ORDERS:
ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §61-1-55 (Supp. 1993) and S.C.
Code Ann. §§1-23-310 et. seq. (Rev. 1986 and Supp. 1993) upon the application of Cynthia Keith
for an on-premises beer and wine permit for the Red Dog Saloon located at 834 Inlet Square Drive
in Garden City, South Carolina. After notice to the parties, a hearing was conducted on November
17, 1995. The issues considered were the applicant's eligibility to hold a permit and the suitability of
the proposed business location. Based upon the evidence presented, the permit is granted with
restrictions.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I make the following findings of fact, taking into consideration the burden on the parties to
establish their respective cases, and taking into account the credibility of the witnesses:
1. The applicant, Cynthia Keith is a 32 year old life long resident of South Carolina and
legal resident of the United States.
2. Ms. Keith has no criminal record and is of good moral character.
3. Currently, the applicant has four other beer and wine permits issued in her name for
locations in Fort Mill and Garden City. None of the permits have been suspended or revoked.
4. The present location is on the service road into Inlet Square shopping mall. Inlet
Square Drive provides access to the mall entrance and has commercial property located on the front
sprinkled with residences and mobile homes located to the rear of the commercial area.
5. The proposed location is a restaurant/bar with video games and cable television. The
location would be open twenty-four hours a day Monday through Saturday. No live entertainment
would be offered at the location.
6. Next to the location is a body shop and boat repair whose proprietor lives in the house
next to the businesses. There is also a small engine repair shop located next to the location. Behind
the commercial area is a mobile home park and residences. There are other restaurants located in the
vicinity not depicted on the map contained in the Department's investigative file.
7. The protestors are residents in the area who object to the sale of beer and wine at the
location based upon problems depicted on television. The protestors were not aware the location
would sell food. They do not object to the other restaurants in the vicinity. During construction of
the building, the neighbors had problems with workers driving through their property. Other
neighbors are concerned about the flow of traffic through the area and the potential for criminal
activity based upon the type of business and the hours of operation maintained by the location. The
residents do not protest the restaurants because the restaurants are not open all night in this area.
8. Notice of the application was posted at the location and published in the Sun News for
the time period required by law.
9. The applicant's husband has a lengthy criminal record including convictions for
disorderly conduct, simple assault, assault and battery, and violation of gun laws.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Administrative Law Judge is vested with the powers, duties and responsibilities
by the former Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission and hearing officers pursuant to Chapter 23
of Title 1. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-1-55 (Supp. 1994).
2. S.C. Code Ann. § 61-9-320 (Supp. 1994) provides the statutory requirements for the
issuance of beer and wine permits. It provides in part that each agent, employee, and servant of the
applicant to be employed on the licensed premises must be of good moral character and that the
location of the proposed place of business must be a proper one.
3. There is no single criterion or standard for determining the meaning of the term "good
moral character" and the licensing authority must judge whether the acts and conduct shown are
sufficient in themselves or as an index to character to disqualify an applicant. 2709 Op. Att'y Gen.
160 (1969); 48 C.J.S. Intoxicating Liquors § 135(b) at 243. The same logic applies to those
employed in the business. The applicant has stated that her husband would not be working in the
business. His several convictions for disorderly conduct and a conviction for violation of the gun
laws indicate he is not of suitable temperament to be directly employed within the business.
4. The determination of suitability of the proposed location is not necessarily a function
solely of geography. It may involve 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).
5. A beer and wine permit issued by the State is a privilege granted in the exercise of the
police power of the State. It may be used and enjoyed only so long as the restrictions and conditions
governing it are fulfilled. This Division is authorized to place restrictions and conditions on the
permit or license. See Feldman v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 204 S.C. 49, 26 S.E.2d 22
(1943).
DISCUSSION
The applicant meets the statutory requirements for the issuance of an on-premise beer and
wine permit. The location is a suitable one. However, the nature of the business activity combined
with the proposed hours of operation concerns the members of the community. The other business
entities in the immediate vicinity are not open 24 hours a day. The restaurants close at night and
reopen during daylight hours. The traffic in the area traveling to the mall occurs during the day and
ends in the evening. The sale of beer and wine all night accompanied by the play of video games and
the service of food is not in character with the neighborhood and should be restricted.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is therefore,
ORDERED, that the Department of Revenue issue an on-premises beer and wine permit to
Cynthia Keith for Red Dog Salon at 834 Inlet Square Drive in Garden City, with the restrictions that
the sale and consumption of beer and wine must occur only between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and
12:00 midnight. Dinal W. Keith shall not manage or be employed with the operation of the Red Dog
Saloon.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that a violation of the restrictions is considered a violation
against the permit and may result in a fine, suspension, or revocation of the permit.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________________
ALISON RENEE LEE
Administrative Law Judge
December _____, 1995
Columbia, South Carolina |
