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. (Supp. 1993) for a hearing pursuant to the application of
Germaine B. Golden. The applicant seeks an on-premises beer and wine permit (AI 99321) for a
social club located at 86-B Pine Street, county of Georgetown, South Carolina. Initially, the
applicant also applied for a sale and consumption license for the proposed location, however, this
application was withdrawn prior to the hearing.
After timely notice to the parties and the protestant, a hearing was held at the
Administrative Law Judge Division in Columbia, South Carolina. Sheriff A. Lane Cribb of the
Georgetown County Sheriff's Department, the protestant of record, failed to appear at the
hearing, thereby, waiving his protest. Nonetheless, testimony was requested and received in this
matter and the application for an on-premises beer and wine permit is hereby granted, with
restrictions.
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. The applicant seeks an on-premises beer and wine permit for a social club located
within the county of Georgetown at 86-B Pine Street.
2. The South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation 's ("DOR") file was
made a part of the record by reference with the consent of the petitioner.
3. The proposed location was previously licensed under the name of Ora Bell Golden,
the applicant's mother. Ora Bell Golden held a beer and wine permit at this location from
approximately 1978-1993, during which time she was cited for eleven violations consisting of:
possession of liquor on a premise permitted to sell beer and wine only and selling beer and wine
during restricted hours. Consequently, Ora Bell Golden was either fined or her permit was
suspended for each of these violations.
4. The proposed location is owned by the applicant and Ora Bell Golden.
5. The applicant testified that Ora Bell Golden's only involvement with Mayo's
Wishing Well would be as an employee. The applicant also testified that Ora Bell Golden would
not be involved in the management or day-to-day operation of the business.
6. No church, school, or playground is within close proximity to the proposed
location.
7. The applicant is of good moral character.
8. The applicant will operate and manage the social club.
9. The applicant is at least 21 years of age, a U.S. citizen, a citizen of the State of
South Carolina, and has maintained her principal residence in the state for at least thirty (30) days
prior to the date of making application for an on-premises beer and wine permit.
10. The applicant has never held a beer and wine permit or other license for the sale or
consumption of alcoholic beverages.
11. Notice of the application appeared in The Georgetown Times, a newspaper of
general circulation in the area of the proposed location, for three (3) consecutive weeks and
notice was posted at the proposed location for fifteen (15) 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) authorizes the South Carolina
Administrative Law Judge Division 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) establishes the criteria for the issuance
of a beer and wine permit.
3. 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 , 281
S.C. 566, 316 S.E.2d 705 (Ct. App. 1984).
4. There has been no evidentiary showing that the present location is unsuitable or
that the issuance of an on-premises beer and wine permit would have an adverse impact on the
surrounding community.
5. The proposed location is proper for the issuance of an on-premises beer and wine
permit.
6. The applicant satisfies all of the statutory requirements for holding an on-premises
beer and wine permit.
7. S. C. Code Ann. § 61-9-320 (Supp. 1993) states that no permit authorizing the
sale of beer and wine may be issued unless ". . . [t]he applicant, any partner or co-shareholder of
the applicant, and each agent, employee and servant of the applicant to be employed on the
licensed premises, are of good moral character."
8. Permits and licenses issued by the State for the sale of liquor, beer, and wine are
not rights or property, but are privileges granted in the exercise of the police power of the State
to be used and enjoyed only so long as the restrictions and conditions governing them are
complied with. As the tribunal authorized to grant the issuance of a permit is also authorized, for
cause, to revoke it, that tribunal is likewise authorized to place restrictions or conditions on the
permit or license. See Feldman v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 203 S.C. 49, 26 S.E.2d 22
(1943).
9. 23 S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 7-88 (1976), authorizing the imposition of restrictions to
permits, provides:
Any stipulations and/or agreement which is voluntarily entered into by an
applicant in writing for a beer and wine permit between the applicant and the
South Carolina Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission, if accepted by the
Commission, will be incorporated into the basic requirements for the enjoyment
and privilege of obtaining and retaining the beer and wine permit and which shall
have the same effect as any and all laws and any and all other regulations
pertaining to the effective administration of beer and wine permits and permittees.
In the event that evidence is presented to this Commission that any part of
the stipulation or agreement is or has been knowingly broken by the permittee will
be a violation against the permit and shall constitute sufficient grounds to suspend
or revoke said beer and wine permit.
STIPULATION(S)
1. The applicant agrees, as a condition to the issuance of an on-premises beer and
wine permit, that the hours of operation of the proposed location shall not be extended beyond
12:00 a.m.
ORDER
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the application of Germaine B. Golden for an on-premises beer and wine
permit for a location at 86-B Pine Street, county of Georgetown, South Carolina, be granted upon
the applicant signing a written agreement to be filed with DOR to adhere to the following
restrictions:
1. The applicant's mother, Ora Bell Golden, may not participate in the management
or day-to-day operation of Mayo's Wishing Well or serve as an employee or agent of the applicant
to be employed in any capacity, paid or otherwise, as it relates to the permitted premises.
2. The applicant's hours of operation may not extend beyond 12:00 a.m. That is, the
applicant shall not open for business beyond 12:00 a.m.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a violation of any of the above restrictions is
considered a violation against the permit and may result in a fine, suspension, or revocation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Department of Revenue and Taxation issue an
on-premises beer and wine permit upon payment of the required fee(s) and cost(s) by the
applicant.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
March 31, 1995 |
