ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter comes before this tribunal 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. Petitioners Elverst and Julia Sanders seek a retail liquor
license for the relocation of their S&S Package Shop to 4856 Legion Road, Blackville, South Carolina. The South Carolina
Department of Revenue (Department) would have granted the permit upon completion of a satisfactory final inspection of
the building but for the protest of Ms. Lillie Bradley 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, (1) a hearing was held
on October 1, 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, Petitioners' application for a retail
liquor license is hereby granted.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having carefully considered all testimony, exhibits, 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. Petitioners submitted an application for a retail liquor license to the Department on June 5, 2002, for the premises
located at 4856 Legion Road, Blackville, South Carolina. The application is incorporated into the record by reference. The
proposed location is situated within the city limits of Blackville, South Carolina, on Legion Road, immediately off of
Solomon Blatt Boulevard, a major highway and thoroughfare in the area.
2. Petitioners currently hold a retail liquor license (#32008279-9) for a store located approximately fifty feet from the
proposed location at 4840 Legion Road. Petitioners have held that license and operated a liquor store at that location since
1993. Petitioners intend to transfer their business from its current location in a building they merely lease to a newly
constructed building, which they own, at the proposed location.
3. Petitioners are over twenty-one years of age, are citizens of the United States, and have resided and maintained their
principal place of abode in South Carolina for at least thirty days prior to making their application for a retail liquor license.
4. Petitioners are persons of good moral character. The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) completed a
criminal background investigation of Petitioners that revealed no criminal violations, and the record does not indicate that
Petitioners have engaged in acts or conduct implying the absence of good moral character.
5. Petitioners have not had a permit to sell beer and wine or a license to sell alcoholic liquors revoked within the five years
preceding the filing of their application.
6. The proposed place of business is not located within 300 feet of any church, school, or playground. However, there are
several residences within close proximity to the location, including that of Ms. Singletary.
7. No other member of the Petitioners' household has been issued a retail liquor license. Further, Petitioners have not been
issued more than three retail liquor licenses, nor do they, their relatives, or any partnership, association, or corporation in
which they are involved have an interest, financial or otherwise, in more than three retail liquor stores.
8. Notice of Petitioners' application was published in The People Sentinel, a weekly newspaper published and circulated in
Barnwell County, for three consecutive weeks, and proper notice of the application was posted at the proposed location for
fifteen days.
9. Lillie Bradley filed a protest against Petitioners' application because of the criminal activity, including drug-related
crimes, and other disturbances, including the use of profanity and indecent exposure, that pervade the area in which the
proposed location is situated. However, Ms. Bradley did not attribute the crime problem in the area to the operation of
Petitioners' current liquor store, nor did she offer any testimony to suggest that the operation of Petitioners' store has
exacerbated the crime problem in the area. Ms. Bradley's testimony was focused on problems in the area in general, rather
than on any problems related to Petitioners' business. Further, Ms. Bradley testified that the completion of the fencing
around the proposed location would provide an appropriate barrier between the location and the nearby residences.
10. Helen Singletary protests the application because of the proximity of the proposed location to her home, which is
situated on the lot immediately adjacent to the proposed location and which is approximately 171 feet from the location,
measured door-to-door along the public thoroughfare.
11. While the proposed location is in close proximity to a few residences, Petitioners' business has operated in a location
only fifty feet away for nearly ten years in harmonious coexistence with the nearby residents and without evidence of an
adverse impact on the community. Given this history of coexistence, the relocation of Petitioners' liquor store by some
fifty feet will not have the sort of impact on the surrounding residences that the introduction of a new retail liquor outlet
would have.
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. §§ 61-6-110 and 61-6-120 (Supp. 2001) establish the criteria for determining eligibility for a retail liquor
license. Additional requirements are set forth in S.C. Code Ann. §§ 61-6-130 to 61-6-190 (Supp. 2001). Further, S.C.
Code Ann. § 61-6-910(2) (Supp. 2001) provides that an application for a license to sell alcoholic liquors must be denied if
"the store or place of business to be occupied by the applicant is not a suitable place."
4. Although "suitable place" 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 license. 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 solely a function 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 within 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 license 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, Petitioners meet all of the statutory criteria enacted by the South Carolina General Assembly for the issuance of a
retail liquor license, and there has not been a sufficient evidentiary showing that the proposed location is unsuitable for
Petitioners' business or that the issuance of the license would create problems in or have an adverse impact upon the
surrounding community. Petitioners have operated their business, without incident, for nearly ten years at a location only
fifty feet away from the proposed location, and there has been no evidence to suggest that the relocation of the business will
significantly change the relationship between Petitioners' business and the surrounding community. This tribunal
acknowledges the protestants' right to protest the license in question and respects their opposition to the issuance of the
license. However, this tribunal is constrained by the record presented and the applicable law, and, on that basis, must grant
Petitioners' application.
ORDER
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated above,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Department of Revenue continue to process Petitioners' application for a retail
liquor license for 4856 Legion Road, Blackville, South Carolina.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as a condition of licensure, Petitioners install fencing around the perimeter of their
establishment to provide a barrier between the store and the surrounding residences.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
Post Office Box 11667
Columbia, South Carolina 29211-1667
October 14, 2002
Columbia, South Carolina
1. A nearby property owner, Ms. Helen Singletary, while not an official protestant of record, was also permitted to offer
testimony at the hearing regarding her concerns about the suitability of the proposed location. |