ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 61-1-55 (Supp. 1993) and
§ 1-23-310, et seq., upon an application for an on-premises beer and wine permit and business
sale and consumption license for 1004 Chester Street, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, by James G.
Myers filed with the South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation (hereinafter referred to
as "DOR"). The sole protestant opposed the issuance of the license and permit challenging the
moral character of the Petitioner. A hearing was held on September 8, 1995, at the Horry County
Court House, in Conway, South Carolina. The protestant was unable to appear at the hearing
because of health problems, but was allowed to submit a written statement to be incorporated into
the record of the hearing and considered by the Court. Upon consideration of the relevant
evidence and applicable law, the permit and license applications are granted.
FINDINGS OF FACT
By a preponderance of the evidence, I find:
(1) Petitioner seeks an on-premises beer and wine permit and business sale and
consumption license for a location at 1004 Chester Street, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, having
filed applications with DOR, AI #103813 and AI #103814.
(2) Notice of the time, date, place, and subject matter of the hearing was given to the
applicant, protestants, and DOR.
(3) DOR did not appear at the hearing nor indicate any opposition to the license and
permit sought.
(4) The sole protestant was unable to appear at the hearing because of health problems,
but was allowed to submit a written statement incorporated into the record of the hearing in lieu
of live testimony. Mr. Myers was questioned by the Court regarding Ms. Dougherty's complaints
and given an opportunity to explain the circumstances.
(5) Roseanne Dougherty opposed the issuance of the license and permit challenging the
moral character of the Petitioner. The basis of Ms. Dougherty's protest is a 1992 controversy
between Mr. Myers and Ms. Dougherty arising out of a construction project Mr. Myers was
contracted to perform. The controversy was the subject of civil litigation in which a final
judgment has been entered and satisfied.
(6) Ms. Dougherty's opposition to the permit and license sought by Mr. Myers is based
upon her dissatisfaction with the quality of his construction work and is irrelevant to the present
case.
(7) Petitioner is currently operating the proposed location as a restaurant, primarily and
substantially involved in the preparation and service of meals, and intends to continue as such.
(8) The proposed location is currently and has been previously licensed to sell and serve
alcoholic beverages.
(9) The proposed location is located in downtown Myrtle Beach in a highly commercial
area.
(10) There are no churches, schools, playgrounds, or residences within 500 feet of the
proposed location.
(11) Petitioner is over twenty-one years of age, is a citizen of the State of South Carolina,
and has maintained her principal residence in South Carolina for more than thirty days.
(12) Petitioner has not had a permit/license revoked in the last five years.
(13) Petitioner is of good moral character.
(14) 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.
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. 1993) 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. 1993) provides the criteria to be met by an
applicant for a beer and wine permit in South Carolina.
(3) S.C. Code Ann. §§ 61-5-50 and 61-3-440 (Supp. 1993) set forth the requirements for
a minibottle license.
(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. 1993).
(5) 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. S.C. ABC Commission, 316 S.E.2d
705 (S.C. App. 1984).
(6) The proposed location is suitable and proper.
(7) No relevant evidence was presented to indicate that Petitioner is not of suitable
character to be licensed.
(8) Petitioner meets the statutory requirements for issuance of a beer and wine permit and
minibottle license.
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that DOR issue to Petitioner the on-premises beer and
wine permit and business sale and consumption license sought.
_____________________________________
STEPHEN P. BATES
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
September 19, 1995
Columbia, South Carolina |