ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-1-55 (Supp. 1993) and
S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310, et seq. (Rev. 1986 & Supp. 1993) upon an application for an on-premises beer and wine permit and business sale and consumption minibottle license for 210
Highway 90 East, Little River, South Carolina. A hearing was held on September 7, 1994. The
issues considered were: (1) the applicant's eligibility to hold a license/permit; (2) the suitability of
the proposed business location; and (3) the nature of the proposed business activity. The
applications for a beer and wine permit and minibottle license are hereby granted.
FINDINGS OF FACT
By a preponderance of the evidence, I find:
(1) Applicant seeks an on-premises beer and wine permit and minibottle license for a
location at 210 Highway 90 East, Little River, South Carolina, having filed applications with the
South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation (hereinafter referred to as "DOR"),
AI #98856 and AI #998857, on May 23, 1994.
(2) Notice of the time, date, place, and subject matter of the hearing was given to the
applicant, protestants, and DOR.
(3) Without objection, Applicant was represented by her father-in-law, Gus
Speros.
(4) The DOR file was made a part of this record by reference by consent of the parties
and protestants.
(5) Applicant plans to operate the business as a restaurant with a substantial portion of
the business dedicated to the preparation and service of meals.
(6) The proposed location is at the intersection of Highway 9 and Highway 17 North
with Highway 90 East in northeastern Horry County.
(7) The immediate area surrounding the proposed location is commercial in nature, with a
residential community situated behind the proposed location, off of Highway 90 East.
(8) George T. Samaha, a resident of the neighborhood behind the proposed location,
appeared at the hearing with his family and testified in protest to the applications, citing traffic and
parking problems, the proximity of residences, and the unsuitability of the proposed business
activity and location as reasons for denial of the applications.
(9) The neighborhood is secluded and through traffic in the neighborhood is minimal, as
the area is surrounded by natural boundaries such as Highway 90, Highway 9, and the Intercoastal
Waterway.
(10) Applicant and her husband, who will manage the restaurant, have previously held
A.B.C. licenses in North Carolina without incident or violation.
(11) No churches, schools, or playgrounds are within close proximity to the proposed
location.
(12) The proposed location is zoned for commercial use by Horry County.
(13) The potential traffic and parking problems suggested by protestants are speculative
and lack a concrete basis. There is no evidence to suggest that the granting of the licenses
would increase traffic or create additional safety hazards within the residential community.
(14) Applicant is over twenty-one years of age, is a citizen of the State of South Carolina,
and has maintained her principal residence in South Carolina for more than one year.
(15) Applicant has not had a permit/license revoked in the last five years.
(16) Applicant is of good moral character.
(17) Notice of the application appeared in a newspaper of general circulation in the area
of the proposed location for three consecutive weeks and was posted at the proposed location for
fifteen days.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude as a matter of law the following:
(1) S.C. Code Ann. § 61-1-55 (Supp. 1993) provides that the South Carolina
Administrative Law Judge Division is empowered to hear this case pursuant to Chapter 23 of
Title I of the 1976 Code, as amended.
(2) S.C. Code Ann. § 61-9-320 (Supp. 1993) provides the criteria to be met by an
applicant for a beer and wine permit in South Carolina.
(3) S.C. Code Ann. §§ 61-5-50 and 61-3-440 (Supp. 1993) set forth the requirements for
a minibottle license.
(4) A permit or license must not be issued if an applicant does not meet the standards of
S.C. Code Ann. § 61-3-730 (Supp. 1993).
(5) 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 not unbridled discretion. Ronald F. Byers v. S.C. ABC Commission, 316 S.E.2d
705 (S.C. App. 1984).
(6) The determination of suitability of a location is not necessarily a function solely of
geography. 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. 335 (1985).
(7) The proposed location is suitable and proper, in lieu of the commercial nature of the
surrounding area and its relatively minimal impact upon the nearby residential community.
(8) Applicant meets the statutory requirements for issuance of a beer and wine permit and
business sale and consumption minibottle license.
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that DOR issue to Applicant an on-premises beer and
wine permit and business sale and consumption license upon payment of the prescribed fee and
bond.
______________________________________
STEPHEN P. BATES
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
September 20, 1994
Columbia, South Carolina |
