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:
Garris E. Hardy, d/b/a Paxville Stop & Go vs. SCDOR

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Revenue

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
Garris E. Hardy, d/b/a Paxville Stop & Go

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Revenue
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
95-ALJ-17-0341-CC

APPEARANCES:
Garris E. Hardy, (pro se) Petitioner

Rev. Eugene T. Mosier, (pro se) Protestant
 

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. (1986 & Supp. 1994) upon applications for a retail liquor license and an off-premises beer and wine permit filed with the South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation (hereinafter referred to as "DOR") by Garris E. Hardy. A hearing was held on July 13, 1995. The issues in controversy were: (1) the suitability of the proposed business location and (2) the nature of the proposed business activity. The permit and license are granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

By a preponderance of the evidence, I find:

(1) Petitioner filed an application for an on-premises beer and wine permit for a location at Route 1, Box 556 A, Manning, South Carolina, having filed an application with DOR,

AI #102267.

(2) At the hearing, without objection, Petitioner amended his filing to an application for an off-premises beer and wine permit.

(3) Petitioner seeks a retail liquor license for a location at Route 1, Box 556 B, Manning, South Carolina, having filed an application with DOR, AI #102268.



(4) The two above-referenced proposed locations, Route 1, Box 556 A and Box 556 B, Manning, South Carolina, are separate but adjacent businesses which occupy the same building in adjoining stores.

(5) Notice of the time, date, place, and subject matter of the hearing was given to the applicant, protestants, and DOR.

(6) Petitioner is currently operating the proposed location at Route 1, Box 556 A, Manning, South Carolina, as a convenience store.

(7) The proposed locations have been previously licensed to sell beer and wine and liquor by former owners and managers for most of the past fifteen years.

(8) One of the previous owners/licensees is Clarence Wheeler, Sr., Petitioner's father-in-law.

(9) The proposed locations operated without violation or incident when previously licensed.

(10) Petitioner also owns and operates an on-premises beer and wine licensed location in Manning.

(11) There are two other licensed locations within .4 miles of the proposed location, including one across the street from the proposed location.

(12) The proposed location is in unincorporated Clarendon County, in the community of Paxville, a rural area with some residential and commercial dwellings in the vicinity.

(13) There are no churches, schools, or playgrounds within 500 feet of the proposed locations.

(14) Petitioner's application is opposed by Rev. Eugene T. Mosier and Mr. Ray Thigpen, residents of Paxville. Both protestants expressed concerns regarding the likelihood of an increase in crime, safety, and noise problems if the license/permit were issued..

(15) Petitioner is over twenty-one years of age, is a citizen of the State of South Carolina, and has maintained his principal residence in South Carolina for more than thirty days.

(16) Petitioner has not had a permit/license revoked in the last five years.

(17) Petitioner 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.

(19) DOR did not appear at the hearing and did not express opposition to the issuance of the permit.

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) 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. 1994) provides the criteria to be met by an applicant for a beer and wine permit in South Carolina.

(3) The issuance of retail liquor licenses are authorized under the provisions of S.C. Code Ann. § 61-3-410(3) (Supp. 1994).

(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. 1994).

(5) S.C. Code Ann. § 61-3-440 (Supp. 1994) dictates that a retail liquor store located outside of a municipality must be a minimum of five hundred (500') feet from any church, school, or playground. 23 S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 7-11 (1976) provides the method for measuring the distances referred to in § 61-3-440. No schools, churches, or playgrounds are within the prescribed proximity to render the proposed location unsuitable.

(6) 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 license/permit to sell liquor, 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).

(7) 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.2d 335 (1985).

(8) The proposed location is suitable and proper, in light of the past history of the location and the existence of other licensed locations in the vicinity.

(9) The proposed business activity is suitable and proper, in light of the fact that the permit application was amended to off-premises consumption and the retail liquor license does not allow for on-premises consumption.

(10) Petitioner meets the statutory requirements for issuance of a beer and wine permit and retail liquor license.

ORDER

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that DOR issue to Petitioner the off-premises beer and

wine permit and retail liquor license applied for.



_____________________________________

STEPHEN P. BATES

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

July __, 1995

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court