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. 1994) and S. C. Code Ann. §§1-23-310 et seq. (1986 and Supp. 1994) for
a contested case hearing. The Petitioner, Anthony Satterfield , seeks an on-premise beer and wine
permit for Valley Falls Tavern. A hearing was held on July 12, 1995, at the Administrative Law Judge
Division, 1205 Pendleton Street, Columbia, South Carolina.
The permit requested by the Petitioner is approved with restrictions.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The court has subject matter jurisdiction of this case.
2. The Petitioner seeks an on-premise beer and wine permit for Valley
Falls Tavern, 8160 Valley Falls Road, Spartanburg, SC 29303.
3. Notice of the time, date, place and subject matter of the hearing was
given to the Petitioner, the Protestant and the South Carolina
Department of Revenue.
4. The qualifications set forth in S. C. Code Ann. § 61-9-320 (1994)
concerning the residency and age of the Petitioner are properly
established. Furthermore, the Petitioner 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 Petitioner is of sufficient moral character to receive a beer and
wine permit.
6. The proposed location is not close to any school, church or
playground.
7. The Petitioner holds a beer and wine permit for the "Old Hide Away."
The Petitioner has not been cited for any violation of The Alcoholic
Beverage Control Act in the one and one-half years of possessing that
permit.
8. Protestant Sgt. John Lyles did not appear at the scheduled hearing
and present any objections to the issuance of the permit.
9. The proposed location is suitable only for an on-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. S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600 (Supp. 1994) grants jurisdiction to the
Administrative Law Judge Division to hear contested cases under the
Administrative Procedures Act.
2. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-1-55 (Supp. 1994) 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. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-9-320 (Supp. 1993) sets forth the requirements
for the issuance of an on-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. Without sufficient evidence of an adverse impact on the community,
the application must not be denied if the statutory criteria are satisfied.
The fact that protestant objects to the issuance of the permits is not a
sufficient reason by itself to deny the application. See 45 Am. Jur. 2d
Intoxicating Liquors § 162 (Supp. 1994); 48 C.J.S. Intoxicating
Liquors § 119 (1981).
8. I conclude that the Petitioner 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 written
stipulations.
ORDER
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the on-premise beer and wine permit application of Anthony Satterfield for
Valley Falls Tavern at 8160 Valley Falls Road, Spartanburg, South Carolina, be granted upon the
Applicant's payment of the required fee and cost to the South Carolina Department of Revenue and
Taxation.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________________
Judge Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
July 20, 1995
Columbia, South Carolina |
