ORDERS:
DECISION AND ORDER
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, Samuel Green, seeks an on-premise beer and wine permit
for the Corner Food Mart-The Spot. A hearing was held on September 19, 1995, at the office of the
Administrative Law Judge Division, 1205 Pendleton Street, Columbia, South Carolina.
The Permit requested by the Applicant is denied.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having observed the witnesses and exhibits presented at the hearing and closely passed upon
their credibility, taking into consideration the burden of persuasion by the Parties or Protestants, I
make the following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of evidence:
1. Notice of the time, date, place and subject matter of the hearing was
given to the Petitioner, Protestants, and South Carolina Department
of Revenue and Taxation.
2. The qualifications set forth in S. C. Code Ann. §61-9-320 (Supp.
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.
3. The Petitioner seeks an on-premise beer and wine permit for the
Corner Food Mart-The Spot located at 303 Sellars Avenue,
Orangeburg, South Carolina. The area is zoned residential. This
location is a convenience store and an arcade area. The Petitioner
previously held a beer and wine permit for this location from 1986 to
1994. After recently re-acquiring this location the Petitioner now
seeks this beer and wine permit for the arcade area. The entrance to
the arcade area is through an internal door within the building.
4. The proposed location is in a high crime area in which the Orangeburg
Police Department frequently respond to calls. In fact, recently a
police officer was shot at the site while attempting to execute an arrest
warrant. On another occasion an elderly man was robbed and shot
while leaving the location. Additionally, the location often emanates
loud music and boisterous behavior is frequently observed outside the
store (e.g. drinking and profane language).
5. The Williams Chapel A.M.E. church is located Two Hundred (200)
to Two Hundred and Fifty (250) Feet from this location. The church's
programs include day care, Narcotics Anonymous and week-end
activities for children.
6. A city-run playground is located Two Hundred Fifty (250) to Two
Hundred Seventy Five (275) Feet from the location.
7. The proposed location is unsuitable for a beer and wine permit
because of its proximity to the churches and playgrounds, the activity
that occurs around the location and the resulting negative impact that
would occur upon the local community.
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. 1994) sets forth the requirements
for the issuance of an on-premise beer and wine permit. Section 61-9-320 specifically provides that proximity of "schools, playgrounds and
churches" are factors to be considered in determining whether or not
to grant a permit.
4. Although "proper location" is not statutorily defined, broad discretion
is vested in the trier of fact in determining the fitness or suitability of
a particular location. Fast Stops, Inc. v. Ingram, 276 S.C. 593, 281
S.E.2d 118 (1981).
5. As the trier of fact, the Administrative Law Judge is authorized to
determine the fitness or suitability of the proposed business location
of a Petitioner for a permit to sell beer and wine using broad, but not
unbridled, discretion. Byers v. South Carolina ABC Commission, 281
S.C. 566, 316 S.E.2d 705 (Ct. App. 1984).
6. The determination of suitability of 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 upon the community within which it is to be
located. Kearney v. Allen, 287 S.C. 324, 338 S.E.2d 335 (1985).
7. 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 state's police power to be used and enjoyed only so
long as the restrictions and conditions governing them are complied
with. Feldman v. S.C. Tax Comm'm, 203 S.C. 49, 26 S.E.2d 22
(1943).
ORDER
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, It is hereby:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the application of Samuel Green for this on-premise
beer and wine permit be denied.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
October 6, 1995 |
