools,
playgrounds, and churches to a 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). Because the proposed
location has been licensed for the off-premises sale of beer and wine since 1983, its proximity to the buildings of the First
Assembly of God does not render the location unsuitable for the permit in question.
ORDER
Based upon the above 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 the location at 200 East Roosevelt Street, Anderson, South Carolina.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
Post Office Box 11667
Columbia, South Carolina 29211-1667
September 5, 2002
Columbia, South Carolina |