South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
Nancy B. McCummings, d/b/a Mac's vs. SCDOR

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Revenue

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
Nancy B. McCummings, d/b/a Mac's

Respondents:
South Carolina Department of Revenue
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
95-ALJ-17-0643-CC

APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner: James H. Harrison. Esquire

For the Respondent: No Appearance

For the Protestants: Pro Se
 

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. 1993) and S. C. Code Ann. §§1-23-310 et seq. (1986 and Supp. 1993) for a contested case hearing. The Applicant, Nancy B. McCummings, seeks an on-premise beer and wine permit for Mac's. A hearing was held on November 28, 1995, at the office of Administrative Law Judge Division, 1205 Pendleton Street, Columbia, South Carolina.

The application requested by the Petitioner 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.



3. The Petitioner seeks an on-premise beer and wine permit for Mac's located at 2504 Atlas Road, Columbia, South Carolina. The location is on the corner of Atlas Road and Bibleway Drive.

4. The Petitioner seeks this beer and wine permit in a primarily middle to low income residential area. The location has held a permit since January, 1966. However since 1993 the store has been closed, and for several years before its closing it was opened only occasionally. When the store was operating drug activity was common in the area. Additionally, individuals frequently loitered and drank alcohol outside of the location.

5. The Bibleway Church of Atlas Road ("Church") is located on the block adjacent to the proposed location. The Church was established one year after the location was permitted. Since that time the Church's property has moved closer to the proposed location. The Church acquired all the property on the block surrounding the location. The Church also now operates a day care center on the block directly across from the proposed location.

6. The Church also recently built the Bible Way Church Family Center ("Life Center"). The Life Center is located on the same city block approximately 120 feet from the proposed location. When the Life Center was built the location was basically not operating and as such was not selling beer or wine. Activities at the Life Center include programs for individuals recovering from the abuse of alcohol or drugs, youth who have had "trouble with the law" and recreational activities for the day care students and the local neighborhood children. The day care students walk past the proposed location to get to the Life Center.

7. The Church maintains a playground between the Life Center and the proposed location. The playground is approximately 20 feet from the proposed location.

8. The Richland County School District located the C. R. Neal Learning Center approximately 200 feet from the proposed location in 1989. The Learning Center is an alternative school which offers education for individuals unable to succeed in a traditional school setting. Those students include individuals who have been expelled from schools, who are in trouble with the law or are single mothers ages 17-20 on AFDC. At least 50% of the students at the Learning Center have had drug or alcohol problems. In August of 1992, when the store was occasionally open, the students would often leave the Learning Center and clandestinely go to the proposed location.

9. The expansion of the Church facilities and the addition of the C.R. Neal Learning Center has resulted in a change in the area of the proposed location. Specifically, the Life Center was built after the proposed location basically abandoned the sell of beer and wine. The proposed location is now unsuitable for a beer and wine permit because of its proximity to the Life Center and the playground, 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 off-premise beer and wine 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, 595, 281 S.E.2d 118, 119 (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 followed. 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 Nancy B. McCummings for an on-premise beer and wine permit be denied.





________________________________

Ralph King Anderson, III

Administrative Law Judge

January 3, 1996

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court