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
Christopher Jenkins. The applicant seeks an on-premises beer and wine permit (AI 102101) for a
convenience store located at 3826 Brynes Drive, within the city of St. Stephen, county of
Berkeley, 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. Officer Linda Michelle
Sweatman and Detective Sergeant David Zorn appeared on behalf of the St. Stephen Police
Department to protest the application of Christopher Jenkins. 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 beer and wine permit for a location at
3826 Brynes Drive, St. Stephen, South Carolina is hereby granted.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having carefully considered all testimony 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 beer and wine permit for a convenience store
located within the city of St. Stephen at 3826 Brynes Drive.
2. The South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation's ("Department") 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 directly off of Brynes Drive and the area
surrounding the proposed location is commercial and residential in nature. Jenkins's Barber
School, Jenkins's Barber Shop, a laundromat, and a professional hair service are all located within
the same building complex as the proposed location. Mark's Meat Market is also in the direct
vicinity of the proposed location.
4. No church, school, or playground is within close proximity to the proposed
location.
5. The applicant, Christopher Jenkins, has operated and managed the proposed
location as a convenience store since 1986.
6. The applicant held an on-premises beer and wine permit at the proposed location in
1987, for approximately one (1) year without being cited for any violations.
7. The applicant owns the proposed location.
8. Officer Linda Michelle Sweatman and Detective Sgt. David Zorn of the St.
Stephen Police Department, testified in opposition to the application. However, both officers
admitted that there have been no arrests at the proposed location; there have been no incident
calls to the proposed location other than by the applicant himself on two occasions reporting
breakins; and, there was no record of any criminal activity involving the applicant or the proposed
location.
9. The applicant has never had a beer and wine permit or other license for the sale or
consumption of alcoholic beverages revoked.
10. The applicant is of good moral character.
11. The applicant is at least 21 years of age, a U.S. citizen, a citizen of the State of
South Carolina, and has maintained his principal residence in the state for at least thirty (30) days
prior to the date of making application for an on-premises beer and wine permit.
12. Notice of the application appeared in The Berkeley Independent, 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 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. 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 permit to sell beer and
wine using broad, but not unbridled discretion. Ronald F. Byers v. South Carolina ABC Comm'n,
281 S.C. 566, 316 S.E.2d 705 (Ct. App. 1984).
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 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); Schudel v. South Carolina ABC Comm'n, 276
S.C. 138, 276 S.E.2d 308 (1981).
6. 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 beer and
wine permit to the applicant would have an adverse impact on the community. Additionally, no
evidence was offered to establish that the applicant's business contributes to any criminal activity.
7. The denial of a license or permit to an applicant on the grounds of unsuitability of
location is without evidentiary support when relevant testimony of those opposing the requested
license or permit consists entirely of opinions, generalities, and conclusions not supported by
facts. Taylor v. Lewis, 261 S.C. 168, 198 S.E.2d 801 (1973); Smith v. Pratt, 258 S.C. 504, 189
S.E.2d 301 (1972).
8. The proposed location and business activity are suitable and proper.
9. The applicant satisfies all statutory requirements for holding an on-premises beer
and wine permit, and the proposed location is proper for the issuance of an on-premises beer and
wine permit.
ORDER
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the on-premises beer and wine permit for a location at 3826 Brynes
Drive, St. Stephen, South Carolina, be granted to Christopher Jenkins.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Department of Revenue and Taxation issue an
on-premises beer and wine permit upon 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
June 17, 1995 |
