ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
This matter came before the Administrative Law Judge Division
on the application of Lawrence Singleton to renew the on-premises
beer and wine permit for a convenience store located on Highway 17
North in McClellanville, South Carolina. The hearing was held
after notice on June 2, 1994 at 10:30 a.m. One of the protestants,
Mr. Clement Vanderhorst, could not appear at the hearing because of
his work schedule. Counsel for the applicant agreed to allow Mr.
Vanderhorst to submit in writing the specific reasons for his
protest which were responded to by the applicant. No other
protestants appeared at the hearing. The file maintained by the
Department of Revenue and Taxation was made a part of the record in
this case without objection. Based upon a preponderance of the
testimony and evidence presented, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicant, Lawrence Singleton, is over the age of 21
and is resident of South Carolina. He has never been convicted of
a crime and is a person of good moral character. He suffers with
health problems and depends on the business to provide income for
him and his family.
2. He currently holds an on-premises beer and wine permit
for Link Convenience Store located on Highway 17 North in
McClellanville, South Carolina and is seeking to renew that permit.
The building has operated with some type of alcoholic beverage
license for many years and has been a commercial establishment for
over fifty years. The business has been operated by the applicant
for seven years and there has been no previous protest when the
permit was renewed.
3. Mr. Vanderhorst who is protesting the renewal moved into
the area and built his house two years ago. The Church located in
the vicinity did not protest the renewal before this year. There
have been no citations issued for violating any laws relating to
the sale of beer and wine.
4. The business sells food items, has a pool table and
jukebox, and sells beer and wine. It is open 6:00 p.m. until 10:00
p.m. during the week. On Saturday, the store closes at 11:30 p.m.
and it is not open on Sunday. The applicant is the sole employee
of the store.
5. There is a parking lot outside of the store which can
accommodate approximately 100 cars. The location has not been the
subject of frequent visits by the Charleston County Sheriff
Department. There is no loitering on the premises and the
applicant tries to monitor outside activity for noise or other
disturbances.
6. Local residents that live adjacent to the property or in
close proximity have no complaints about the location. All
witnesses indicated that the applicant was a good neighbor and his
establishment was well-run.
7. Late in May 1994, the applicant discovered a bullet hole
in one of his windows which he indicated was done one night after
the location was closed because there had not been any shooting at
his location. A police report verifies that a call was made to
report the bullet hole at approximately 6:13 p.m. shortly after
opening on May 27, 1994. The report supports the applicant's view
that the incident happened the previous night after the location
was closed.
8. Other complaints submitted by Mr. Vanderhorst include
problems with parking and noise. On at least two occasions during
late December 1993, Mr. Vanderhorst made complaints about people
parking on his property or in front of his driveway blocking it.
Mr. Vanderhorst indicates that he is concerned for the safety of
his family because he is frequently away from his home at night
while he is working for the fire department. Based upon the hours
of operation of the store as testified to by Mr. Singleton, there
should not be any problems with noise, people loitering, and
parking problems late at night. The parking lot for the
establishment is suppose to accommodate 100 vehicles. A picture
submitted by Mr. Vanderhorst showing the building support the
testimony.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Administrative Law Judge Division is vested with the
powers, duties and responsibilities exercised by the former
Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission and hearing officers pursuant
to Chapter 23 of Title 1. S.C. Code of Laws § 61-1-55 (Supp.
1993).
2. S.C. Code § 61-9-320 (Supp. 1993) provides the statutory
requirements for this issuance of beer and wine permits. It sets
forth eight criteria before a permit is issued. To renew a permit
issued by the Department, the applicant must met the same criteria.
The applicant is entitled to renew the permit absent evidence to
show a sufficient change in the business to warrant refusal. The
evidence produced in this case does not show by a preponderance of
the evidence that there are sufficient changes in the operation of
the business to warrant refusing to renew the permit.
3. The proposed place of business is a proper one. Although
the church submitted a protest letter, it did so after the deadline
specified by the Department. In addition, the church received
notice of the hearing and failed to appear to present its reasons
for protesting. The protest is deemed abandoned. The remaining
reasons for the protest submitted by Mr. Vanderhorst have been
adequately addressed in this Order and are without merit. The
location previously was licensed by the Department for an on-premises beer and wine permit. The establishment has not had any
problems with the local law enforcement agency.
ORDER
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the
applicant is entitled to an on-premises beer and wine permit. It is
ORDERED that the Department of Revenue and Taxation issue to
the applicant, Lawrence Singleton an on-premises beer and wine
permit upon the payment of the appropriate fees.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________
ALISON RENEE LEE
Administrative Law Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
July __, 1994 |
