South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
Harmon B. Sprott, III, d/b/a In & Out Express vs. SCDOR

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Revenue

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
Harmon B. Sprott, III, d/b/a In & Out Express

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Revenue
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
95-ALJ-17-0075-CC

APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner: Pro Se

For the Protestant/Reverend Dennis Jeffcoat: Pro Se

For the Respondent: No Appearance
 

ORDERS:

ORDER AND DECISION

STATEMENT OF THE CASE


This matter comes before the Administrative Law Judge Division pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§61-1-55, et seq. (Supp. 1993) and S. C. Code Ann. §§1-23-310 et seq. (1986 and Supp. 1993) for a contested case hearing. The Applicant, Harmon B. Sprott, III, seeks an off-premise beer and wine permit for the In & Out Express. A hearing was held on March 30, 1995, at the office of Administrative Law Judge Division, 1205 Pendleton Street, Columbia, South Carolina.

The Permit requested by the Applicant is approved with restrictions.



FINDINGS OF FACT


Having observed the witnesses and exhibits presented at the hearing and closely passed upon their credibility, taking into consideration the burden of persuasion by the Parties or Protestants, I make the following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of evidence:

1. The court has subject matter jurisdiction of this case.

2. The Applicant seeks an off-premise beer and wine permit for the In & Out Express at 488 West Boyce Street, Manning, South Carolina.

3. Notice of the time, date, place and subject matter of the hearing was given to the Applicant, Protestants, and South Carolina Department of Revenue.

4. The qualifications set forth in S. C. Code Ann. §61-9-320 (Supp. 1993) concerning the residency and age of the Applicant are properly established. Furthermore, the Applicant has not had a permit or license revoked within the last two years and notice of the application was lawfully posted both at the location and in a newspaper of general circulation.

5. The Applicant is of sufficient moral character to receive a beer and wine permit.

6. The Protestant complained that the location was unsuitable for the following reasons:

a. Students pass by the proposed location on the way to high school, which is approximately three-tenths of a mile away.

b. The proposed location is within walking distance of the church and the church has, in the past, had intoxicated people walk in off the street into the church.

c. The proposed location has a car wash annexed to the facility. People who buy the beer or wine from the premises may simply go over to the car wash area out of the sight of the manager of the proposed location and consume the beverage unnoticed. Such action on behalf of the patrons of the proposed location may lead to fighting and distribution of beer and wine to minors.

7. The Applicant's business is located in a commercial area of Manning, South Carolina. In fact, commercial businesses are on three sides of his proposed location. The Applicant's business abuts a four-lane road which is a main thoroughfare for Manning, South Carolina, Additionally, a two-lane paved street separates the church located 410 feet away from the proposed location.







8. A Food Lion grocery store, located in a shopping mall directly across the street from both the church and the proposed location, has an off-premise beer and wine permit. That Food Lion is approximately 400 to 500 feet from both the proposed location and the church.

9. The proposed location is suitable for an off-premise beer and wine permit with the restrictions set forth below concerning advertisement and consumption on-premise.



CONCLUSIONS OF LAW


Based upon the above Findings of Fact, I conclude as a matter of law the following:

1. Section 1-23-600 S.C. Code Ann. (Supp. 1993) grants jurisdiction to the Administrative Law Judge Division to hear contested cases under the Administrative Procedures Act.

2. Section 61-1-55 S.C. Code Ann. (Supp. 1993) grants to the Administrative Law Judge Division the powers, duties and responsibilities as hearing officer in protested and contested matters governing alcoholic beverages, beer and wine.

3. Section 61-9-320 S.C. Code Ann. (Supp. 1993) sets forth the requirements for the issuance of an off-premise beer and wine permit.

4. As trier of fact, an Administrative Law Judge is authorized to determine the fitness or suitability of the proposed location of an applicant for a permit or license to sell alcohol, beer or wine using broad but not unbridled discretion. Byers v. S. C. ABC Commission, 316 S.E. 2d 705 (S.C. App. 1984).

5. The determination of suitability of a location is not necessarily a function 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 located. Kearney v. Allen, 287 S.C. 324, 338 S.E. 2d 335 (1985).

6. Section 61-9-340 S.C. Code (Supp. 1993) provides that upon determination that the applicant meets the criteria for the issuance of a permit or license, and has not misstated or concealed a fact in the application, the South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation must issue the permit after payment of the prescribed fee.

7. Permits and licenses issued by the state for sale of liquor, beer and wine are not rights or property but are, rather, privileges granted in the exercise of the state's police power to be used and enjoyed only so long as the restrictions and conditions governing them are complied with. The Administrative Law Judge, as the tribunal authorized to grant the issuance of a permit, may likewise place restrictions or conditions on the permit or license. See, Feldman v. S.C. Tax Commission, 203 S.C. 49, 26 S.E.2d 22 (1943). Furthermore, 23 S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 7-88 (1976) authorizing the imposition of restrictions to permits, provides:

Any stipulation 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 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.

8. I conclude that the applicant meets all the statutory requirements for holding a beer and wine permit at the proposed location. Accordingly, I conclude that the proposed location is a proper one for granting the above permit with the following restrictions in the form of a written stipulation.







ORDER


Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:

ORDERED that the application of Harmon B. Sprott, III for an off-premise beer and wine permit for the In & Out Express at 488 West Boyce Street, Manning, South Carolina, be granted upon the Applicant signing a written Agreement with the South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation to adhere to the stipulations which are set forth below:

1. That the Applicant and his employees shall prohibit loitering and the consumption of beer or wine by his patrons/customers in the parking lot and exterior area of the proposed location. This shall specifically include the car wash located on his premises. The Applicant shall post both in the In and Out Express and the car wash area that the consumption of beer and wine on the premises in strictly prohibited. The Applicant shall further make every effort to have his employees check the car wash area to ensure that no one is drinking in that area. This prohibition shall be strictly enforced.

2. The applicant shall have no exterior advertisements or advertisements which are visible from the outside of his store advertising beer, wine or any alcoholic beverage.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a violation of any of the above restrictions is considered a violation against the permit and license and may result in a fine, suspension or revocation.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Department of Revenue and Taxation issue an off-premise beer and wine permit upon the payment of the required fee and cost by the Applicant.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.





_________________________________

Ralph King Anderson, III

Administrative Law Judge

April 20, 1995

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court