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 on the application of Darlene C.
Montjoy. Petitioner seeks an off-premises beer and wine permit (AI 104427) for Lake Rabon
Bait and Tackle which is located outside the city of Laurens, at Route 4, Box 1047, Highway 252,
Laurens County, South Carolina.
After timely notice to the parties and protestants, a hearing was held at the Administrative
Law Judge Division, Columbia, South Carolina. Several protestants appeared at the hearing:
Mike Melton, Bobby Dwayne Humphries, Dale Satterfield, Gene Pope, Reverend Tony Crouch,
Captain Charles Pope of the Laurens County Sheriff's Department, and Reverend Glenn R.
Mosteller. The protestants did not move to intervene as parties. The issues considered at the
hearing were: (1) petitioner'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. Petitioner's off-premises beer and wine permit is hereby granted.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having carefully considered all testimony, exhibits, 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. Petitioner seeks an off-premises beer and wine permit for Lake Rabon Bait and
Tackle, which is located outside the city of Laurens at Route 4, Box 1047, Highway 252, Laurens
County, South Carolina.
2. Petitioner's application to the South Carolina Department of Revenue and Taxation
("Department") was made a part of the record by reference, without objection.
3. The proposed location is located approximately five (5) miles from the city of
Laurens off of Highway 252.
4. The area surrounding the proposed location is residential in nature. There are
other businesses located about five miles from the proposed location, which include: K & W
Outlet, Tavern Quick Stop, and Highway 76 Convenience.
5. No church, school or playground is within close proximity to the proposed
location.
6. Petitioner has operated and managed the proposed location since February 25,
1995. The daily hours of operation at the proposed location are from 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
7. The State Law Enforcement Division ("SLED") completed a criminal background
investigation of petitioner, Darlene Montjoy. The SLED report revealed no criminal violations;
and, petitioner has not engaged in acts or conduct that imply the absence of good moral character.
8. Petitioner is at least 21 years of age, a U.S. citizen, a citizen of the State of South
Carolina, and has maintained her principal residence in the state for at least thirty (30) days prior
to the date of making application for an off-premises beer and wine permit.
9. Notice of the application appeared in The Laurens County Advertiser, 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.
10. The Department did not oppose the application, as evidenced by its failure to
appear at the hearing.
11. Several protestants testified in opposition to the permit in question. As
justification for denial of an off-premises beer and wine permit, the protestants cited: (1) their
aversion to the sale of alcohol; (2) possible worsening of litter problems; (3) possible increase in
domestic violence and other crimes; (4) the proximity of the proposed location to residences; (5)
safety of children that frequent the store; (6) the close proximity of the proposed location to the
lake; (7) traffic safety concerns; and, (8) possible diminishment of family values.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISCUSSION
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) and Chapter 23 of Title 1 of the 1976
Code, as amended, authorizes the South Carolina Administrative Law Judge Division to hear this
case.
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 Administrative Law Judge 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 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).
6. There has not been a sufficient evidentiary showing that the present location is
unsuitable or that the issuance of an off-premises beer and wine permit would affect the residents'
safety, create traffic problems, or have an adverse impact on the community. The proposed
location and the nature of the business activity are suitable and proper.
7. Petitioner meets all of the criteria enacted by the South Carolina General Assembly
for the issuance of an off-premises beer and wine permit. In making a decision in this matter, this
tribunal is constrained by the record before it and the applicable statutory and case law. The
objections raised by the protestants are mainly rooted in their abhorrence to the proposed location
selling alcoholic beverages. This tribunal acknowledges the protestants' opposition to the
issuance of the permit, in question, and also acknowledges their right to hold such sentiments,
however, the basis of this opposition is without merit and is not within the statutory grounds for
refusal. See 48 C.J.S. Intoxicating Liquors §§ 118, 119, 121 (1981). The mere aversion to the
sale of alcoholic beverages by the proposed location is not a sufficient basis on which to deny
petitioner's request. Petitioner's business has operated since February 25, 1995, without incident.
If petitioner sells beer and wine for off-premises consumption, the character and nature of her
business will not change so as to adversely affect the community. The fact that a large number of
residents protest the issuance of the permit, in question, is not a sufficient reason by itself to deny
the application. See 45 Am. Jur. 2d Intoxicating Liquors § 162 (Supp. 1994).
ORDER
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the Department of Revenue and Taxation issue an off-premises beer and
wine permit to Darlene C. Montjoy for a location at Route 4, Box 1047, Highway 252, Laurens
County, South Carolina upon the payment of the required fee(s) and cost(s) by petitioner.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
Edgar A. Brown Building
1205 Pendleton Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
November 3, 1995
Columbia, South Carolina |
