ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-1-55 (Supp. 1994) and
S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-310, et seq. (Supp. 1994) for a hearing pursuant to the application of
Patricia Brown. The applicant seeks an on-premises and off-premises beer and wine permit (AI
102185) for a convenience store located at 2133 Ousleydale Road, within the City of Hartsville,
County of Darlington, South Carolina.
After timely notice to the parties and the protestant, a hearing was held at the
Administrative Law Judge Division in Columbia, South Carolina. The protestant of record
appeared, Chief Deputy Robin Bryan. The protestant did not move to intervene as a party. The
issues considered at the hearing were: (1) the applicant's eligibility to hold a beer and wine
permit; (2) the suitability of the proposed business location; and, (3) the nature of the proposed
business activity. The on-premises and off-premises beer and wine permit for 2133 Ousleydale
Road, Hartsville, South Carolina is hereby granted.
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 and off-premises beer and wine permit for a
convenience store located at 2133 Ousleydale Road, within the City of Hartsville, County of
Darlington, South Carolina.
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 and the protestant.
3. The proposed location is situated in a rural community with no church, school, or
playground within close proximity. The proposed location and business activity are proper and
suitable.
4. The proposed location is leased to the applicant by Ernest L. Gibson, Jr. 5. The applicant is of good moral character and will manage and operate the
convenience store.
6. The applicant intends to operate the proposed location during the hours of 9:00
a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
7. 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 and off-premises beer and wine permit.
8. The applicant has not had a beer and wine permit or alcoholic beverage license
revoked within two (2) years of the date of her application.
9. Notice of the application appeared in The Hartsville Newspaper, 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. 1994) 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. 1994) establishes the criteria for the issuance
of a beer and wine permit.
3. Although "proper location" is not statutorily defined, broad discretion is vested in
the Administrative Law Judge Division in determining the fitness or suitability of a particular
location. Fast Stops, Inc. v. Ingram, 276 S.C. 593, 281 S.E.2d 181 (1981).
4. In determining whether a proposed location is suitable, it is proper for this tribunal
to consider any evidence that shows adverse circumstances of location. Smith v. Pratt, 258 S.C.
504, 189 S.E.2d 301 (1972); Palmer v. South Carolina ABC Comm'n, 282 S.C. 246, 317 S.E.2d
476 (Ct. App. 1984); See also Moore v. South Carolina ABC Comm'n, 308 S.C. 167, 417 S.E.2d
557 (1991). No evidence was presented to show that the issuance of an on-premises and off-premises beer and wine permit to the applicant for her convenience store would have an adverse
impact on the community or impose a strain on local law enforcement.
5. 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 operations 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.2d 335 (1985); Schudel v. S.C. ABC Commission, 276 S.C. 138,
276 S.E.2d 308 (1981).
6. The proposed location and business activity are suitable and proper.
7. The applicant satisfies all of the statutory requirements for holding an on-premises
and off-premises beer and wine permit.
ORDER
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the on-premises and off-premises beer and wine permit for a
convenience store located at 2133 Ousleydale Road, within the City of Hartsville, County of
Darlington, South Carolina is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Department of Revenue and Taxation issue an
on-premises and off-premises beer and wine permit upon the payment of the required fee(s) and
cost(s) by the applicant.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
Edgar A. Brown Building
1205 Pendleton Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
May 26, 1995 |
