ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter came before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann §§61-1-55 et seq. (Supp.
1994) and SC Code Ann §§1-23-310 et seq. (Rev. 186 and Supp. 1994) for a hearing pursuant to the
application of Billy B. Callahan, Callahan Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Callahan's Wines and Liquor's
("applicant") for a retail liquor license (AI 101772) at 435 The Parkway, Greer, Greenville County,
S.C. ("location").
A hearing was held on June 13, 1995 at the Administrative Law Judge Division
Offices, Columbia, South Carolina pursuant to a protest letter filed by Richard and Linda Sampere
("protestants"). The issues considered were: 1) the suitability of the proposed location, and 2) the
nature of the proposed business activity.
Notice of the hearing was provided to both parties and the protestants. The South
Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation ("department") did not contest the application request
nor appear at the hearing. Protestants did not appear at the hearing nor were they represented at the
hearing.
The application request of petitioner for a retail liquor license is granted.
FINDINGS OF FACT
After consideration and review of all the evidence and testimony of the applicant, and
having judged his credibility, by a preponderance of the evidence, I make the following findings:
1. This Division has personal and subject matter jurisdiction.
2. Notice of the date, time, place and nature of the hearing was timely given to all parties
and the protestants.
3. The applicant is seeking a retail liquor license for a store located at 435 The Parkway,
Greer, Greenville, County, South Carolina.
4. The applicant is over twenty-one (21) years of age.
5. Notice of the application has appeared at least once a week for three (3) consecutive
weeks in The Greenville News, a newspaper of general circulation in the local area where the
applicant proposes to engage in business.
6. The applicant, within two (2) years before the date of application, has not had a beer
and wine permit revoked nor within five (5) years before the date of application, has had a liquor
license revoked which has been issued to him.
7. The applicant is a legal resident and has been a legal resident of the United States and
South Carolina for at least thirty (30) days before the date of application and has maintained his
principal place of abode in South Carolina for at least thirty (30) days before the date of application.
8. The applicant is of good moral character and repute.
9. Notice of the application has been given by displaying a sign for a minimum of fifteen
(15) days at the site of the proposed location.
10. There are no schools, playgrounds or churches within close proximity to the proposed
location.
11. The location is in a commercial/residential area.
12. No protestants were at the hearing.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude as a matter of law, the following:
1. The South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division is empowered to hear this case
pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-1-55 (Supp. 1994) and Chapter 23 of Title 1 of the 1976 Code of
Laws, as amended.
2. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-3-420 (Supp. 1994) provides that no person is eligible for a
license under this Chapter, Chapter 7 and Article 3 of Chapter 13, if he or the person who will have
actual control and management of the business proposed to be operated:
(1) is less than twenty-one years of age:
(2) is not a legal resident of the United States and has not been a resident of South Carolina
for at least thirty days before the date of application and has maintained his principal abode
in South Carolina for at least thirty days before the date;
(3) is not of good repute; or
(4) has had a license under this or another statute regulating the manufacture or sale of
alcoholic liquors which has been revoked within the period of five years next proceeding the
filing of the applications.
3. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-3-440 (Supp. 1994) prohibits the issuance of any liquor license
provided for in Chapter 3, 7 and Article 3 of Chapter 13, if the place of business is within three
hundred feet (300') of any church, school or playground situated within a municipality or within five
hundred feet (500') of any church, school or playground situated outside of a municipality. Such
distances shall be computed by following the shortest route of
ordinary pedestrian or vehicular travel along the public thoroughfare from the nearest point of the
grounds in use as part of such church, school, or playground, which, as used herein, shall be defined
as follows:
(1) "Church," an establishment, other than a private dwelling, where religious services are
usually conducted;
(2) "School," an establishment, other than a private dwelling, where usual processes of
education are usually conducted; and
(3) "Playground," a place, other than grounds at a private dwelling, which is provided by the
public or members of a community for recreation.
4. No churches, schools or playgrounds are within the prescribed proximity to render the
proposed location unsuitable.
5. An administrative law judge has the sole and exclusive power to grant, issue, suspend
and revoke retail liquor dealer's licenses in protested and contested cases pursuant to S.C. Code Ann.
§ 61-3-410 (Supp. 1994).
6. A liquor license may be denied if, in the opinion of the fact finder, the applicant is not
a suitable person to be licensed. Wall v. S.C. ABC Commission, 269 S.C. 13, 235 S.E. 2d 806
(1977).
7. A permit may not be issued under S.C. Code Ann. § 61-3-730 (Supp. 1994) if the
applicant is not a suitable person to be licensed; the place of business is not a suitable place; or a
sufficient number of licenses have already been issued in the state, municipality or community.
8. 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 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. There has been no showing that the present location is unsuitable, is not a fit location,
that it would increase stress in terms of the residents' safety, create traffic problems, or that a
sufficient number of licenses had already been issued in its locale.
10. S.C. Ann. § 61-3-425 (Supp. 1994) prohibits the issuance of a license under Title 61
until the applicant presents to the department a signed statement both from the Department and the
Internal Revenue Service showing the applicant doesn't owe the state or federal government
delinquent taxes, penalties or interest.
11. It is concluded that the applicant meets all of the statutory requirements for holding
a retail liquor license and accordingly, I conclude that the proposed location is a proper one for
granting the retail liquor license.
ORDER
Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the application of Billy B. Callahan, Callahan Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Callahan
Wines and Liquors for a retail liquor license at 435 The Parkway, Greer, Greenville County, South
Carolina be granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Department of Revenue and Taxation issue the license
for a retail liquor license upon payment of the required fees by the applicant.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_____________________________________
Marvin F. Kittrell
Chief Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
June 22, 1995 |
