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, off-premises beer and wine permit, and business sale and
consumption (minibottle) license for Route 1, Box 1296, Summerton, South Carolina. A hearing
was held on November 10, 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 the beer and wine permits and minibottle
license are hereby granted.
FINDINGS OF FACT
By a preponderance of the evidence, I find:
(1) Applicant seeks an on-premises and off-premises beer and wine permits and business
sale and consumption license for a location at Route 1, Box 1296, Summerton, South Carolina,
having filed applications with the South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation
(hereinafter referred to as "DOR"), AI #99425 and AI #99426, on July 25, 1994.
(2) Notice of the time, date, place, and subject matter of the hearing was given to the
applicant, protestants, and DOR.
(3) The DOR file was made a part of this record by reference by consent of the parties
and protestants.
(4) Applicant is operating the proposed location as a restaurant, store, and marina with a
substantial portion of the business dedicated to the preparation and service of meals.
(5) The proposed location is a one-hundred-thirty-year-old historic building moved to the
location, renovated and restored by Applicant for the primary purpose of being utilized as an
upscale restaurant and marina to serve the resort community.
(6) The proposed location has been open and operating without selling beer, wine, or
liquor since approximately September 3, 1994.
(7) The inside dining seating capacity for the proposed location is forty persons.
(8) The proposed location is situated on a 4.5 acre tract on Potatoe (sic) Creek on the
shore of Lake Marion, in rural Clarendon County on Highway 260, 2.5 miles from the dead end of
that road.
(9) The proposed location currently has sixty-two wet boat slips at its marina and is
approved to have a total of three hundred twenty (320) slips.
(10) The immediate area surrounding the proposed location is rural in nature, with a
mixed resort and permanent residential community in close proximity.
(11) In close proximity to the proposed location, are log cabins being constructed for
resort purposes, a golf course, a wildlife refuge, and facilities for "eco-tourism" such as canoeing,
bicycling, fishing, and bird watching.
(12) The intended hours of bar operation of the proposed location are 11:00 a.m. -
10:00 p.m., Tuesday through Saturday. The store intends to sell beer and wine for off-premises
consumption beginning at 8:00 a.m.
(13) The proposed location is zoned for commercial use Santee Cooper, owner of all
lakefront property on Lake Marion.
(14) Nearby residents Betty Jo Hill and Marilyn Green, while opposed to the granting of
the license/permits, have noticed no problems with the proposed location since its opening in
September.
(15) 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.
(16) Applicant has not had a permit/license revoked in the last five years.
(17) Applicant is of good moral character.
(18) 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) No churches, schools, or playgrounds are in close proximity to the proposed location.
(8) The proposed location is suitable and proper for the issuance of the license and
permits sought, in light of the nature of the rural and resort atmosphere of the surrounding area,
the relatively minimal impact upon the nearby residential community, and the overall marina and
restaurant business of the location.
(9) 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, an off-premises beer and wine permit, and a business sale and consumption
minibottle license upon payment of any prerequisite fees and bond.
______________________________________
STEPHEN P. BATES
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
November 23, 1994
Columbia, South Carolina |
